(Ed) Hitler's Atheism

[Girl 6]

Well folks, looks like Jedi has whittled his position down to its bare essentials. "I say it is true, you cannot make me change my mind, Therefore it is definitely true..."

No Jedi, Hitler was actually a wood elf. and you can't disprove that either.

As long as you are sticking to debate proof dogma there is no point in participating in a debate. I am not interested in hearing your evidence free position restated yet again.

This thread has demonstrated that you are incapable of participating in a reasoned debate, moderated or not. As the Thread is moderated I cannot call you an Idiot, so I won't.

{sigh}

This is baiting and you know it... Please avoid posting something like this in the thread.

G6

 

[The Fool]

{sigh}

This is baiting and you know it... Please avoid posting something like this in the thread.

G6

{sigh}
I know. Its just so frustrating...I am utterly convinced Hitler was a wood elf and nobody takes me seriously. It cannot be disproved, it suits my narrow and ignorant world view. It just MUST be true, why do people not believe me?

Relax Girl6, I will leave this thread to grind to its obvious conclusion.

 

[Girl 6]

You are just a nasty person. Simply nasty. You are one of the nastiest people I have ever encountered on an internet forum. You gravitate around other people's debates, contribute nothing and just spread your vile nastiness in every post that you make.

Combine all the above with the fact that you have no personal skills and you really fit the mold for the pathetic, marginal atheist that you are--an oxygen stealer.

You couldn't even keep your pathetic drivel out of a moderated thread. No wonder more and more people are starting to view atheism as a hate-group. You could be its poster-child.

JK

And, you couldn't resist, could you?

Can we just keep to the topic, please?

I'm actually learning a LOT from this thread. I'd like it if we could just concentrate on the debate. I know it's hard when you are holding a minority opinion, but if you stick with it, we can all learn something.

thanks!
G6

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

An atheist?

Hitler was not an atheist. You base this on what? Two dubious books who's authors have an obvious bias? Books based on Hitler's "private conversation"?

First off you ever heard of a little book "Inside the Third Reich" written by one of Hitler's former right hand men, Albert Speer?

Well had you done so, you'd see that Hitler was not an atheist and in fact saw Christianity as an essential part of German culture. In fact none of the Nazis were really into atheism. Some were into paganism but that was a fringe movement. Hitler's religion was more or less a combination of pagan myth and Christianity. Hitler for example theorized Jesus was an Aryan.

Photos of Hitler and Nazis attending religious services:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm


Hitler's writings in which he promotes theism or utilizes it:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

From Mein Kampf:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

The hard struggle which the Pan-Germans fought with the Catholic Church can be accounted for only by their insufficient understanding of the spiritual nature of the people.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Speeches and proclamations:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

 

[Jedi Knight]

Re: An atheist?

Hitler was not an atheist. You base this on what? Two dubious books who's authors have an obvious bias? Books based on Hitler's "private conversation"?

First off you ever heard of a little book "Inside the Third Reich" written by one of Hitler's former right hand men, Albert Speer?

Well had you done so, you'd see that Hitler was not an atheist and in fact saw Christianity as an essential part of German culture. In fact none of the Nazis were really into atheism. Some were into paganism but that was a fringe movement. Hitler's religion was more or less a combination of pagan myth and Christianity. Hitler for example theorized Jesus was an Aryan.

Photos of Hitler and Nazis attending religious services:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm


Hitler's writings in which he promotes theism or utilizes it:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm



From Mein Kampf:





Speeches and proclamations:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

You should know better than this. How often do politicians tell their constituents what they want to hear? But with Hitler, no, because he distributed propaganda material in speeches and interviews we are supposed to believe everything he said, according to you.

Fascist leaders will say anything to stay in power. However, when those same leaders put 6,000,000 people in ovens, that is a godless act. There was no version of Christianity in the time of Hitler that would have approved that.

Hitler was not a Christian. He did not believe in the omnipotent God because he was an atheist. He was on a mission to destroy Christianity and the founders of Christianity (Jews).

Atheism can't deny a member, even if that member will be remembered in history as the most wicked man ever. Atheism will never be allowed to lump Hitler into Christianity and make it a Christian thing. There is no valid historical connection between Christianity and Hitler.

JK

 

[Aardvark_DK]

So I ask again, JK: is your theory falsifiable or not?


It seems to me that you're saying that:

Only atheists/godless people do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist/godless

Now, obviously your definition of atheism has very little to do with other people's definition of that word, but apart from that using your logic we would have to label a number of popes and other religious authorities throughout history as atheist, do you agree?

 

[Nova Land]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

An essay about the reliability/credibility of Hitler's Table Talk book.

This is a good article. I agree with a lot of what the author says.

One of the points is not to accept sources uncritically, or to select only those parts that support one's view while ignoring the context or ignoring other parts that contradict one's view. I agree very strongly with that. Indeed, that is why I think it is worth going through a variety of sources -- including Hitler's Table Talk -- and reading over what they actually say and weighing what they say before attempting to draw conclusions.

The author of this article says "I have relied mainly on first-hand quotes from the infamous man himself: Hitler's book 'Mein Kampf,' his speeches recorded by camera, radio, proclamations, and letters personally written and signed by Hitler." These are sources well worth considering.

However, as Jedi pointed out earlier, there is a danger to relying too heavily on any of these. Politicians have been known to lie in their public utterances, and this certainly seems to be the case with Hitler. I think Jedi's arguments for being wary of what these sources contain is as reasonable as this person's arguments for being wary of what the table talks contain.

Does this mean we should throw the internet author's sources out? No! What I think it means is we should read these sources to see what they actually say, and then weigh carefully what if any conclusions we can draw from these pieces of evidence.

And the same applies to the "table talks." There are good reasons not to accept these uncritically; but there are also good reasons to be aware of what is actually in them.

(from the internet article)

Rarely do you see apologists against Hitler's Christianity quoting from these memoirs and secret conversations, yet they want us to buy only out-of-context quotes from the Table-Talk.

While we are putting the point differently, I think the internet author and I are in substantial agreement here.

Early in this thread, I mentioned Otto Wegener's book as one I had glanced at and hoped we might look at later in this thread. The other books mentioned in this article also look to be worth examining. So put me down as one of those "rare" apologists against Hitler's Christianity who does want to examine and quote from those memoirs and secret conversations.

The reason I looked up the "table talks" to start with is because these were the source of material Jedi had quoted (in a different thread) as evidence that Hitler was an atheist. My feeling is very much like the sentiment expressed in the internet article: if we are going to rely on a source as evidence, we should read for ourselves what it actually says.

I was assuming by the fact Jedi had cited as evidence material coming from the table talks that he thought these a source worth considering. That may have been a false assumption, in which case I would be glad to examine whatever other sources Jedi does think are worth considering.

But in all cases, I think it is worth going through the actual material, and reading the relevant parts at length and in context, before attempting to use it in drawing conclusions. Whether we ultimately wind up accepting or dismissing the passages from the table talks, let us first be aware of what they do and do not contain.

In that regard, I find it ironic that the internet article, after criticizing others for "want[ing] us to buy only out-of-context quotes from the Table-Talk" then offers as evidence that Hitler was not an atheist the line from the 3rd recorded table talk: "We don't want to educate anyone in atheism."

Quoted out of context it sounds anti-atheist, but in context it sounds to me more like praise. Atheists, according to Hitler, are people intelligent enough to rise above superstitious fears that make others easier to control. They are brave people quite willing and able to die for their country -- not people it is easy to defeat in combat. This gives us little clue about Hitler's religious feelings about atheism, but it does tell us he had a certain amount of respect for atheists as soldiers.

Those who are interested in forming their own opinion of what Hitler meant by this line can read it in the quoted excerpt on page 1 of this thread.

 

[Nova Land]

There is a major problem with historical revisionism in this country and most of the west for that matter.

The false-history being fed to students in schools today...

I agree that there is a problem with history being poorly recorded, poorly taught, and poorly understood.

I suspect we would differ on which things being taught as true are false, and which true things are being left out. But that's one reason it's good for people who disagree to be able to talk with each other and find out why they believe differently.

One thing we can rely on in trying to understand what really happened in times past is our own memories of what we experienced. The problem with that is most of us have limited experiences -- we may have been alive to hear and read the reactions of others to events, but we generally weren't present at the events themselves. Thus it is useful to be able to read the words of others who were present and try to understand the events they speak or write of.

What sources do you find to be good ones in providing evidence relating to Hitler's beliefs?

The only source I am aware of so far that you have used is the "table talks", and it appeared from the way the material was quoted that you had gotten that from another source -- a source which was in turn apparently quoting from yet another source. It now sounds as if you do not believe the table talks are a reliable source of evidence after all. I am still unclear if you have actually read the table talks, or are simply going by what others have told you about what the table talks contain.

I agree with you that it would be good to base our judgments on actual history, not on history as others might like us to think it was. To base our judgments on actual history, it seems important to turn to historical sources, not simply to opinion-molders who would like to sway us to their particular interpretation.

I like to look to a wide variety of sources on questions of history, since any single source is likely to have missed key points. No one source can see everything. By turning to a number of sources, especially primary sources, we are often able to see past the spin and the revisionism and get a better picture of what really happened.

So: what are some sources you recommend for those of us who are interested in learning the unrevised history on this subject?

 

[Nova Land]

Re: An atheist?

First off you ever heard of a little book "Inside the Third Reich" written by one of Hitler's former right hand men, Albert Speer?

Well had you done so...

Jedi has already explained, several times, why we cannot rely unquestioningly on what Hitler and Hitler's close associates said and wrote for public consumption.

Jedi's point on that seems entirely reasonable to me. It is worth looking at those materials to see for ourselves what they actually say, but the fact that these materials contain positive mentions of Christianity does not prove Hitler was genuinely a Christian any more than Trent Lott's public statements of support for affirmative action (in the wake of his Thurmond-birthday remarks) make him a genuine supporter of affirmative action.

(The Lott example is the first that springs to my mind as I type this, but I am sure anyone reading this can think of dozens of their own examples of politicians making speeches that appear to support a position which, in fact, they oppose.)

If you wish to use the material in Speer's book, or Mein Kampf, or other sources, as evidence to support your view, that's fine. The fact that politicians and others engage in deceit does not prevent us from examining their words and seeing through their deceits, so I agree that these are worthwhile sources to sift through.

But please don't assume that Jedi or others who don't come to the same conclusion you do must therefore be unaware of the sources you cite. I think if you read through the thread you will see that Jedi is well aware of these materials.

 

[Aardvark_DK]

Nova, why do you keep referring to these various sources when JK has already said that only Hitler's actions are worth considering?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Nova, why do you keep referring to these various sources when JK has already said that only Hitler's actions are worth considering?

JK's arguement that only Hitler's "actions" can show if he was a true christian or not is dishonest. This type of arguement belittles reality and does not help with the gain of knowledge. By JK's arguement, there are no christians that ever committed a violent crime.

 

[Nova Land]

Re: Re: An atheist?

Fascist leaders will say anything to stay in power. However, when those same leaders put 6,000,000 people in ovens, that is a godless act.

I agree with you on this. I have trouble conceiving of a god that could desire or approve of such acts.

The tragic thing is that, throughout history, there have been people who have believed that such acts were in accordance with the wishes of their god.

The massacre of the Amalekites, as recorded in the old testament, is an example. What shocks me is that there are sincere Christians today who will still defend this massacre as a godly act.

There was no version of Christianity in the time of Hitler that would have approved that.

Here I have to disagree. There are many versions of Christianity. There were then, and continue to be now, people who call themselves Christians who would indeed approve of that.

This may be a semantic difference. There are many definitions of what "Christian" means. By some definitions, the folks who call themselves Christian but who have no qualms about mass murder of their enemies could be excluded as "not true Christians."

However, you wrote "no version of Christianity". That, to me, implies a fairly broad interpretation of Christianity, not limited to the more socially-acceptable ones.

Hitler was not a Christian.

I'm inclined to agree that he was not a Christian by belief. He was, however, a life-long member of a Christian church.

Just as we need to be clear on what atheism means (I listed 5 distinct possible meanings a page or so back in this thread) we also need to be clear on what Christian means. It is quite true that by some definitions Hitler was not a Christian, but this is not necessarily true for all reasonable definitions.

Atheism can't deny a member, even if that member will be remembered in history as the most wicked man ever.

Ah, but Hitler was never a member of atheism. There is no record of Hitler ever joining an atheist group or association, no record of Hitler ever publicly declaring himself to be an atheist.

It is possible he was a secret atheist, an atheist by belief. I have not seen any evidence to support this view yet. Can you cite some source which you believe to be reliable in which Hitler expresses the belief there is no god?

There is no valid historical connection between Christianity and Hitler.

Again I have to disagree. There is no valid historical connection between Hitler and atheism, as I just mentioned. There is, however, a valid historical connection between Hitler and Christianity. He was raised as a Christian, maintained life-long membership in a Christian Church, made numerous public utterances in support of Christianity and maintaining he was a Christian acting on behalf of Christian purposes.

The public utterances may well have been lies and acts of deceit. I am inclined to agree with you these almost certainly were. They are, however, valid historical connections. Hitler's being raised as a Christian is an undeniable historical connection to Christianity. He may well have turned away from Christianity -- I believe he did -- but that is different from saying he had no connection.

 

[headscratcher4]

Just a thought, discussing whether Hitler was a Christian (classical or otherwise) seems to me to be the wrong tact. JK's proposition is that Hitler was an Atheist. The alternative to Atheist is someone who believes in a God(s). Hitler's alleged Christianity, adherence to it, etc. seems to me to be irrelevent. We should be careful not to set the perameters of the argument as either or Atheist or Christian.

The point that JK continually and willfully ignores is that there is reasonably good evidence from Hitler's life, actions, words, and the fundumental operations of the Nazi movement, that Hitler believed in higher authority of which he was but a instrument.

By attempting to prove that Hitler was more than a deist/theist, indeed that he was a recognizable christian, we fall into a trap.

In other words, JK would have it be that Hitler must be an atheist because no christian could do the things that Hitler did and inspired. And, essentially by making the argument in this way, he sets up a standard whereby anyone who does not act or believe as a christian (by JK's definition) is essentially an atheist. Hitler is an atheist, Islamics are Atheists, Hindus are atheists, etc. As importantly, JK has established a false, though weirdly consistent view of world history to bolster his point.

Every crime against humanity can be laid at the feet of an atheistic religious cult or atheistic totalitarian state, because true believers (Christians) couldn't engage in these kinds of activities -- especially anti-Semetic acts as Jews are the historic foundation of Christianity.

IT is circular. It doesn't jive with history.

The real argument, it seems to me, is that Hitler did what he did believing in a God(s). Now, if we want to change that argument, that is ok, but this thread was started with the assertion of atheism, and with the exception of JK who now will not argue the facts of his own proposition, there is pretty general agreement and the citation of a large number of facts and sources that suggest that Hitler did not consider himself or his movement Atheistic.

That doesn't mean that JK can't assign those labels, if it help him sleep at night, it mearly means that the values JK assigns to those words are personal and can not be shared in rational conversation. We are, in the end, talking apples and oranges.

 

[Nova Land]

Nova, why do you keep referring to these various sources when JK has already said that only Hitler's actions are worth considering?

Because I disagree with Jedi about that.

(1) I believe we can learn things from what people have written, even when those people were consciously attempting to deceive. So it is worth examining these sources to see what can be learned.

(2) I do not believe anyone is capable of being deceptive all the time. Even Loki in the legends occasionally told the truth.

(3) Even if it is only actions that count, we would still need to find a reliable source as to what those actions were. Speaking, publicly or privately, is an action, so sources which detail what he wrote or said on religion are worth examining.

(4) Regardless of whether people feel these sources are reliable, people are using them. Jedi, for example, quoted material that came from two of the "table talks" (in a different thread) to support his contention that Hitler was an atheist.

So long as people are going to refer to material, I think it is important that we read the actual material itself. Too often people make use of hand-me-down copies. As skeptics, we have seen all too often how that leads to people reaching false conclusions. In politics and philosophy as well as in matters of the paranormal, it is a good habit to look up the actual things being referred to. It takes a little longer, but it's fun, it's educational, and I'd rather take some extra time and actually get somewhere than be in a rush to get nowhere.

 

[headscratcher4]

An additional thought, since we are now no longer arguing about fact...the facts in opposition to JK's proposition having been dismissed without refutation...let's me restate an earlier assertion of my own: Hitler could not have been a atheist because he was an Anti-Semite.

As I suggested earlier in the thread, Hitler's and Nazism's anti-Semitism was deeply rooted in the historical and religious (mainly influenced by Catholicism, but also steeped in the Reformation and European Pagan mythology) traditions and thinking that existed in Europe for over a thousand years. As noted above, these were traditions of Jews as Christ-killers (making revenge against the Jews an act of Devine Justice), and Jews as the spawn of Satan (i.e. Jews as a race apart, unable to come to Christ -- having once rejected Christ -- under any circumstances [note that the Spanish Inquisition was particularly interested in second and third generation members of converted Jewish families...]).

In short, it was both Church and state policies in Europe to keep the Jews separate, single them out, ghettoize them and prevent their full participation in society AS JEWs. This even extended (though to a lesser extent) to converts (as noted above).

An atheist would not care about this. Period. An atheist trying to build an atheistic totalitarian state that specifically rejects theistic beliefs might concentrate on believers of any kind who refused to kow-tow to the ideology (and this is in fact what happened in Russia), but would not subscribe specifically to the race of a people, per se. especially when science would not confirm that there was some discernable difference (and, note again, as I have argued earlier, Hitler and the Nazi's had to force the science to achieve the "scientific" results they wanted by engaging in bogus science and research).

My point is that the Nazis were out to kill ALL Jews...not just believing Jews, but all Jews. Why would an atheist care about apostate Jews? Someone who was no longer Jewish, who believed the ideology of the state and was willing to serve the state and it's leader, should have exempted that person from the death chamber. After all, if there is no god, than it is the individual’s relationship to the state and the leader that should matter, not the groups.

Indeed, we see some of this in the atheistic Soviet state. While there were numerous groups that were persecuted because, as a group they were politically unreliable (e.g. the Tartars, the Don Germans, etc.), members of even persecuted groups who ascribed to the primacy of Stalin could avoid the group fate.

One prime example, Stalin too had a residual fear and hatred of Jews (note, Stalin too had a religious education). However, individual "Jews" (I say this not because the individual was a practicing Jew, but Jewish by birth and "group"), could rise above the group by embracing Stalin and forsaking the religion/beliefs of their fathers (very much in keeping, BTW, with JK's proposition that the Atheistic totalitarian state could not stand any belief but belief in the state). One key example is one of the great butchers of history, Lazar Kagnovich.

Kagnovich was born a Jew, but he was high in Stalin's circle and one of his chief henchmen (for example, he used political slave labor with incredible death rates, to dig the Moscow subway). The point here is that Kagnovich's status as a member of the groups "Jews" was ultimately irrelevant to the great atheist Stalin, because Kagnovich gave all and did all for Stalin (and, one suspects, had he been purged, he would have gone to his death like so many Bolsheviks, praising Stalin).

It is inconceivable that anything like this could have occurred in Nazi Germany. Once a Jew, always a Jew. The Nazi terror wasn't about Judaism as a religion; it was about Jews as historic agents of corruption of Western civilization and culture.

The anti-Semitism of the Nazis was almost completely based on an almost mid-evil perception of a battle between the forces of light (Aryan, Christian culture) and Darkness (Jewish decadence and degradation) with only a thin patina of "science" to provide intellectual cover. The Nazi state doing God's work (not, necessarily a "Christian" god, BTW) was going to rid the world of the Jewish people.

The Atheist state (at least the terror state JK describes) would find this distinction/dichotomy ridiculous. In other words if, as JK is intent on asserting, the atheistic state sought to foster the "religion" of atheism (and, thereby redefine the term "religion"), it would naturally seek all comers and converts. A Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist, what have you, who sublimated beliefs, culture, group identification, etc. to the state (and leader, a'la Stalin), could and would find a means of survival and acceptance in the state -- "race" or group, would be irrelevant, at least to the extent that ideology was key.

In the end, one can only logically conclude that while it might not have been "Christian," the Nazi state was manifesting a policy and racialism that can only make sense in the context of a theistic/deistic belief in its mission as the salvation of culture and civilization from the barbarians, lesser races and Jews (i.e. Satan's spawn). In short, it is a puritanical state requiring the zealotry of those who believe they are doing god's work and a belief that their actions are justified; not only by History, but also by their service to the higher spiritual authority that has called them to the mission.

 

[Nova Land]

...discussing whether Hitler was a Christian (classical or otherwise) seems to me to be the wrong tack. JK's proposition is that Hitler was an Atheist. The alternative to Atheist is someone who believes in a God(s). Hitler's alleged Christianity, adherence to it, etc. seems to me to be irrelevent. We should be careful not to set the parameters of the argument as either or Atheist or Christian.

Excellent point!

In other words, JK would have it be that Hitler must be an atheist because no christian could do the things that Hitler did and inspired. And, essentially by making the argument in this way, he sets up a standard whereby anyone who does not act or believe as a christian (by JK's definition) is essentially an atheist. Hitler is an atheist, Islamics are Atheists, Hindus are atheists, etc.

Like you, I do not define atheism that way. However, I think JK may, and I think he may not be the only one who does. And I think this way of defining atheism may relate to a number of other issues of concern to me -- such as the way some Christians perceive and treat people of non-Christian religions.

I am therefore interested in understanding what it is Jedi believes and why, as it may help me not only to understand Jedi better (which will make future conversations in this forum more enjoyable) but also may help me to better understand others I may encounter outside these boards.

So if Jedi feels more comfortable defining atheist in a way unfamiliar to me, I'd much rather learn more about what exactly his definition is, why he holds it, and where it leads him, than to argue his definition is wrong and mine is right.

There are many words already for which I hold numerous definitions in mind so that I can understand what different people are saying. Holding another definition in mind for the word atheist is not that hard.

The real argument, it seems to me, is that Hitler did what he did believing in a God(s). Now, if we want to change that argument, that is ok, but this thread was started with the assertion of atheism, and with the exception of JK who now will not argue the facts of his own proposition, there is pretty general agreement and the citation of a large number of facts and sources that suggest that Hitler did not consider himself or his movement Atheistic.

Since there seems to be disagreement on what atheist means, then simply coming to agreement on a label for Hitler is largely meaningless.

The real argument, as you point out, is whether "Hitler did what he did believing in a God(s)". That's what largely interests me -- not the specific label we assign to a person who holds (or does not hold) that belief.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Agreed

You should know better than this. How often do politicians tell their constituents what they want to hear? But with Hitler, no, because he distributed propaganda material in speeches and interviews we are supposed to believe everything he said, according to you.

Well nothing spurrious about that statement. I imagine you could, in theory say that to anything Hitler,Stalin or Mao said. Any dictator in fact, whenever he or she makes a proclamation concerning religion or lack thereof can be said to be lying at any time.

And I admit this is possible. Maybe Hitler was an atheist, maybe Stalin was a theist, maybe Mao was a Taoist.

Yes I know dictators engage in deciet all the time, but if we are to go by the principle of the burden of proof, one has to know that a claim once is supported by evidence, one cannot simply throw out evidence without compelling counter-evidence.

Invoking possibility, or the fact that source has lied in the past on other issues does not offer compelling evidence(without further or more specific support) mainly because such an objection can literally be made on any claim one can imagine.

Hitler really had no reason to lie about his theism. Notice I admit he could utilize theist proclamations but why do we necessarily have to suspect that as a lie? Saying "well he lied in the past" is hardly a compelling argument.

Likewise Speer had even less reason to lie on the issue, as when he wrote his book the Reich had already fallen, written while Speer was serving a 20 year prison sentence, and claiming Hitler was a Christian could only at that point harm Speer's already bad image.

Now I do realize that religion would have made a good tool for the Nazis and of course Hitler would have realized this, however this fact does not in any disconfirm the idea that Hitler really did not mean what he said concerning the Almighty. That would be like saying that since atheism, marxism and materialism were useful tools to Stalin, it is in doubt whether or not Stalin was really an atheist, a materialist or a marxist.

So the sources are like as follows:

Hitler's, his former friend's and Nazis own writings/speeches

Combined with Photos

Along with Soveigner's expressing theistic sympathies

Along with a known occultist leaning which seems incompatible with any secularist viewpoint

vs

Alleged secret conversations

and the possibility Hitler may be lying, along with Albert Speer.

 

[Nova Land]

Re: Agreed

... one cannot simply throw out evidence without compelling counter-evidence.

Fortunately, we have more choices than simply throw it out or accept it. Evidence is not an all-or-nothing proposition. We can consider things, weigh them, even set them aside as undetermined.

Not all evidence is equally good. Some evidence, indeed, is extremely weak. This is something that needs to be taken into account in a weighing process.

For example: suppose someone claims that, 30 years ago, they saw a flying saucer. Their testimony is evidence. I have no complelling counter-evidence, and (30 years later) am unlikely to be able to produce any. Do I therefore have to accept their claim? No. The evidence is simply too weak. There is a reasonable possibility that they are lying or mistaken. Before accepting the claim I would want evidence strong enough to overcome that possibility.

Some people claim Hitler was a Christian. Evidence for this is statements he made for public consumption -- statements which pandered to the beliefs of the people who were supporting him. Is there a reasonable possibility that these were deceptions? Yes.

To throw out the claim simply because there is a possibility it is false would clearly be silly. But to accept the claim based simply on such weak evidence would be equally silly. If claims of the paranormal were to be judged on such a basis, the JREF would likely have had to pay out many millions of dollars.

Invoking possibility, or the fact that source has lied in the past on other issues does not offer compelling evidence (without further or more specific support) mainly because such an objection can literally be made on any claim one can imagine.

If someone claims they can do something by psychic means, then the fact they have been caught lying about such claims in the past is a pretty compelling reason to be dubious about the claim. When someone has a past history of lying, that needs to be taken into account in weighing their testimony.

Yes, the possibility always exists that someone is lying. Is it a reasonable possibility? If so, then we need strong evidence to support the claim, not simply someone's unsupported word.

Hitler really had no reason to lie about his theism.

Yes, and children who claim to be able to bend spoons with their minds, or to have met Jesus, or to be reincarnations, must be telling the truth. They have no reason to lie...

Perhaps I am more cynical, but I can think of a lot of reasons for people to lie.

...Speer had even less reason to lie on the issue, as when he wrote his book the Reich had already fallen, written while Speer was serving a 20 year prison sentence, and claiming Hitler was a Christian could only at that point harm Speer's already bad image.

People in prison have often written books and given interviews. The idea that, once in prison, they have no more reason to lie and must surely be telling the truth, is interesting.

Now I do realize that religion would have made a good tool for the Nazis and of course Hitler would have realized this, however this fact does not in any disconfirm the idea that Hitler really did not mean what he said concerning the Almighty.

I like that wording: "does not disconfirm".

You are quite right -- it doesn't. The possibility that Hitler was telling the truth is one we should keep in mind. Before we accept it as true, however, we need good evidence.

For instance: we know that Hitler was raised a Catholic and that he never quit the church and was never ex-communicated. Do you know whether he continued to attend church regularly, took communion regularly, said confession regularly? If so, do you know what his fellow church-goers thought of him? The priests who took his confessions? These are the kinds of details I would look for in trying to determine if someone were sincere in their stated beliefs.

Truth can be determined, but in order to do so we need to look at the details. Jedi has provided arguments as to why Hitler must have been an atheist, but backed these up with very few details. Others have provided arguments as to why Hitler must have been a Christian, but again the details provided are much too weak to let us draw that conclusion.

I will repeat the questions I asked a moment ago: Do you know whether Hitler attended church regularly, took communion regularly, said confession regularly?

If you know, I would appreciate your sharing the details with me, as these will be very helpful to me in forming my own opinion.

If you do not know the answers to questions such as these, then why are you trying to declare the matter settled? Wouldn't it be wiser to leave the matter as a question mark in our minds, something we do not know the answer to yet, until we have enough reliable information to draw good conclusions?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Re: Re: Agreed

Others have provided arguments as to why Hitler must have been a Christian, but again the details provided are much too weak to let us draw that conclusion.

Please don't speak for the rest of the world when you form an opinion. It is my opinion that the evidence is strong enough to assert that Hitler was a christian.

 

[CWL]

1) If Hitler was a Christian, what religious authority did he confide in as he exterminated 6,000,000 Jews (Christians)? If he was a Christian, why is he not represented by any credible historian as a Christian? If he was a Christian, why did he gas the ancestors of the founders of the Christian religion? Since he despised Jews, how could he as a Christian read a religious document (The Holy Bible), knowing that it was written by Jews

The above merits the following comments:

1) Hitler, like many Nazi revisionists, believed that Jesus was an Aryan. Hence, to him there was no connection between Christianity and Jews.

2) Although JK is historically accurate in pointing out that Christianity has its roots in Judaism the point he is trying to make does not follow. Christians have ever since Christianity gained influence over society strongly dissociated themselves from Jews, claiming that they were responsible for the death of Jesus and were therefore to be dispised. Even today, one may hear fundamentalist Christians refer to Jews as "Christ Killers". The tolerance and ecumencial efforts that some major Christian communions are showing and making in relation to Judaism today is a very recent phenomenon in history.