(Ed) Hitler's Atheism

[Nova Land]

Religion is a system of worship. That is all religion is. Religion does not need a deity, formal or informal. Religion does not need an omnipotent being.

Very good point, although I don't entirely agree.

What I agree with is that religions do not need to be about a deity. Because many religions do center on a deity, people familiar with these may sometimes over-generalize and assume all religions must. Buddhism is a good example of one that does not.

What I'm not so sure about is defining religion solely as "a system of worship". It's certainly a good definition, but I'm not sure it's the only reasonable definition.

Anything that humans create, they worship. Anything. It is the human way because humans are hardwired to do so. Look inside any human house and there is some type of icon in there that they worship. If you collect something, you worship. If you enjoy music and the people that make it, you worship (especially if you put posters of them on your walls).

An interesting point, although I'm not sure I agree. I've created a number of things over the years which I have saved and peruse from time to time. Many of them stand up well, others I can see significant flaws in. I don't think I worship things just because I have created them.

In fact, one of my favorite sayings comes from the title of a Max Allan Collins mystery novel: "Kill Your Darlings". It's a piece of advice to writers, to look over what you have written, find the self-indulgent bits ("darlings"), the things you want to keep in there regardless of whether they fit or not, and edit them out ruthlessly. If you want to be successful as a creator, this says, you can't afford to worship your own creations.

I'm also not sure I agree that we worship the things we collect. I'm an avid collector of comics, among other things, certainly avid enough about it to be considered a fanatic, but I think calling comics my religion or saying I worship them is a bit of a stretch.

Now, it is ridiculous to say that atheism is not a religion because all atheism does is think of God. That is what atheism is all about.

I think there are different types of atheism, different types of atheists.

There may be some atheists who are obsessed with god -- people who feeled called to speak out against theism at any and every opportunity. But there are other people who believe there is no god and feel no compelling need to convince anyone else of this. They are willing to share their belief is the subject comes up in conversation, but do not go out of their way to bring it up or impose it on others.

To say that all atheists are obsessed with god would seem to mean that many people who do not believe in god are not true atheists.

... Human atheists are claiming secret knowledge. That is omnipotent thought. That is defining yourself as a God.

This is an interesting idea, but I don't understand how one point leads to another.

Atheists do not believe in god. Some may come up with alternative ideas for how the universe came into existence and other questions that god is used as an answer for; some may be content to say, "I don't know;" and some may even say, "I don't care." I don't see how any of these is an omnipotent thought.

Comics are full of people who can create worlds or destroy them with a thought. I wouldn't call them omnipotent either; most are regularly defeated by the heroes. By comparison, people who do not believe a god exists are pretty insignificant. I can just see the Justice League of America or the Avengers being menaced by the Awesome Atheist: "Beware my power, you fools! I am mightier than any of you, no matter how strong you are, because I don't believe in god!"

This is why atheism is a religion. The atheist says that there is no God but can't provide proof. Neither can other religions. That means I have to take faith in your declaration... That is religion.

I think I define both atheism and religion differently than you do. But your definition of religion, while not the one I use, sounds like a reasonable one. I'm quite willing to agree that, in the way you are using the words, atheism is a religion.

Humans are born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Most humans do not use guns and flame-throwers to kill people. There is something inside of us that prevents us from doing that.

I strongly agree with you on this!

I disagree with you on many things (or think I do) but am delighted to be in agreement with you on this, as it is one of my strongest beliefs and one of the beliefs most important to me.

However, there are some people who put other people in ovens to completely wipe them out...

You raise a very important point with this. It seems unbelievable, and yet throughout history people have been capable of such atrocities. What kind of people can do this, and why? This is a question worth pondering and examining.

Would Christians put the founders of their religion in ovens and try to genocide them? Why would they do that knowing it would destroy their church? It makes no sense.

Alas, so many things that we know do happen make no apparent sense. The fact that it makes no sense for people to behave this way does not mean it did not happen.

I've seen the argument made many times, by death penalty opponents among others, "So-and-so could not possibly be guilty of the crime s/he's accused of. The actions s/he would have had to taken according to the prosecution's theory make no sense. People who know so-and-so say s/he was intelligent, and s/he would have to have been extremely stupid to make these kinds of mistakes." (In the most recent such case I was following, the person being so defended just confessed to the crime.)

Hitler was the godless man. He was godless because of the godless acts he embraced.

I agree. His actions were ungodly. I have no trouble considering Hitler ungodly in this sense of the word.

Hitler and his leadership cells dismissed religious institutions because they propelled civilization backwards in the view of the efficient fascist nation-state.

I need for you to explain this more clearly. What do you mean, "dismissed"? And how do you know the reason you cite is the actual reason for their actions? Hitler does say things in the Table Talks which sound something like what you are saying, so I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you on this, but I would like to be clearer on what you are saying and why.

In sum, atheism is a religion because disciples of atheism ... think of themselves as gods.

The problem I have with this summation is that, while it might allow us to class Hitler as an atheist, it would mean we could no longer consider people such as James Randi as one.

The true intellectual position regarding religion is agnosticism. The agnostic doubts--he does not make declarations about god.

People are entitled to their beliefs and opinions -- even ones I may disagree with. For others to express their beliefs openly is no more arrogant than for you or I to do the same. It is the manner in which beliefs are expressed, not the belief itself, that makes the difference between arrogance and humility. So to define agnosticism as humble and atheism as arrogant seems to me an error. I believe it is quite possible for an agnostic to be arrogant and an atheist to be humble.

Hitler was not an agnostic. He believed that he was God... Hitler, therefore, was an atheist.

Unless you are speaking metaphorically in saying Hitler "believed that he was God", then you've lost me on this. CWL already raised some good questions about this, so I'll just echo that and wait to hear your response to CWL.

 

[The Fool]

why wasn't the Catholic Church and the Vatican specifically standing with him
JK

Jedi.
I'm sure the catholic church never stood with the Nazis. Never ever....not ever....well, maybe once or twice?

 

[Nova Land]

...That is atheism. That is saying: "Your God does not exist".

...The radical Islamic clerics in Iran don't doubt. They are atheists in their approach to Christianity

Earlier in this thread, HS4 raised the possibility you are defining atheism differently than some others of us. That sounds to be the case here.

Saying "Your God does not exist" is not, by my definition, atheism. There are many people who, because of their belief in god -- a specific god -- therefore deny the existence of someone else's god.

To me, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god, any god. They deny the Christian god, and the Islamic god, and the Hindu gods, and the Norse gods, and any other gods, because they believe in no gods.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are atheists. They are atheists in regard to Hindu gods, Norse gods, the god of Islam, etc. Is this correct, or am I missing something?

If Hitler had no issues with God, why wasn't the Catholic Church and the Vatican specifically standing with him and taking a large role in his government?

An intriguing question, but history is full of intriguing questions. One can equally well ask the mirror-image question: "If Hitler had issues with God, why didn't the Catholic Church and the Vatican specifically ex-communicate him?"

The fact that the Catholic Church did not ex-communicate Hitler does not prove he was a Catholic. The fact that the Catholic Church was not given a larger role in the Nazi regime does not prove Hitler was an atheist.

The way to ascertain whether Hitler was a Catholic or an atheist is to define what we mean by those terms clearly, and then see if he met the criteria.

For instance, if we define Catholic as someone raised in the Catholic faith, Hitler would be a Catholic by that definition. If we define Catholic as someone who officially joined the church and was never ex-communicated, Hitler would be a Catholic by that definition. If we define Catholic as someone who pays lip service to the Catholic creed in public, and claims to be acting in accordance with Catholicism, then Hitler was a Catholic. But if we define a Catholic as someone who actually believes in the Catholic creed and tries to live up to its tenets, then Hitler was not a Catholic.

I think all four of those definitions are reasonable ones, although calling them all definitions of the word Catholic gets confusing. I'd distinguish between (1) someone who is raised Catholic, (2) someone who is a member of the Catholic Church, (3) someone who is an avowed Catholic, and (4) someone who believes in Catholicism.

Similarly, it's possible to list and distinguish between different concepts of what atheist means. I think it would be good to do this, as explicitly as we can, before attempting to declare whether Hitler was or wasn't one. I'm starting to understand a little better what you mean (or hope I am) but I'm probably still missing some key points to what it is you mean by an atheist.

 

[MRC_Hans]

JK: Reading through your posts a couple of times, I come to the conclusion that anybody who denies the Christian god is an atheist by your definition. Is that so? Otherwise why do you label people of different monotheistic faiths atheists (e.g. Moslems)?

I must say that I will not be able to participate in a debate based on such an axiom.

Hans

 

[Darat]

A request to Jedi Knight:

Can you please provide a one or two (short!) sentence description of the definition you are using when you use the word "atheist".

I have been interested in the debate about what we can discern of Hitler's belief system that was sparked by your declaration "Hitler was an atheist".

However it is apparent that you are using a definition of "atheist" unlike any dictionary definition I have read. In itself that is not bad or good - all words can (even comparatively modern words such as "atheist") change their meaning and their common usage over time.

However to have a reasonable discussion we all have to agree on what the terms and words we use in the discussion mean otherwise we may as well speak gibberish to each other!

So to reiterate - please provide a concise definition of what the word "atheist" means when you use it in this discussion.

 

[Jedi Knight]

JK: Reading through your posts a couple of times, I come to the conclusion that anybody who denies the Christian god is an atheist by your definition. Is that so? Otherwise why do you label people of different monotheistic faiths atheists (e.g. Moslems)?

I must say that I will not be able to participate in a debate based on such an axiom.

Hans

It may be best if you do not participate, but I would like to see you stay. I am not promoting any religion and there is an overt sensitivity to Christianity on this forum that seeps into any discussion on religion. If people can't get past that it may be too much of a distraction.

Most folks that post any religious opinion here are labeled Christians 30 seconds later by dozens of hard-wired religious atheists. This debate is about Hitler's atheism, not forum particpants.

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

A request to Jedi Knight:

Can you please provide a one or two (short!) sentence description of the definition you are using when you use the word "atheist".

I have been interested in the debate about what we can discern of Hitler's belief system that was sparked by your declaration "Hitler was an atheist".

However it is apparent that you are using a definition of "atheist" unlike any dictionary definition I have read. In itself that is not bad or good - all words can (even comparatively modern words such as "atheist") change their meaning and their common usage over time.

However to have a reasonable discussion we all have to agree on what the terms and words we use in the discussion mean otherwise we may as well speak gibberish to each other!

So to reiterate - please provide a concise definition of what the word "atheist" means when you use it in this discussion.

Atheism is narcissism. Atheism is religious self-love that dictates from the individual a claim of special knowledge about the universe where that special knowledge does not exist. That suggests a desire for personal omnipotence. Atheism is the lack of belief in the external omnipotent being, replacing it with the internal. Atheism is the proselytizing against the external possibility of God in all forms, while lusting for restrictions at proselytizing for God.

Atheism at the institutional level views God as the ultimate hostile invader, and any actions are appropriate actions to repel that invader. Adolf Hitler used certain actions to prove this.

That is my definition of atheism. The atheist religion, like all other religions, cannot be proven by the individual atheist proselytizing for that religion, and is a value of religious faith. Since I cannot prove nor disprove a person's religous faith, I must therefore have faith in the claim by the individual that his declared faith is his true faith. It is this way with all religions.

Jedi Knight

 

[Darat]

Atheism is narcissism. Atheism is religious self-love that dictates from the individual a claim of special knowledge about the universe where that special knowledge does not exist. That suggests a desire for personal omnipotence. Atheism is the lack of belief in the external omnipotent being, replacing it with the internal. Atheism is the proselytizing against the external possibility of God in all forms, while lusting for restrictions at proselytizing for God.

By this definition we have seen evidence earlier in the thread that Hitler consistently proclaimed a belief in an external deity that was more powerful then he. The evidence shown in this thread shows how time and time again he proclaimed a belief in “God”.

Therefore Hitler was not an atheist. (According to your definition.)

Atheism at the institutional level views God as the ultimate hostile invader, and any actions are appropriate actions to repel that invader. Adolf Hitler used certain actions to prove this.

I do not see how one person is an institute? Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of this post? Are you are saying that Hitler created an “institution" that was atheistic? However he claimed that the Nazi party and its apparatus was necessary to cleanse the Aryan race; whose racial purity had become diseased and chocked by Marxism & Judaism and this was the will of the supreme being..

That is my definition of atheism. The atheist religion, like all other religions, cannot be proven by the individual atheist proselytizing for that religion, and is a value of religious faith. Since I cannot prove nor disprove a person's religous faith, I must therefore have faith in the claim by the individual that his declared faith is his true faith. It is this way with all religions.

Jedi Knight

You state (highlight mine) that you "have faith in the claim of the individual that his declared faith is his true faith."

Evidence has been put forward throughout this thread that Hitler claimed that he believed in an "supreme being"; no evidence has been shown that he ever said “There is no supreme being” or words to that effect.

Therefore even using your non-standard definitions of atheism Hitler was not an atheist. Based on the evidence shown in this thread Hitler never claimed to be anything but a believer in a “supreme being” i.e. it has not been shown, by evidence that he ever claimed he didn't believe in a higher power then himself.



(Edited for mistakes.)

 

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Nova Land
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK
...I can see how the condemnations of homosexuality in the bible (albeit with the caveat that these condemnations are the product of the King James translation, not of the original text) would lead people to atheism...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not so sure that I can.

It depends a lot on what we mean by "atheism", which is why I think your previous post (about the difficulties of saying simply one is or is not Catholic) is spot on.

The catholic tenets on homosexuality are amongst a number of things (well, actually a whole bloody encyclopaedia )which led me to turn away from the catholic church. The way I rationalise it is that if there is a god then those teachings are an misinterpretation or even a fabrication of what god intended. but i'm a theist anyway :sighs:

Now my view on atheism is probably at odds with others. It's influenced Neitzchean philosophy and starts off by asking, "What is the function of religion?" rather than "What proof is their that God/gods exist?". In early stages of civilisation, religion provided a worldview (an explanation of otherwise seemingly random events) and with that a means to affect the world (offerings, prayer, the works). I know it causes hostility amongst science people, but this is also what is meant by the idea that science is a religion, in that it provides a worldview (albeit a more coherent and reflexive view) and a means to affect that world (albeit a very direct, demonstrative and instrumental method). This definition isn't meant to trivilialise science (well admittedly, some people do use it that way, but not me) but rather to contextualise it within the development of human understanding. But I digress.

So religion provides a world view and method to influence the world. Both of those are normative (there's a right and wrong way to act) which inevitably becomes an ideology--these are the norms and values of how you should act; these are the people who arbitrate these norms and values. With christianity, I'm thinking particularly of Mediaeval times--how christianity legitimised the social order of the day: Monarchs were divinely ordained as the direct sons of Adam (or somesuch); the Bible was the sole source of law and morality; priests--as heads of a privileged class who could read--were the arbiters of that source.

But the translation to sovereign states, the rise of capitalism via industrialisation, certain kings getting p!ssy with the Vatican and starting their own religions all contribute to the steady erosion of christian power; leaders aren't chosen by god, they're chosen by people; morality is no longer simply interpreted from the bible, but the products of the people; the bible worldview is no longer necessary because it's superceded by philososphy and nascent science.

So certainly the hold that christianity had on the popular imagination was as much to do with its ideological function as its compellingness(?). And that has been superceded by newer, more sophisiticated and thus more compelling ideologies.

Because of that, whereas an atheist may consider the issue of whether there is a god, or gods, or a giant turtle stood on the back of elephants etc; it's not particularly relevant to their worldview; atheists have no need for even the non-existence of god, and the issue neither informs, constrains or explains such a worldview. Atheism may be considered a religion--in the way science may be considered a religion, but not in the contemporary way we understand christianity or islam; although the comparison that springs to mind is zen buddhism, which neither accepts or denies the existence of god(s), but says it's not a particularly relevant question to ask.

From this perspective, Hitler could not be an atheist; if he hated god, wanted to kill god or replace god with himself, that means he acknowledges the (non)existence of god, which imo cannot be an atheist position. Even to deny god involves the acknowledge of the existence of the thing to be denied. Conversely attacking the church is not necessarily indicative of theist beliefs, but rather an obvious step in wiping out all competing ideologies, which I think everyone will admit is not uncommon to history...

 

[headscratcher4]

A couple of points:

First: JK I have shown above -- and I may say with as much fact and philosophy as you do -- that the racism and anti-Semitism of Hitler and the Nazis was based on pre-Lutheran (important because of your conviction that Luther set the whole humanist chain reaction off) and Christian prejudices that existed in Europe and extended back into the paganist past and traditions (I note that to you, a paganist who denies other people's gods may be an atheist).

My point being that nothing about Hitler and the Nazis -- save the technology and possibly the scope of their vision (though the first crusade might be a close second) -- is particularly unprecedented.

Second, and you have failed to address this, I have also asserted, with as much proof, fact and philosophy as you bring to the table -- that the murder of the Jews as a "race" was inherently the action of people holding a belief in a higher authority. Atheists would have accepted other atheists into the "party" and not given a rat's ass about their ethnicity. Were Nazi's atheists as you have defined it, a Jew who renounced Judaism and embraced Nazism should have/would have been acceptable? However, as Nazism was based on race -- and specifically based on the pre-Lutheran cultural idea (promulgated throughout Europe by the Catholic Church) that Jews (as a race) were Christ Killers, Satan's spawn and a race-set-apart, "Conversion" was not an option. I.e. because they Nazi's and Hitler believed that they were fulfilling their God Given mission as saviors of Western Civilization, they had to eliminate Jews as a first cause.

Further evidence that Nazi's did not view themselves as atheists rests in their hate of the Communists. Among other reasons (including, of course, the elimination of competing political parties) the atheism of bolshevism that was so disturbing to Nazis. Recall, Nazi purists considered themselves "socialists" -- but they were national socialists, i.e. their point was to preserve Western Civilization. Their concern and rallying cry was that "atheistic" Bolsheviks would destroy Western and Christian civilization.

My point is not that Nazis were Christian or that Hitler was "Christian" or "Catholic" but rather that Hitler, himself, says that he views himself as the agent of a higher authority -- God. He was doing "god's" work on earth. That is the cry of every religious zealot -- or maybe, by your definition, to be a religious zealot is to be an atheist (in which case, this argument must end, because you will be the only one here, if not anywhere, that uses the terms that way).

Second, you asserted that Hitler did more than believe he was on a mission from god, you asserted Hitler believed himself to be god. You have provided no proof or substantiation or explanation for that assertion.

How do you reach that conclusion? Did he say so? Where? And, if he said it, why give it credence when you won't give credence to his other public AND private assertions of his belief that he is doing god's work, etc., as it is so much blather designed to fool the masses?

Again, is it his actions and the actions of the Nazi's that allows you to draw that conclusion? However, I have again just shown, with as much fact and proof as you, that Nazism and its actions beginning with the Jews was completely understandable within the historical and Christian tradition of Germany and Europe (an extreme reaction, albeit). So, if it isn't in words, and the actions are consistent with a religiously and theistically based belief -- i.e. Jews are Satan's spawn -- where do you get that Hitler believed himself God?

And again, if he said it, why do you believe that and not the other things he said?

Third, Nova Land raised a good point. Is Pat Robertson an Atheist? He denies that gods other than his exist. He decries the delusions of believers in other gods than his. He would make the US a "Christian" nation, setting the Christian god and practice above all others. He says he is on a mission from god to bring truth to America and the world. How is this not atheism by your definition?

Fourth, are not all monotheistic religions, ergo, atheistic? TO be a monotheist is to proclaim that there is one and only one god. Not to proclaim that your god is the best god out of a pantheon of god possibilities, but that there is not other god. As a result, of course, all other gods are delusions. Their believers not merely wrong, but indeed dangerously deluded. That is why Islamic terrorists can fly plans into buildings. That is why Roman Catholic Priests could burn Indians at the stake. That is why Protestant settlers could foster their religion on the Native Americans. That is why Hindus kill Buddhists. etc. -- their belief that their god/gods is the only one.

That is why when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, theistic temples were closed and destroyed, and on and on.

Religious tolerance is a relatively recent invention, and I would argue that it exists as a political device to enable diverse populations to function together smoothly. Prior to the emergence of humanism and the Enlightenment, toleration was mostly unthinkable and generally only granted by Fiat. For example, the Pope's "allowed" some Jews to live in a ghetto in Rome and to practice their religion -- though the same church outlawed Judaism and Islam in Spain after 1492.

England expelled the Jews in the 14th Century. The Catholic "king" of Poland invited them in. Fiat.

Anyway, that's enough for this go round.

 

[Nova Land]

Atheism is narcissism. Atheism is religious self-love that dictates from the individual a claim of special knowledge about the universe where that special knowledge does not exist. That suggests a desire for personal omnipotence. Atheism is the lack of belief in the external omnipotent being, replacing it with the internal. Atheism is the proselytizing against the external possibility of God in all forms, while lusting for restrictions at proselytizing for God.

Atheism at the institutional level views God as the ultimate hostile invader, and any actions are appropriate actions to repel that invader.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I have read this passage several times and am still unable to understand what you mean.

Could you explain again what it is you do and don't mean by atheism?

What would be especially helpful to me would be if you would list the criteria you use in determining if an individual is or is not an atheist. (What are the things that one must say, do, or believe to be counted as an atheist? What are the things one must say, do, or believe to be counted as not-an-atheist?)

 

[CWL]

Since I cannot prove nor disprove a person's religous faith, I must therefore have faith in the claim by the individual that his declared faith is his true faith. It is this way with all religions.

In reference to the above post from Nova Land, you may want to explain the above statement as well.

As is shown by the various quotes presented in this discussion Hitler clearly declared his faith to be theism. Why do you not have faith in Hitler's claim that "his declared faith is his true faith" as you say you must?

 

[Guest]

Atheism is narcissism.

JK,

This is not a definition, but rather a characterization, and an erroneous one at that.

Atheism is religious self-love that dictates from the individual a claim of special knowledge about the universe where that special knowledge does not exist. That suggests a desire for personal omnipotence.

Here again your definition is severely flawed. You presume that atheism is a religion. And you presume this narcissism. To what "special knowledge" do you refer? The only presumption of atheism would seem to be that there is no god. And since a definition needs to distinguish, the definition of atheism needs to distinguish from all "theisms." All theisms claim special knowledge. Many say there is only one god. Some say there are several. Others create whole pantheons including demi-, hemi- and semi-gods. Still others make no claims about a god or gods per se, but speak of planes of spiritual advancement, etc. Here again, a claim to special knowledge. Hence, the bit about "special knowledge" clearly applies to atheism and theisms equally. It therefore makes no distinction and doesn't serve the definition.

Atheism is the lack of belief in the external omnipotent being, replacing it with the internal.

Yes to the first clause. You need to build a case for the second clause. The foundation laid by the first few sentences is far too flawed.

Atheism is the proselytizing against the external possibility of God in all forms, while lusting for restrictions at proselytizing for God. Atheism at the institutional level views God as the ultimate hostile invader, and any actions are appropriate actions to repel that invader.

Now you are engaging far more in character assassination than in definition.

Perhaps you would care to take another run at a definition?

Cheers,

 

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Since I cannot prove nor disprove a person's religous faith, I must therefore have faith in the claim by the individual that his declared faith is his true faith. It is this way with all religions.

Though I agree with the others and am not quite sure what you mean by this, if I read this correctly, it presents a problem for your assertion.

Specifically, Hitler says repeatedly in writing and in speeches that he is an instrument of a higher god. You don't have faith in his claim, you have dismissed it as dissembling to fool the masses. You have concluded that Hitler is an atheist and point to his deads as proof (deeds, which I have shown above, are completely consistent with an extreme interpretation of commonly held cultural tendencies in Europe that were based on, among other things, Catholic ideology that pre-dates Luther).

Why don't you have "faith" in Hitler's decleration of his belief in his Mission?

I think you are trying to have it both ways...i.e. "I can not know what is in a man's heart, therefore I must credit him when he prononces himself a man of faith. But I know what was in Hitler's heart, even though he prounonced himself a man under a god (if not a main of "faith" -- btw. I have to assume you mean Judeo Christian "faith" in how you've used the word faith), I know by his deeds that he could not be a man of faith"

Indeed, you go further and place words in Hitler's mouth by determining that he believed himself to be "god"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

If Hitler believed himself to be god, he can not have been an atheist (at least not by any normal definition -- and avoiding for the moment the whole argument about whether atheism is a religion), because atheism requires a rejection in any belief in a god, because of a lack of proof that god(s) exist.

If Hitler believed himself to be god (or even god-like) as you contend, he must have been some sort of theist -- believing in higher powers, and higher powers that coursed into the world through him (and which is consistent with his words, and I would argue deeds).

I really don't think it can be both ways....

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmm, I seem to have to stick to the conventional, dictionary definition of atheism. I prefer this, although it means that whatever I say may bear no relevance to the position of JK. We'll both have to live with that.

So, to the subject: Hitler. Since we have no real way of knowing the cincerety (and indeed sometimes even the authentity) of Hitler's statements, we need to add some arbitrary truth value to them. For simplicity, this should be either true or false. Since assuming them all to be false would just represent a reversal, we might as well assume that they are true. Any inconsistencies must then be attributed to Hitler's own doubts about his position.

We do then see that Hitler very often referred to some sort of deity, evidently more often than not. Using this, admittedly very simplified, approach, it would then be evident that Hitler did not fit the conventional definition for atheism.

Hans

 

[Nova Land]

Since we have no real way of knowing the sincerity (and indeed sometimes even the authentity) of Hitler's statements, we need to add some arbitrary truth value to them. For simplicity, this should be either true or false.

I'm glad you raised this subject, since I was going to respond to an earlier post relating to this and then the conversation turned in other directions that I didn't want to interrupt. This gives me a good excuse to dig out what I'd written but not posted then.

Now one can argue, as we've already heard, that Hitler wrote or said many things he didn't believe and therefore dismiss these and the many other quotes that support the contention that he was a believer. But if we all subscribe to the assertion that Hitler's statements can't be used as evidence for his belief, then we are equally unable to say anything about his non-belief. We're left in a logical muddle.

One way out of the muddle may be if we agree it is not an all-or-nothing situation.

I think Jedi has a good point that we cannot take all of Hitler's writings and speeches at face value. It seems clear that much of what he says and does is intended to deceive. This is especially true of what he says for public consumption.

What he says privately may also be false, but cannot be dismissed quite so easily as what he says publicly. Where he says the same things in private consistently and to a number of different people, it seems reasonable to accept these things as likely to be reflective of what he actually felt.

I think that it is possible to evaluate different sources and assign more or less weight to them depending on how reliable they appear. A person who knew Hitler only slightly, but writes a book claiming to know him intimately, should carry little weight. With things written by people with a stake in how Hitler (and they) are viewed we should watch the scale closely to see if someone's thumb is on it. And fakes and forgeries should carry no weight.

We may not agree entirely on everything, but I think we can reach some large agreement on what is clearly not reliable, and brush that out of the way. There should still be material left, after we get done brushing aside the fluff, to give us some ideas of what Hitler actually believed.

I'm inclined to assign more weight to what is recorded in the Table Talks, for example, than I am to what he said in public speeches. I'm also inclined to give more weight to what close associates of his say about his beliefs than to what total strangers say, keeping in mind of course that these associates may have reasons of their own for deception. And something he said consistently in private remarks to his associates will carry more weight with me than something he is only known to have said on a single occasion.

This is why I'm interested in taking time to go through relevant passages from sources such as the Table Talks and seeing what is actually said there, which things get repeated, which things seem to be seriously intended, etc., before drawing conclusions.

BillHoyt:

Some of that muddle is filled in by presumptions about Hitler's actions.

There are facts about his actions which we can look at. We can see what he actually said in his speeches, what laws he promoted and which he opposed, which groups he courted in his rise to power and which he demonized. These actions won't tell us what he believed in his heart, but they will give us some clues what fronts people such as Hitler are willing to put up to attain power.

If Hitler is defined as an atheist, for example, it could tell us that atheists sometimes rise to power by denouncing feminism, denouncing "liberal sexual mores" and "sexual perversions", promoting school prayer and public displays of patriotism, denouncing certain racial and ethnic minority groups and blaming them for many of the nation's problems, promoting large families, banning certain liberal writers and liberal writings, etc.

This wouldn't necessarily be true of all atheists, but if other people who we classify as atheists took similar political stands it would give us an idea of who to look for among current politicians as possible dangerous atheists. If all the "dangerous atheists" (people such as Hitler) took pains to appear religious, it would indicate there is little to fear from people who proclaim themselves to be atheists.

 

[Jedi Knight]

The following questions simply must be asked about some of the responses to my posts above:

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?

2) If Hitler was a Protestant, why didn't he allow any Protestant churches to have influence in the Nazi nation-state system? Why did he feverishly attack Great Britain, the most affluent Protestant population in the World?

3) If Hitler was a Catholic, why did he force the Pope to sign off on the Concordat? Isn't it the responsibility of a Catholic to protect the Pope and the Church? Why would Hitler seek to force a hostile controlling treaty upon them?

The answer is clear. Hitler was an athiest.

Jedi Knight

 

[Mossy]

The following questions simply must be asked about some of the responses to my posts above:

Okay, I'll try:

1) If Hitler was a Christian, what religious authority did he confide in as he exterminated 6,000,000 Jews (Christians)?

Many Christians advocated the killing of Jews. One noted Christian in particular: Martin Luther, said, "We are at fault for not slaying them".

Using your logic, Muslems would never slay Christians or Jews. We know that isn't the case either.

If he was a Christian, why is he not represented by any credible historian as a Christian?

Do we only get to choose between Christianity and Atheism? If Hitler believed in any God, he was not an atheist.

If he was a Christian, why did he gas the ancestors of the founders of the Christian religion?

Again, whether or not he was Christian isn't relevant to whether or not he was atheist. And if he were Christian, why would he not kill the Jews? I have shown the a prominent Christian (that Hitler even quoted) believed it was okay to kill Jews (will provide links if you like - but you can just search "martin luther slay jews")

Since he despised Jews, how could he as a Christian read a religious document (The Holy Bible), knowing that it was written by Jews?

Martin Luther. Unless you would like to claim that he was also an atheist?

2) If Hitler was a Protestant, why didn't he allow any Protestant churches to have influence in the Nazi nation-state system?

The first article of the German Christian constitution read:

Christian faith exacts war against atheistic Marxism and ultramontanism. A religion such as ours conforms to nature in being a message of salvation to all men, though it is given to each folk in a special way.

The Protestants were particularly happy with Hitler originally, and only became sour with him after he appointed people that weren't very popular with the Protestants to head up the German Christians.

Why did he feverishly attack Great Britain, the most affluent Protestant population in the World?

World supremecy? Again - the fact that he wasn't, after a time, friendly with the Protestants doesn't mean he didn't believe in a god.

3) If Hitler was a Catholic, why did he force the Pope to sign off on the Concordat?

"forced"? Where did you get that?

Isn't it the responsibility of a Catholic to protect the Pope and the Church?

I would think so, blame the Pope for not doing his job if you like (or for actually doing it well, depending on how you see it), but how is the Pope's failure (or success) evidence that Hitler was an atheist?

Why would Hitler seek to force a hostile controlling treaty upon them?

World Supremecy? Support from a very powerful ally? But again, the question is, did he "force" it upon them? It may be true, but I haven't heard that - can you point me to a source?

The answer is clear. Hitler was an athiest.

Jedi Knight

If he was, you didn't make a case for it.

-Ed

 

[MRC_Hans]

Some answers:

1) Anti-semitism is nothing new among Christians. While Jews "wrote" the OT, they have a different interpretation of large parts of it, and they (orthodox jews) reject the NT. So the feeling of fraternity between Christians and Jews has always been limited. Islam is also based on OT, that certainly hasnt stopped enmity from either part.

2) Hitler had his own political aganda, which didnt leave room for distributing power to anybody. Hitler actually admired England, he was very reluctant to attack her, even when he did, he hoped to persuade the British government to negotiate a peace. Of course, when he realized this was not going to happen, his feelings no doubt changed, like with anybody else who stood in his way.

3) Well, I cant answer than one, but OTOH, if he WASNT a Catholic, why didnt he swear off his connection with the Church?

Hans

 

[headscratcher4]

JK: I fear you've sunkonly into a circular argument...you just restate your position but never address the points that anyone else is making...


Let me try a couple of answers of points you are trying to make in the hope that you will specifically address points made by me, NovaLand and MCHans...

1) If Hitler was a Christian, what religious authority did he confide in as he exterminated 6,000,000 Jews (Christians)?

Why is this point so telling for you? In short, because Hitler didn't quote the Bible he cannot have seen himself in a religious context. First, why does Hitler have to be Christian? To be other than an "atheist" he merely had to believe in a higher power and himself as the agent of that higher power. These things he said -- you can dismiss them, but he said them.

Second, what religious authority is ever cited for crimes against humanity? Hitler saw his movement in a historical context of saving Western Civilization from Jews and Communists -- destroyers of civilization...what is Western Civilization/German Culture if not abstractly part of a history that includes notions of Christianity and its role as the moral underpinning of society?

Anyway, as an example where religious "authority" is used to justify the eradication of Jews or others, look no farther than the 12th Century and the Crusades. Not just the murder of Jews and Moslems when Jerusalem was taken, but the murder of Jews in Germany because they were Christ killers (marauding peasants stormed Jewish quarters of cities killing all of the Jews, alleging that they used the blood of Christian babies in the making of motzah, among other reasons). My point is that "authority" for killing for religious/theistic reasons need not be very well stated or understood....

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?

As stated, I don't think Hitler was a "Christian" in the usual sense and maybe not at all. However, he was certainly the product of a "Christian" culture and, specifically, a "Catholic" upbringing. I would only point out that in his writings/speeches he cited a higher authority (god) for the source of his mission and the power of his ideology (that need not be the Christian god, just a "god" to make him other than an atheist, BTW). And, as noted above, Jews have been persecuted by religious Christians for thousands of years and still reading the bible...example: the priests who manned the Spanish Inquisition and had Jews killed for failing to convert to Christianity or apostasy, they read the Bible (and it was written by Jews).

2) If Hitler was a Protestant, why didn't he allow any Protestant churches to have influence in the Nazi nation-state system? Why did he feverishly attack Great Britain, the most affluent Protestant population in the World?

First, Hitler never claimed to be a Protestant (He was raised a Catholic). Hitler merely claimed that he was acting in accord with God's law and in defense of Western/Germanic Civilization -- As has been pointed out repeatedly, the point is that he acknowledge that a "god" existed, not that he followed a particular sect/cult/religious ideology or was a Christian of any stripe.

Second, clearly, Hitler co-opted most of the religious institutions existing in Germany (or destroyed the small number that resisted). It seems to me that you've got the question reversed, rather than ask why Hitler wouldn't give the Protestants a formal role in the shaping of the state, why not ask why Protestants (who after all read the Bible, written by Jews, etc.) could find it within their heritage/theology, etc. to sign-on with the Nazi's so willingly? Isn't it because as extreme as the Nazi's were, most German Protestants and Catholics recognized something in Nazism that they had seen before -- i.e. German Nationalism, cultural anti-Semitism, etc? Again, Hitler didn't have to be a Protestant; the true failure of religion is, however, that so many Nazis were. My real point is that the dividing line that you want to establish -- that a truly religious person couldn't believe in god and do these things -- was repeatedly crossed again and again by quite sincere believers.

Third, I know you know, JK -- because you are a student of History -- that Hitler's goal in attacking Britain wasn't to destroy a "protestant" country, it was to eradicate the one power in both Europe and the Globe that posed an immediate threat to Hitler's economic, military, territorial and geo-political aspirations. Britain would fight Germany's colonial expansion. Britain would fund and assist those Germany attacked. Britain would challenge Hitler at Sea, Britain didn't ascribe to Hitler's vision of a United Europe under German domination. There are tons of historic, economic and political reasons that have nothing to do with the religion of Britain. Indeed, I challenge you to find any quote anywhere where Hitler said anything along the lines of: "Britain, as a Christian power and people must be destroyed..."

3) If Hitler was a Catholic, why did he force the Pope to sign off on the Concordat? Isn't it the responsibility of a Catholic to protect the Pope and the Church? Why would Hitler seek to force a hostile controlling treaty upon them?

First, as stated, Hitler need not be, nor likely was a practicing Catholic (though raised as one). The issue is whether Hitler believed in a God, not the god of Catholicism. Belief in a god would make Hitler something other than an atheist. For most of the world, if you believe in God or Gods you are an atheist. You continue to define the term in a way that nearly no one recognizes.

Hitler didn't force the Pope to sign a concordant. The Popes of that time (Pius XI and Pius XII -- at least I think it was Pius XI) were more interested in fighting Communism. They saw Hitler as a kindred spirit and governing a country with a large population of Catholics. They wanted the Concordant and they didn't think that Hitler was a particular threat to Catholicism (They were clearly wrong!). In short, the Concordant wasn't a one sided deal struck under fear of a gun, it was signed (I believe) in the Mid 30's before Nazism had emerged as an aggressive European power with the ability to crush opposition everywhere. This isn't to say that Hitler wouldn't have eventually tried to crush the church (I don't believe he was any longer a Catholic), but the question is what does that have to do with whether or not Hitler believed in God? Lots of people believe in God without being Catholic, and lots of people (for example, here in the US) are not Catholic and are not atheists.


In the end, all I am asking is to stick to the point. Hitler didn't have to be a Christian to not be an atheist, by most definitions, all he had to do was believe that he, himself, was under/guided by a higher authority. This, he clearly stated he did.

Further, as I have pointed out, and you have yet to comment on, the anti-Semitism that drove Nazi ideology was based on pre-Lutheran Christian myth and propaganda that had circulated within Germany (and Europe) for hundreds of years. Killing Jews and suppressing Jews has been a common thing in Christian Europe since well before the reformation, Enlightenment, Marx, Lenin, Hitler and Stalin -- all that Hitler did was bring new, better technology to the task.

Finally, as pointed out above, had Hitler been an atheist, being "Jewish" as such would have been irrelevant. Being Jewish is a problem so long as they are viewed racially -- as they are in religion. An atheist seeking followers of a mass movement would have embraced anyone, including a Jew, who denied Judaism and embraced the movement (note that, on paper at least, Jews who were no longer practicing Jews were welcomed into that great atheistic institution: The Russian Communist Party). In Germany, Jews were cursed of god, a race apart, and Satan’s spawn and to destroy them was to fight for god.

In the end, it seems to me, that you are making the wrong argument about the wrong person. You will never nail Hitler as an explicit atheist. You only want to do so here because you are tickled by the reaction that you get from proclaimed atheists on these boards that can't imagine that they might share anything with the likes of a Hitler.

However, it seems to me that Stalin is a better argument for you anyway (so why not use him). He killed more people. He destroyed more culture. His state was more repressive. He proclaimed himself and his state to be explicitly atheistic.

Methinks you are on the wrong path....