(Ed) Hitler's Atheism

[thaiboxerken]

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

The pope certainly didn't tell Hitler he was doing wrong. But he was his own religious authority, he stated that he believed he was doing christ's work directly. Simply put, he implied that god and jesus gave him authority.

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

You mean christian historians.. there is a difference between christian historians and secular historians. The credible historians differ in their opinions about Hitler's christianity. You are appealing to false authorities.

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

Why do christians tend to hate and persecute pagans when it's obvious that christianity borrowed much of the mythology from pagan religions? It's hard to understand the "logic" of the religious. It is clear that the white men preferred to believe jesus was white and not a jew.. it's evident in most of the paintings that portray jesus as a white man with blue eyes.

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 christian bible was hardly written by jews, it was canonnized and adapted by the roman catholic church. But, what makes you think Hitler thought the jews wrote his bible?

 

[Jedi Knight]

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.

Maybe some splinter group calling itself Christian with about 30 members does those things, but not the organized Christian Christian churches.

I have never heard a Christian in the United States say that the Jews must be destroyed, so help me out with your "secret knowledge" on the subject. It sounds so much like something that would be taught to children in leftist colleges (marginal) and public schools (extremely marginal) that it is time for you to present facts.

Which American Christian leaders say that the Jews must be destroyed? Does Pat Robertson promote that? No. Does Billy Graham promote that? No. Does the Catholic Church promote that? No. Does Jerry Falwell promote that? No.

What "Christian" churches want to see the Jews destroyed? Remember when you answer that Hitler was not a Christian. Ms. Polly the leftist commie in the 3rd grade may have told you that, but you haven't been paying attention that a public education is a terrible thing and the Ms. Polly's are completely wrong.

JK

 

[thaiboxerken]

Maybe some splinter group calling itself Christian with about 30 members does those things, but not the organized Christian Christian churches.

The Nazi's were more than just 30 members.


I have never heard a Christian in the United States say that the Jews must be destroyed, so help me out with your "secret knowledge" on the subject.

Members of the KKK say such things and they are christian.

Which American Christian leaders say that the Jews must be destroyed? Does Pat Robertson promote that? No. Does Billy Graham promote that? No. Does the Catholic Church promote that? No. Does Jerry Falwell promote that? No.

Right now, no.. but in the past the Catholic Church taught to distrust the jews and they certainly didn't cry out against Hitler until after the war.

Pat Robertson and Fallwell are not persecuting jews now, they are too busy saying the Muslims should be shipped out of the USA and that homosexuals are causing natural disasters to happen. One of these individuals even blamed the homosexuals and "immorality" for the WTC attacks.

What "Christian" churches want to see the Jews destroyed? Remember when you answer that Hitler was not a Christian. Ms. Polly the leftist commie in the 3rd grade may have told you that, but you haven't been paying attention that a public education is a terrible thing and the Ms. Polly's are completely wrong.
JK

Hitler may not have been a christian, but the Nazi party sure was and WW2 germany was christian. The Vatican sure didn't make a bitch about the extermination of jews until after the war.

 

[headscratcher4]

Maybe some splinter group calling itself Christian with about 30 members does those things, but not the organized Christian Christian churches.

I have never heard a Christian in the United States say that the Jews must be destroyed, so help me out with your "secret knowledge" on the subject. It sounds so much like something that would be taught to children in leftist colleges (marginal) and public schools (extremely marginal) that it is time for you to present facts.

Which American Christian leaders say that the Jews must be destroyed? Does Pat Robertson promote that? No. Does Billy Graham promote that? No. Does the Catholic Church promote that? No. Does Jerry Falwell promote that? No.

What "Christian" churches want to see the Jews destroyed? Remember when you answer that Hitler was not a Christian. Ms. Polly the leftist commie in the 3rd grade may have told you that, but you haven't been paying attention that a public education is a terrible thing and the Ms. Polly's are completely wrong.

JK

JK: once again, you have gone irrelevant and off point...whether willfully or by indirection, I don't know.

A couple of thoughts.

Again, the way you are trying to prove your assertion is, essentially, by making a completely erroneous dichotomy: either Hitler was an Atheist or Hitler was a Christian. It isn't an either or proposition. The distinction isn't between Atheists and Christians (as somehow defined by popularly understood definitions and sects). It is between Atheists (one who does not believe in a God or Gods (ie. Higher, divine, Supernatural authority)) and an Atheist (one who, and getting away for the moment, from your argument that atheism constitutes a religion, doesn't believe or sees an absence of proof, of the existence of a god or gods).

The short and fat "fact," as you like to use the word, of the matter is that there is pretty good indication that Hitler believed himself serving a higher supernatural power. In other words, as the instrument of god(s).

Is this Christian in any normal sense? I don't think so, though some here clearly do. But it does suggest that Hitler believed in a God(s). Indeed, as serving the will of god, he could not, would not expect retribution for his acts, as he was fulfilling destiny -- both historical and personal.

Nothing you've written or asserted refutes that. So far as the record has been presented here, there is ample evidence to conclude that warped, wrong, evil as Hitler was, he saw himself as under the authority of god/fate (Franko may like that one) and acted accordingly. As a result, he might not be "Christian" or "Catholic," but he wasn't an atheist. Again, saying he was over and over again isn't the same as showing that it is true.

Also, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Hitler and the Nazi philosophy he created and espoused come completely, and understandably, from a variety of philosophical and religious traditions that emerge out of European history in general, and German history in particular. While they may not be "Christian", they certainly have their roots in European Christianity (both pre and post Reformation) -- not unlike, e.g., the roots of Christianity in Judaism.

I am NOT saying that Nazism is a Christian faith, movement or philosophy. I am saying that emerges out of a political, social and economic context of both medieval and modern Europe. It is warped by notions of science and of genetics, but its core -- the inherent superiority of Western/Germanic culture -- lies in a view of that culture as the highest form of Civilization to yet emerge, and one that is completely infused with "Christian" imagery, philosophy, history as part of its core.

So, that leaves us, completely un-refuted, with Hitler as a Theist/Deist tainted by some notions and ideas that have been prevalent in European Christian thought for over a thousand years.

In short, the fact is that, for all intents and purposes, the movement was not atheistic, nor can any substantial showing be made that Hitler himself was an atheist...merely that he did not conform to any recognizable Christian church practice or belief (AND THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING AN ATHEIST -- again, look to Stalin, he proudly proclaimed his atheism [he, not worried about duping the people] and ran a brutal, ugly terror state that attempted, specifically, to promote an atheistic [i.e. God-less] society).

Now, as to your next set of diverting assertions. Ultimately, it is irrelevant what Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, the Pope say, today, about Judaism. They are parts of a Christian movement, but by and of themselves they are not Christianity. In my mind, it is both more and less than them.

However, individuals who are hateful and destructive to the Jews -- i.e. destroy the Jews because they are Satan's spawn -- clearly exist. These groups specifically call themselves "Christian." All you have to do is check out the web.

Many a racist site -- e.g. people affiliated with the Aryan Brotherhood -- proclaim their view that they are Christian. That Christ was an Aryan. That there racism is sanctioned by God. That Jews are people outside of God. That the salvation of Christ is reserved only for those who practice racial purity and who would destroy the devil in the form of Jews, and on and on.

This is not Christianity, at least not as I understand it, but they proclaim it as such. I suspect some even believe it. At the very least it suggests that these movements, sects, cults -- whatever -- are "theistic" as opposed to "atheistic" -- at least by the normal definition of those words.

Now, we all know that you, JK, are the ultimate arbiter of who is and who isn't a "Christian." Also, that only you can ultimately tell what is in the hearts of all people -- whether they believe in a supernatural power or are lying to dupe the masses. However, citing what are essentially accepted and "mainstream" leaders of Christian churches does little to buttress an argument that these currents of hate aren't Christian. Indeed, as you yourself are so apt to point out, looking back to Luther he said some pretty foul things about the Jews...so Lutheranism, at least, isn't founded on a "Christian" footing.

And, it seems to me, as a result, any of the Protestant religions that sprang from the Lutheran-founded "Reformation" would thus be tainted. Leaving only Catholicism, and it has a pretty nasty history when it comes to Jews (maybe not on the scale of Hitler or Stalin, but than they were limited by being a "spiritual" authority, rather than a governing authority [save in the Papal states, where until its demise Jews had to live in Ghettos]).

As I have shown conclusively above, Hitler's racism and anti-Semitism can only have sprung from a religious (and, in a round-about way Christian) context. He could not do what he did or seek to destroy "Jews" -- all Jews because they are "Jews" -- as he did and be an atheist.

 

[Nova Land]

I have never heard a Christian in the United States say that the Jews must be destroyed, so help me out with your "secret knowledge" on the subject.

It's not secret knowledge, or revisionist history. CWL is quite correct on this.

It used to be a common teaching in Christian churches that the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus, and the epithet "Christ-killer" was commonly used in the US as recently as the 1940s. There has been remarkable progress in combatting prejudice of many sorts, including prejudice against Jews, in the last 5 decades. I don't know how old you are; you may be too young to realize how much has changed.

It's only been about 40 years since the Vatican officially renounced the belief that the Jews are responsible for the killing of Jesus. There's a great Mitchell Trio song "Ecumenical March" on their 1965 album "That's the Way It's Gonna Be" that commemorates the Pope's announcement.

from "Ecumenical March":

Did you hear the news? It's official!
Us Jews didn't kill Jesus.
You can't hold us to blame.
We're not responsible.
As for me: last night I had my first good night's sleep
In 2000 years!

We're clean! We're clean!
The Vatican says we're clean!

So take your Christian by the hand,
And let's all shout: "It's grand! It's grand!"

"Wait a minute! If we didn't kill Jesus, who did?"
[pause]
"The Puerto Ricans!"

Absolved! Absolved! The problem is all solved!

And the previous song on the same album is the "I Was Not A Nazi Polka", so that makes the album even more relevant to this thread!

The Chad Mitchell Trio did a number of satirical songs about political events in the 1960s and 1970s. You might look them up; it's a fun way to absorb some history.

 

[CWL]

Maybe some splinter group calling itself Christian with about 30 members does those things, but not the organized Christian Christian churches.

I have never heard a Christian in the United States say that the Jews must be destroyed, so help me out with your "secret knowledge" on the subject. It sounds so much like something that would be taught to children in leftist colleges (marginal) and public schools (extremely marginal) that it is time for you to present facts.

Which American Christian leaders say that the Jews must be destroyed? Does Pat Robertson promote that? No. Does Billy Graham promote that? No. Does the Catholic Church promote that? No. Does Jerry Falwell promote that? No.

What "Christian" churches want to see the Jews destroyed? Remember when you answer that Hitler was not a Christian. Ms. Polly the leftist commie in the 3rd grade may have told you that, but you haven't been paying attention that a public education is a terrible thing and the Ms. Polly's are completely wrong.

JK

JK,

You truly need to get your historical facts straight. I offer you a link to a good article on the subject of Christian attitutes towards Jews over the centuries written by Rev. John T. Pawlikowski, OSM, Ph.D. Professor of Social Ethics, Catholic Theological Union, Chicago Chair, Committee on Church Relations and the Holocaust, United States Holocaust Memorial Council: Christian Persecution of Jews Over the Centuries.

Your post merits the following further comments.

I have never claimed that the Christians in the United States "say that the Jews must be destroyed". If you want a serious discussion I would humbly suggest reading the posts you are replying to and avoiding strawmen.

As to the Catholic Church , I note that they have felt the necessity to apologize for their behaviour towards the Jews over the ages. The Pope has been quoted as saying:

"I assure the Jewish people that the Catholic Church [...] is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any place,".

Why the apology if Catholics have always been positive towards Jews as you appear to be claiming?

As to Billy Graham, I believe his attitude towards Jews is clearly demonstrated in a certain taped conversation with former president Nixon.

Here are a two quotes related to Pat Robertson:

The New World Order, (1991), p.17; "Communism was the brainchild of German-Jewish intellectuals."

Petersburg Times, June 26, 1994; Bailey Smith, a founding father of Robertson's Christian Coalition, once told 15,000 people at a Religious Roundtable briefing in Dallas, "With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

Here's a quote from Jerry Falwell from The Washington Star, July 3, 1980:

"A few of you don't like the Jews and I know why. He [sic] can make more money accidently than you can make on purpose."

Mr. Falwell of course, also belives that Antichrist is among us and that he is "a Jewish Man": link

Now, perhaps you would be so kind as explain again what it was that "Ms. Polly" failed to teach me as to the Christian attitute towards Jews?

What it all boils down to is that the fact that Hitler hated the Jews does not constitute any evidence that he was not a Christian, nor that was an atheist.

 

[Nova Land]

...once again, you have gone irrelevant and off point...

Oops! You're right. I should have read your post before posting my post.

(But it is a good song...)

Thanks for the reminder, and getting us back on track! Your post sums things up very nicely, so I'll just nod my head in agreement and keep my mouth shut for a little bit.

 

[headscratcher4]

The New World Order, (1991), p.17; "Communism was the brainchild of German-Jewish intellectuals."

CWL: not to keep going down this diversionary road...the point remains that, regardless of how Hitler treated the Jews, he could have been very nasty and entirely consistent with not only Christian attitudes (and, dare I say, beliefs prevelent all through Christianity of Jews as Christ Killers and the Spawn of Satan, see above), but also with a deist/Theist philosophy (again, an Atheist could have had millions of people killed -- e.g. Stalin -- but not for any of the reasons or ideology that Hitler espoused -- which required a belief in a supernaturual authority [i.e. a diest/theist]).

Anyway, where I wanted to get to is, of course, you realize that the quote above is entirely consistent with JK's anti-communist rhetoric (though it comes from a Protestant). He has stated that Leuther and the Reformation, through a train of humanist views leading through the enlightenment to Marx to Lenin and Stalin, has made not only Communism possible, but also countanences mass murder of any and all who disagree with the state (i.e. the state as a atheistic and substituting itself for "god").

The interesting thing, as I have attempted to point out, is that he has an excelent example in Stalin and Communism, but he just wants to prod people with a stick on this whole Hitler was an atheist thing. He wants -- for lack of fact or logic -- to posit that everything about the emergence of Nazism isn't what it appears to be. In other words, for JK, there is no differentiation between Nazism and Communism.

 

[Jedi Knight]

The interesting thing, as I have attempted to point out, is that he has an excelent example in Stalin and Communism, but he just wants to prod people with a stick on this whole Hitler was an atheist thing. He wants -- for lack of fact or logic -- to posit that everything about the emergence of Nazism isn't what it appears to be. In other words, for JK, there is no differentiation between Nazism and Communism.

You are getting closer but there is a minor misconception in your response.

He wants -- for lack of fact or logic -- to posit that everything about the emergence of Nazism isn't what it appears to be.

This is incorrect. I explained partially how Nazism evolved from the philosophy of Hegel and Neizche. It requires reading of the two philosophes to really nail down how and why the Nazis took to their ideas.

That said, you also correctly mentioned:

In other words, for JK, there is no differentiation between Nazism and Communism.

In this case involving the benefits for the state with the institution of atheism there is no difference. Communism and fascism are different ideologies--opposites in fact--but they share a lust for the power that atheism can bring the ruling class. That makes atheism similar in the totalitarian and authoritarian state.

The communists in Russia used atheism as their primary religion because it empowered the proletariat to destroy the family and ensure that the family was so fluid and powerless that the state became the family. God was a distraction because religious ideas were ideas of freedom--freedom of men and that is an intolerable concept in the authoritarian perversion of communism.

The Nazi totalitarians used atheism also as a tool but in a different way. The Nazi state desired an empowerment of the racial family but viewed God as a distraction from the true God--the Nazi state. Since the Nazi state was God, the actions of its members were those of prophets and any actions or orders issued by them internally were just orders regardless of morality. That is why the German people found it easier to put people into ovens because like the Russian communists next door, they were also a Godless people.

Competing religious institutions in the totalitarian state do not exist. Only atheism exists because Christianity and the idea of the Christian God brings with it mandatory ideas of freedom and morality, concepts foreign to the objectives of the Nazi state. Christianity would never allow concentration camps to operate freely in its midst and the denizens of Christianity would not cooperate in such an immoral endeavor.

Only the godless, the immoral atheist, the man who lost his humanity would allow such events.

JK

 

[Nova Land]

... That is why the German people found it easier to put people into ovens because like the Russian communists next door, they were also a Godless people.

You've lost me. I thought you were arguing that Hitler was secretly an atheist, and made public professions of religious belief in order to keep the support of the German people.

Hitler would only need to pretend to be religious if the German people were religious. If they were predominantly atheist, then Hitler would have had no apparent reason to do this. While the idea that Hitler was lying about his religious beliefs makes some sense, the idea that massive numbers of German people were lying about theirs does not.

We know that the German people cooperated with the Nazis in the the murder of millions. That shows that even people who attend church regularly and profess a belief in god are capable of ungodly acts. What we do not have is any evidence that Germans who publicly denied the existence of god were capable of committing such acts.

It sounds like you are trying to argue that the Germans who attended church and professed to be Protestants and Catholics were actually atheists, because they committed ungodly acts, and that the Germans who denied the existence of God were actually Christians, because they were sent to concentration camps instead.

I assume that is not what you are trying to say, and that I have misunderstood. Please explain it to me again.

... Christianity and the idea of the Christian God brings with it mandatory ideas of freedom and morality... Christianity would never allow concentration camps to operate freely in its midst and the denizens of Christianity would not cooperate in such an immoral endeavor.

Only the godless, the immoral atheist, the man who lost his humanity would allow such events.

You've lost me again.

It was the biblically-christian south that supported slavery, and the liberal-christian north that opposed it, in the US during the 1800s. So clearly not all christianity leads to "mandatory ideas of freedom and morality". Some christianity leads to the buying and selling of human beings, and the inhumane treatment of these human beings (including sexual abuse, the breaking up of families, torture and murder).

Since it was liberal-christianity which spear-headed the opposition to slavery and fundamentalist-christianity that spear-headed the support of slavery (and, later, the support of segregation and of KKK terrorism), are you saying that liberal-christianity is true christianity and fundamentalism is atheism?

Many posts back, I listed 5 distinct possible definitions of atheism. It would be very helpful to me if you would look at those and see if any of those is the definition you are using. If so, please let me know which one. If none of those matches the meaning you intend when you refer to atheism, could you try again to explain to me your definition of atheism? I know you did try to explain it in one of your posts, where you said atheism is narcissism, but I was not able to understand that post and that is making it hard for me to follow your current post.

 

[Aardvark_DK]

And please answer my questions too, JK. Here they are again:


Is your theory falsifiable or not? [Actually I'm not really sure it's a theory - what we're really discussing here is the definition of the word "atheist" and what it means to be one.]

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?

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Agreed

...snip...

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.

...snip...

I certainly haven't seen any compelling evidence put forward by anyone in this thread that Hitler was a "Christian". (Apart from the fact according to the Catholic Church he was, i.e. he was baptised a Catholic and unless he had been ex-communicated - he remained a Catholic at his death.)

However all the evidence here has been that Hitler consistently throughout his life spoke of a "deity" and recognised that there was a being more powerful to whom Hitler, along with everyone else, had to "answer" to eventually.

Therefore anyone who believes in any type of deity is not an atheist. It is really an open and shut case, unless evidence is brought to light that directly contradicts Hitler's words.

As for his actions, HS4 has elegantly explained, they are totally consistent and in fact only make sense if Hitler believed in what he said.

I know it is quite horrendous to think that Hitler’s actions in any way can be said to make “sense” or were “justified”. I’ve always held that he was “insane” and that was why he did what he did - however perhaps his insanity was really his “theistic” beliefs that he then used to rationalise his actions.

Hitler may have been, if you accept the premise his beliefs were based on, totally “justified”. And people wonder what harm beliefs not based on empirical evidence can do.

(Thanks, in a sense, headscratcher4 for making me re-examine my assumptions and beliefs.)

 

[thaiboxerken]

JK, Franko and Wraith have all the same opinion about atheism. They think that only atheists can commit murder so any person that murders is atheist. They don't just limit these "atheist" acts to just murder, any crime or immorality is something only "atheists" would do. In short, the only people that don't commit murder and crime are god believers.

 

[Jedi Knight]

And please answer my questions too, JK. Here they are again:


Is your theory falsifiable or not? [Actually I'm not really sure it's a theory - what we're really discussing here is the definition of the word "atheist" and what it means to be one.]

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?

That is incorrect.

JK

 

[Nova Land]

That is incorrect.

Too brief!

Some of us are trying to understand what you're saying. It is not clear from your own words, so some of us have tried to re-state what we think you may be saying in hopes that you can confirm the parts where we've gotten the gist right and correct the parts where we've gotten it wrong.

Aardvark_DK wrote:

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

Is this indeed what you are saying? If not, is it close?

This does sound to me like a fair re-statement of what you are arguing, so I would very much like to know if it is (and if it is not, to know what it really is you are saying).

The aardvark also wrote that if we use your definition of atheist:

we would have to label a number of popes and other religious authorities throughout history as atheist

In other words, if you are arguing that anyone who commits or supports an ungodly act is an atheist, then any popes or other religious figures who condoned ungodly acts would be atheists.

When you say this is incorrect, are you saying that such figures would not be atheists by your definition, are you saying that such figures have never committed or supported ungodly acts, or are you saying it is incorrect for some other reason?

Thaiboxerken also took a good stab at explaining what it is you believe:

JK [believes] that only atheists can commit murder so any person that murders is atheist... any crime or immorality is something only "atheists" would do. In short, the only people that don't commit murder and crime are god believers

Is this a correct re-statement of your views? If not, how do your actual views differ from this?

I like the way the aardvark and the reverend summarized things. These are simple, clear explanations that I am able to follow easily. In contrast, your own explanation, about atheism being narcissism, was more poetic, but I was unable to follow what it meant.

That's why these attempted re-statements of your views are potentially very helpful. If you could read over them again, and point out how they differ from your actual views, and re-state your views yourself in a clear format similar to theirs, it would be easier for me to see what it is you mean.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Nova Land

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.

This is true, however one does not throw out testimony without reason. The "all or nothing" proposition doesn't even apply.

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.

Yes some does, but saying some does in general and "some does: in this case, is a big stretch.

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.

Totally FALSE ANALOGY. A fairer comparison would be if someone said he believed in UFOs.

You are comparing testimony of belief to an actual sighting. The difference lies in how much they differ from background knowledge. A testimony concerning belief is more easily accepted, as it is well known that people have beliefs, even if they are false or fantastic. It is also well known that people generally do not lie about what they believe. A statement concerning an actual sighting of a flying saucer is more dubious though as it is more reasonable to conclude that the person is confused or lying(as I have yet to see one flying saucer, but have seen many confused and/or lying).

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.

Not really. On what basis do you have to think this is deception? Likewise Stalin's making pro-atheist and marxist statements pandered to the beliefs of the people, is it thus reasonable to suspect stalin of deception in that area?

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.

Again, apples and oranges friend. You are comparing two totally different types of claims (one concerning an admittance of one's personal belief vs a claim to supernatural abilities). The first is very much within the realm of background knowledge whereas the second is not.

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.

Don't be simple. It depends on the context. If for example a friend tells me he believes in god, I don't need compelling evidence at that point to accept his statement. I don't need photographs and eye witness testimony.

However if my friend says he or she has seen and been given supernatural powers by God, then that's a totally different claim which needs to be verified under controlled conditions before it is reasonable to believe.

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

Well if you go into the realm of what is absolutely possible...then sure. However then you have abandoned reason.

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.

And his own statements along with photographs count as this until you suggest otherwise. Perhaps you are simply biased on the issue and willing to use arguments from incredulity more so then if the claim had been one concerning Hitler's racism for example.

If you know basic logic then you should know testimony in this context is evidence enough. Especially when backed by photographs and statements from close associates.

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.

Yes such information would be useful but it is hardly necessary.

Do I likewise have to look up how Hitler treated Jews in person to determine whether or not he disliked Jews?

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.

You are commiting yourself to the false dillema you were so quick to accuse me of. Either a case is air-tight, has all the details and thus is considered reasonable, or a case lacks "details" (which you set the standard of rather arbitrarily) and is thus unreasonable. Either all cases are subjected to the same rigoruous demands for evidence or none are. Either testimony counts as strong evidence.....or it does not. However I don't see why these details are so essential in this context. The key thing here is context.

Perhaps if certain details to disconfirm my belief arose, then my case would fall apart. But that's what adhering to a provisional statement is all about. You go by the best evidence available at the moment, not some more precise evidence that may or may not exist.

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

And I will repeat my answer(as if repitition is a substitute for argument) I do not and I don't need to. The request is unreasonable. Technically this line of reasoning can be applied to any given case. Whatever a person says I can ask for more "details". This is why the burden of proof principle was established in the first place, to stop all debates from turning into a stalemate.

If you do not know the answers to questions such as these, then why are you trying to declare the matter settled?

Because based on what evidence we have now, the issue is settled. Whether you wish to view the evidence as "weak" or not. All else is proof surrogate at this point.

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?

No, that is demanding too much certainty and doing so on the basis of too vague a standard. Especially when the only reason you have to doubt is some pretty bizzare comparison of professiing a belief to a a claim to see a UFO/have paranormal powers.

In case you didn't know Nova is are two kinds of doubt: reasonable and unreasonable. It is extraordinary claims, like those concerning flying saucers and paranormal powers that require extraordinary evidence. For more ordinary claims, like those concerning profession of belief, ordinary evidence(such as testimony) is good enough to settle the issue.

 

[Nova Land]

DialecticMaterialist,

Hi! Clearly we disagree on how to weigh evidence. You are certainly free to weigh the evidence as you please and draw your own conclusions. My methods seem reasonable to me and have served me well in ascertaining truth, so I will stick with them.

I prefer to be slow in reaching conclusions, and setting aside judgment when there is reasonable doubt until I can find a way to resolve those doubts. That means it takes me longer to get places, but I'm more likely to end up at the correct places.

In the case of accepting people's public statements, there are certain matters where history tells us to be cautious. Sexual preference is one; religious belief is another.

Very few straight people claim to be gay, so if a politician or other public figure says they are gay I am inclined to accept that at face value. On the other hand, many gay people have claimed publicly to be straight; so a public declaration of heterosexuality by a politician or other public figure would not carry the same weight with me.

Likewise, very few public figures have falsely claimed to be atheists, so if a noted figure publicly declares themself to be an atheist I am inclined to take them at their word. But just as gay people have sometimes preferred to conceal their sexual orientation in order to avoid persecution, so atheists have sometimes preferred to conceal their religious orientation in order to avoid persecution. It is, to me, a reasonable possibility to consider before drawing conclusions.

That's all it is: a reasonable possibility to be considered. If no evidence turns up to indicate it's more than a possibility, then it becomes reasonable to dismiss it. That's why I want to examine the details.

If the public declarations are true, then we should find confirmation of this when we examine the less-public details. I do not see why we should be reluctant to ask questions and check the facts. What is true will stand up to scrutiny.

Interestingly, Jedi is not the only person making this assertion that public professions of religious belief cannot always be relied on. Jedi, who is anti-atheist, is joined in that by ntech, who is pro-atheist. In a different thread, ntech has argued that all noteworthy scientists must be atheists, and that any noteworthy scientist who publicly claimed to be religious was merely saying that to avoid persecution.

I disagree with the idea that religious people cannot be great scientists (and hope to start a thread to discuss that soon) but I agree with ntech that public profession of religion alone is not enough to establish genuine religious belief.

 

[CWL]

*Snip*

Anyway, where I wanted to get to is, of course, you realize that the quote above is entirely consistent with JK's anti-communist rhetoric (though it comes from a Protestant). He has stated that Leuther and the Reformation, through a train of humanist views leading through the enlightenment to Marx to Lenin and Stalin, has made not only Communism possible, but also countanences mass murder of any and all who disagree with the state (i.e. the state as a atheistic and substituting itself for "god").

*Snip*

My point is that as Pat Robertson (who Jedi Knight obviously accepts as a Christian) can hold a view that communism is the brainchild of Jewish intellectuals and still be a Christian, one might ask why Hitler - who believed communism was part of a "Jewish conspiracy" - can not.

Again, Hitler's hatred of the Jews is no proof of him being an atheist - or a non-Christian for that matter. As you have pointed out (and this is the point I am trying to make as well) is that a disliking of Jews is perfectly logical for a Christian, considering the Christian attitude towards Jews and Judaism which has been predominant over the ages.

 

[Nova Land]

Here are some more excerpts of the after-dinner conversations that touched on religion. The next "Table Talk" with relevant material is # 43. (It's only a brief mention, so I'll also be posting excerpts from # 51 in the post immediately following.)

Table Talk # 43
17th October 1941, evening

... The precept that it's men's duty to love one another is theory -- and the Christians are the last to practice it! A negro baby who has the misfortune to die before a missionary gets his clutches on him, goes to Hell. If that were true, one might well lament that sorrowful destiny: to have lived only three years, and to burn for all eternity with Lucifer!...

I have a couple of comments to make on the above, but I'll wait so that others can have first crack at it.

 

[Nova Land]

Table Talk 51

According to my notes, the next table talks touching on religion are 47, 48, and 49. However, the next one I photocopied seems to be # 51. I'm not sure if I've mislaid the copies of those three, or decided they were too minor to be worth copying, or what. If the copies don't turn up soon then I'll check the book again next time I visit Knoxville (which I hope will be next weekend) and make new copies if need be. Meanwhile, here are some relevant parts from # 51.

Table Talk # 51
24th October 1941, evening

On the whole earth there's no being, no substance, and probably no human institution that doesn't end by growing old. But it's in the logic of things that every human institution should be convinced of its everlastingness... Just as it is certain that one day the earth will disappear, so it is certain that the works of men will be overthrown.

... Religion is in perpetual conflict with the spirit of free research. The Church's opposition to science was sometimes so violent that it struck off sparks. The Church, with a clear awareness of her interests, has made a strategic retreat, with the result that science has lost some of its aggressiveness.

The present system of teaching in schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m. the pupils attend a lesson in the catechism, at which the creation fo the world is presented to them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural science, at which they are taught the theory of evolution. Yet the two doctrines are in complete contradiction. As a child, I suffered from this contradiction, and ran my head against a wall. Often I complained to one or another of my teachers against what I had been taught in despair an hour before -- and I remember that I drove them to despair.

The Christian religion tries to get out of it by explaining that one must attach a symbolic value to the images of Holy Writ. Any man who made the same claim 400 years ago would have ended his career at the stake, with an accompaniment of Hosannas. By joining in the game of tolerance, religion has won back ground by comparison with bygone centuries.

Religion draws all the profits that can be drawn from the fact that science postulates the search for, and not the certain knowledge of, truth. Let's compare science to a ladder. On every run, one beholds a wider landscape. But science does not claim to know the essence of things. When science finds that it has to revise one or another notion that it had believed to be definitive, at once religion gloats and declares: "We told you so!" To say that is to forget that it's in the nat;ure of science to behave itself thus. For if it decided to assume a dogmatic air, it would itself become a church.

When one says that God provokes the lightning, that's true in a sense; but what is certain is that God does not direct the thunderbolt, as the Church claims. The Church's explanation of natural phenomena is an abuse, for the Church has ulterior interests. True piety is the characteristic of the being who is aware of his weakness and ignorance. Whoever sees God only in an oak or in a tabernacle, instead of seeing Him everywhere, is not truly pious. He remains attached to appearances -- and when the sky thunders and the lightning strikes, he trembles simply from fear of being struck as a punishment for the sin he's just committed.

... Recent experiments make it possible for one to wonder what distinguishes live bodies from inanimate matter. In the face of this discovery, the Church will begin by risingin revolt, then it will continue to teach its "truths". One day finally, u;nder the battering-ram of science, dogma will collapse. It is logical that it should be so, for the human spirit cannot remorselessly apply itself to raising the veil of mystery without peoples' one day drawing the conclusion.

The 10 Commandments are a code of living to which there's no refutation. These precepts correspond to irrefragable needs of the human soul; they're inspired by the best religious spirit, and the Churches here support themselves on a solid foundation.

The Churches are born of the need to give a structure to the religious spirit. Only the forms in which the religious instinct expresses itself can vary. So-and-so doesn't become aware of human littleness unless he is seized by the scruff of the neck, but so-and-so does not need even an unchaining of the elements to teach him the same thing. In the depths of his heart, each man is aware of his puniness...

There's a lot more about religion in this particular table talk, and in the next one a day later as well! Many of the table talks contain only passing mentions of religion, but these are quite lengthy and address a number of points. Rather than put too much out for consideration at once, I'm going to pause at this point so people can consider and comment on the material so far.

I have refrained from highlighting the material in this post so people can form their own impressions of this material first. Once others have had a chance to read over this I'll post some of my own thoughts about it.