Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
CWL said:
I am not answering worthless questions that waste my time. This isn't a level 101 debate, CWL. I haven't responded to your questions because they are amateurish.
JK
(Ed) Hitler's Atheism
- Thread starter Girl 6
- Start date
-
- Tags
- adolf hitler atheism
I am not answering worthless questions that waste my time. This isn't a level 101 debate, CWL. I haven't responded to your questions because they are amateurish.
JK
Aardvark_DK
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2002
- Messages
- 448
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of the discussion.Jedi Knight said:
Jedi Knight said:
Sorry but I think you must have been answering someone else posts and misquoted mine.
My question was what part of Nietzsche works provides evidence to support your contention that Hitler was an atheist?
Please provide some references - Thanks
I am making public my PM request to Girl 6 to step in and apply some moderation to this thread.
This is meant to be a discussion and that must mean that the participants are willing to answer questions raised by their own statements - if they are not then we do not have a debate and the reason for the moderation is removed.
I would urge Girl6 to consider deleting a large number of the above posts (mine included), provide a summary of the questions various debaters have asked and request the participants to resume the debate.
(Sorry for adding work to you Girl6 but authority always carries responsibility
)
This is meant to be a discussion and that must mean that the participants are willing to answer questions raised by their own statements - if they are not then we do not have a debate and the reason for the moderation is removed.
I would urge Girl6 to consider deleting a large number of the above posts (mine included), provide a summary of the questions various debaters have asked and request the participants to resume the debate.
(Sorry for adding work to you Girl6 but authority always carries responsibility
)CWL
Funkateer
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,401
Jedi Knight said:
Fine, you are of course free to ignore my questions (as I am free to point out that this says more about yourself than it does about my alleged amateurishness).
However, as you have dubbed HS4 an (almost) worthy debater, why don't you instead respond to his latest post?
[color=royal blue]Aardvark och Hans:
Hans har förvisso en poäng. Problemet är dock att det har även Aardvark. Vem skall företräda påståendet att Hitler var ateist om vår intolerante vän lämnar debatten?[/color]
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,570
JK is still holding on to nothing but christian revisionist history coupled with a never-tiring hatred of atheism and atheists to come to the conclusion that Hitler was atheist. Sorry, but atheists don't pray to god or gods........ Atheists don't brag about god saving them from assassinations....
Stalin was an atheist and did many wrongs, yes. I am objective enough to realize that another person that doesn't believe in god (the way I don't believe in god) is able to do evil. Why aren't you willing to admit that a person that believes in jesus or "god" can also do evil?
Stalin was an atheist and did many wrongs, yes. I am objective enough to realize that another person that doesn't believe in god (the way I don't believe in god) is able to do evil. Why aren't you willing to admit that a person that believes in jesus or "god" can also do evil?
I believe the reason Aardvark_DK gave those lines was to illustrate what appears to be your definition of an atheist. The question he (and others of us) is trying to get a response to is:Jedi Knight said:
what do you mean by "atheist"?
This is an important point to clear up. It seems clear that you do not mean simply "someone who does not believe in god" (or "someone who disbelieves in god"). It is not clear just what it is you do mean.
Yes, and you can help clear up some of this by explaining what you mean by the word "atheist".
A common source of misunderstanding is when one person means one thing by a word and another means something else entirely when using the same word. That appears to be the case here. There may be -- very likely are -- additional misunderstandings, but it's hard to even begin to work on them until we get that initial one out of the way.
That's fine. There's no need to engage in debate if you don't wish to. Debating is fun, but it's not my only (or even primary) reason for wanting to discuss things with people.
What I'm looking for in this discussion is a better understanding of what it is you believe and why. I'm quite willing to argue those things that I disagree with, but I have no compelling need to. I'm quite willing to listen to what you say and put forward, quite separately, my own analyses of the evidence I can find.
If you would like to debate about the things you believe, that's fine too. But before I or anyone can productively argue about what you believe we need to understand what you believe. Since a key term you are using is "atheist", and some of us are not clear what you mean by it, debate is a little premature.
And that is what I'm interested in!
I'm beginning to get a fuzzy picture of the outlines of your opinion. Among the things I'd like to understand, but don't, is what factual material your opinions are based on.
You have referred to Hegel and Nietzsche (who are philosphers, although their philosophies were used by players in political arena). I'm certainly willing to read some of their philosophy if you think it will help me to understand some of the historical facts you are referring to. Please provide me page references to selected portions of their writing which you think are especially relevant to the points you would like me to understand. (I will need these page references from you by Friday morning, as I hope to hitch-hike to Knoxville then.)
Many of the posts in this thread (including this one of mine, and the one of yours I am responding to) are empty of substance relating to the discussion topic. They are instead devoted to comments about the discussion itself -- who's responding, who's evading, what people should or should not be doing. We are having a meta-discussion rather than a discussion.
What I would like is to be able to spend more time putting forward evidence to be analyzed and reading the same from others. I have been offering excerpts from Hitler's Table Talks because this is a source you gave earlier as the basis for your belief Hitler was an atheist. I do not know if you have ever read the actual book, or simply excerpts that others have selected for you, but I am interested in your reactions to the material in it.
There are others here who dismiss the table talks (again, I do not know if this is on the basis of actually having examined them or simply on the basis of what others have told them) but do put reliance in other sources such as Mein Kampf and Hitler's public speeches. Rather than simply referring to these sources and implying this proves a point, I would enjoy people quoting from specific materials, especially primary sources which they have read for themselves and explaining what conclusions they draw from the material.
For instance, instead of simply referring to "Hitler's public speeches", I would welcome reading comments from someone who has read through significant portions of the published volumes of these about what they found there and which things grabbed their attention. Often, the selected excerpts we see bandied about give a different impression than the same things read in context.
Something else that might be of interest would be someone looking through microfilm of New York Times reportage back in the 1930s of Hitler's speeches. This might give us a better understanding not only of the content of the speeches but of how people -- such as Christians -- reacted to them. Better yet would be if someone who speaks German could look up the coverage of these in German newspapers from the time.
Whether any of this led to anyone's opinion changing or not, at least we would be having a content-filled discussion rather than simply an exchange of assertions. You have said several times that your beliefs are based on historical facts, so I hope you join me in wanting that kind of discussion here.
Thank you! This sounds very interesting, and the kind of thing I'm interested in learning about.CWL said:
Do you know a good book or magazine article describing this event? It is likely covered in many sources and I can locate it by looking in book index, but you could save me a little search time if you have a reference or two handy.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
Well, I am somewhat at a loss. Despite all efforts to engage in a real dialog about the proposed topic – the asserted atheism of Hitler – it seems to have all broken down. Not in a petty, name-calling kind of way, but because some in the thread prefer (and knowingly I suppose) talk past the other participants. That is fine for posturing, but it does little to foster understanding or honest exchanges of ideas – and there are some meaty ideas here.
I guess we can conclude that the conversation need not convince everyone. I am not suggesting, for example, that JK must be convinced of my opinion or resources and conclude that he is wrong regarding his assertions. Rather, I was merely hoping for some intelligent conversation that, if for example I was wrong about something, would point me toward ways to rethink it.
This will not happen, I fear.
JK, you are essentially claiming unique information and insight gleaned from your readings – information and insights that apparently very few scholars of Nazism and Fascism in Germany share. I repeat again, asserting something is fact doesn’t make it fact.
More specifically, it is particularly disappointing to see you completely ignore – NOT REFUTE, IGNORE – key points that I have repeatedly made. I can only assume one of two things – either I am dead on, and you cannot refute them, or I am a fool to believe them.
I am willing to be shown a fool. It happens every day. But, if that is so, please don’t leave me hanging in the wind; please show me specifically where I am wrong.
Here, again, for the fourth time, is my basic contention: Hitler and Nazism sprung from the history, political and economic context of Germany. The anti-Semitism that JK claims was a manifestation of Hitler’s and the Nazi State’s Atheism is anything but atheism in any normal, common sense use of the word.
The anti-Semitism that was practiced by the Nazis, I contend and am backed up by facts, flows from over a thousand years (pre-reformation) of anti-Semitism in European Christianity. For this, and other crimes against Jews, the Pope specifically apologized to the Jewish people.
My base point is that the Nazi’s anti-Semitism (key to JK’s argument that Hitler was Atheism – i.e. the Nazis had to, as an atheistic state, destroy all who would contend our counter their domination of all spheres of life, and thus had to eliminate all Jews as uncontrollable believers in a god other than Hitler/the Nazi State.) is only understandable in the context of the Christian history of Germany. Jews as “Christ-killers”, Jews as spawn of Satan. Everything flows from that “Christian” concept.
Again, I am not saying either Hitler of the Nazi’s were Christian –at least as commonly understood – but they very much believed in nature and a super-natural order of things that was governed by a greater divinity. Cite Nietzsche and Hegel all you want, the facts are in my favor (Indeed, I am not sure, but can be shown to be wrong, that you can even show that Hitler even read Nietzsche or Hegel, little less understood them, or that more than a handful of Nazis did also – the great mass of people accepted Hitler and his anti-Semitism BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY reflected the lessons regarding Jews that they had been hearing for over a thousand years in their churches).
In otherwords, the great mass of people accepted Hitler and Nazism becuase, as people who held themselves to be Christians, they completely understood the anti-Semitsim that the Nazi's spouted. THey might not have agreed to the "final" solution (though Goldhagen (sp?) suggests they were in complete accord), but they knew Jews to be Christ Killers and cursed of god --- THEIR CHURCHES HAD BEEN TELLING THEM THAT FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS.
Further, as I repeatedly pointed out above, anti-Semitism would be a completely alien concept for a true atheist. I again note Communism, Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Lenin and Stalin could mass murder with the best of them – far better, in fact, than Hitler. However, they weren’t interested in killing Jews for just being Jews. An atheist totalitarian murderer, as I have repeatedly shown with fact and logic, could care less what the blood of an individual was so long as his mind and body belonged to the state. In short, an apostate, non-practicing Jew who embraced the philosophy of the state would be just as welcome as an apostate Christian.
Hitler killed Jews, ALL JEWS. It was in their blood. God had cursed Jews and set them apart. They were the devil’s spawn. That was first and foremost the basis of the anti-Semitism. The scientific approach to genetics was IMPOSED after the fact, and it was a false science to boot. If the science didn’t deliver the genetic results the Nazi’s wanted – i.e. that Jews were different – it was discarded. Because, at base, Jews were seen as the Spawn of Satan…not because there was any credible scientific basis for the prejudice.
JK has refused to even acknowledge this argument. Therefore, I must conclude I am on to something.
In the end, this conversation is dying NOT because participants (other than JK) don’t know enough about philosophy or history. It is because they have brought to the table a vast number of facts, analogies and concepts that JK rejects without refutation and now hides behind “I know more than you, I can’t explain it until you’ve read as much as me…”
That is magic, not logic, not history, not philosophy, pure magic.
PS: This little game of asking folks to name the significant event that occurred in Berlin right prior to the end of the war is very juvenile. What are you referring to, and why play the game? I am very well read on Hitler, Nazism and Nazi Germany. I don’t recognize the reference – though I might if you were a little clearer (and I might recognize what you are referring to and understand the significance to your argument that you are trying to assign to it). However, you are the only one that knows what significance you meant by raising it?
I guess we can conclude that the conversation need not convince everyone. I am not suggesting, for example, that JK must be convinced of my opinion or resources and conclude that he is wrong regarding his assertions. Rather, I was merely hoping for some intelligent conversation that, if for example I was wrong about something, would point me toward ways to rethink it.
This will not happen, I fear.
JK, you are essentially claiming unique information and insight gleaned from your readings – information and insights that apparently very few scholars of Nazism and Fascism in Germany share. I repeat again, asserting something is fact doesn’t make it fact.
More specifically, it is particularly disappointing to see you completely ignore – NOT REFUTE, IGNORE – key points that I have repeatedly made. I can only assume one of two things – either I am dead on, and you cannot refute them, or I am a fool to believe them.
I am willing to be shown a fool. It happens every day. But, if that is so, please don’t leave me hanging in the wind; please show me specifically where I am wrong.
Here, again, for the fourth time, is my basic contention: Hitler and Nazism sprung from the history, political and economic context of Germany. The anti-Semitism that JK claims was a manifestation of Hitler’s and the Nazi State’s Atheism is anything but atheism in any normal, common sense use of the word.
The anti-Semitism that was practiced by the Nazis, I contend and am backed up by facts, flows from over a thousand years (pre-reformation) of anti-Semitism in European Christianity. For this, and other crimes against Jews, the Pope specifically apologized to the Jewish people.
My base point is that the Nazi’s anti-Semitism (key to JK’s argument that Hitler was Atheism – i.e. the Nazis had to, as an atheistic state, destroy all who would contend our counter their domination of all spheres of life, and thus had to eliminate all Jews as uncontrollable believers in a god other than Hitler/the Nazi State.) is only understandable in the context of the Christian history of Germany. Jews as “Christ-killers”, Jews as spawn of Satan. Everything flows from that “Christian” concept.
Again, I am not saying either Hitler of the Nazi’s were Christian –at least as commonly understood – but they very much believed in nature and a super-natural order of things that was governed by a greater divinity. Cite Nietzsche and Hegel all you want, the facts are in my favor (Indeed, I am not sure, but can be shown to be wrong, that you can even show that Hitler even read Nietzsche or Hegel, little less understood them, or that more than a handful of Nazis did also – the great mass of people accepted Hitler and his anti-Semitism BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY reflected the lessons regarding Jews that they had been hearing for over a thousand years in their churches).
In otherwords, the great mass of people accepted Hitler and Nazism becuase, as people who held themselves to be Christians, they completely understood the anti-Semitsim that the Nazi's spouted. THey might not have agreed to the "final" solution (though Goldhagen (sp?) suggests they were in complete accord), but they knew Jews to be Christ Killers and cursed of god --- THEIR CHURCHES HAD BEEN TELLING THEM THAT FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS.
Further, as I repeatedly pointed out above, anti-Semitism would be a completely alien concept for a true atheist. I again note Communism, Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Lenin and Stalin could mass murder with the best of them – far better, in fact, than Hitler. However, they weren’t interested in killing Jews for just being Jews. An atheist totalitarian murderer, as I have repeatedly shown with fact and logic, could care less what the blood of an individual was so long as his mind and body belonged to the state. In short, an apostate, non-practicing Jew who embraced the philosophy of the state would be just as welcome as an apostate Christian.
Hitler killed Jews, ALL JEWS. It was in their blood. God had cursed Jews and set them apart. They were the devil’s spawn. That was first and foremost the basis of the anti-Semitism. The scientific approach to genetics was IMPOSED after the fact, and it was a false science to boot. If the science didn’t deliver the genetic results the Nazi’s wanted – i.e. that Jews were different – it was discarded. Because, at base, Jews were seen as the Spawn of Satan…not because there was any credible scientific basis for the prejudice.
JK has refused to even acknowledge this argument. Therefore, I must conclude I am on to something.
In the end, this conversation is dying NOT because participants (other than JK) don’t know enough about philosophy or history. It is because they have brought to the table a vast number of facts, analogies and concepts that JK rejects without refutation and now hides behind “I know more than you, I can’t explain it until you’ve read as much as me…”
That is magic, not logic, not history, not philosophy, pure magic.
PS: This little game of asking folks to name the significant event that occurred in Berlin right prior to the end of the war is very juvenile. What are you referring to, and why play the game? I am very well read on Hitler, Nazism and Nazi Germany. I don’t recognize the reference – though I might if you were a little clearer (and I might recognize what you are referring to and understand the significance to your argument that you are trying to assign to it). However, you are the only one that knows what significance you meant by raising it?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,570
It should be noted that anti-semetism is promoted in the christian new testament, specifically the books of Titus, Thessalonians 1, Phillippians and very much so in the books of Acts and John. But.. maybe these books in the christian new testament are atheist writings...hmmmm.
Jedi Knight said:
If I may suggest that you enlighten us with this knowledge? It might help to illustrate your point. If you feel that people don't know it and it's central to your argument, then doesn't it follow that you would want to present your evidence for this knowledge?
Anyway, that last statement is unfortunate. I was hoping that people would not rise to the bait.
G6
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
Nova Land said:
I already defined my position on atheism. I defined it here in this thread. You read that definition. So there it is.
JK
Jedi Knight said:
You were doing fine until you got to this last paragraph. Here's what I think--stating that atheists are now going to defend their religion has NOTHING to do with supporting your position that Hitler was an atheist. It's a diversion, don't you think?
So, as a consequence, people are going to latch on to that instead of concentrating on presenting their evidence and opinions regarding your position.
People are generally confused as to what you think an atheist is. They are trying to draw this information out of you. I know you probably *think* you've presented your definition many times, but there is still confusion. As long as that is there, you're going to have people continue to ask you about it.
My suggestion is that you take the time to define atheism again. It won't hurt and it may even illuminate your position once again.
Also, depending on what your goal is, you are NOT wasting your time. In fact, if anything, you are in a unique position to educate us as to what your thinking is regarding this. Being in a minority position means that much of the time, the burden of proof is on you. Approach it from that angle and you may start to understand how to present your argument so that the majority opinion can appreciate it.
G6
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
headscratcher4 said:
I already defined my position on atheism several pages or so ago in this thread. There is no need for me to repeat it when participants can go there and read it. If they disagree with my description of their religion, fine. They do not have to agree with my description of their religion, as many Christians I know do not like my description of their religon.
Getting past that, it is laughable to keep asking me for my position on atheism when I have been very clear already. There is no need to ask me my position on atheism with every post that you or anyone else makes. I have been very, very clear about my position on atheism and have descriptively defined it.
Any questions? (besides my description of atheism which I already completely described)
JK
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
Girl 6 said:
No, I have been 100% accurate about describing the atmosphere in this debate. Debating atheism at JREF is like a Jew trying to debate the importance of Israel at a Nazi website.
This is a religious website where atheists like to gather and you can't debate religion with people because religion is something that people have little flexibility for. I have encountered the same form of religious zealotry on other websites including Christian ones. The Christians I have debated hold an even lesser opinion of religion and a lesser hostility than the religious atheists here on this forum.
Debating this topic here is like telling a chicken to vote for Colonel Sanders.
If people can't let go of their religious lusts like atheism, this conversation isn't going anywhere. I am talking about Hitler's religion (atheism), not anyone elses religion. I could care less what religious viewpoints people have.
A little less hostility from atheists here on the forum would go towards making this debate more constructive.
JK
Guest
Unregistered
G
Jedi Knight said:
From page 2, dated 10 Jan 03, 11:40 am. Still awaiting a response.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
JK,
This is not a definition, but rather a characterization, and an erroneous one at that.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------