(Ed) Hitler's Atheism

[Nova Land]

... if an atheist is alone, he sits alone and does not think about God...

The instant that same atheist forms a religious group with other atheists, then he automatically proselytizes....

No. It is quite possible for atheists (or any other group) to get together to socialize. When you hold a minority belief, it's sometimes nice to hang out with people who have a similar belief and know what you're talking about and what you've been through.

That does not mean they are proselytizing each other, or have any intention to proselytize people outside the group. Not everyone finds proselytizing fun. Some people have other ways they prefer to spend their time.

Take a look at this forum. You have hundreds of people on this forum who say people who believe in religion are "stupid believers". Then these same people high-five each other at how "cool and fashionable" they look.

That is proselytizing...

I didn't say that no atheists or humanists proselytized. I said that not all did. I suspect the number who do proselytize is probably significantly less than the number who don't. It's just easier to notice when a person is proselytizing than when a person isn't.

If the topic of atheism is raised, and an atheist discusses their beliefs, that is not proselytizing in my book. Proselytizing is going out of one's way to bring up the subject and try to bring others to one's way of belief. Come on: haven't you noticed a lot of people on this board who don't do that?

 

[Jedi Knight]

No. It is quite possible for atheists (or any other group) to get together to socialize. When you hold a minority belief, it's sometimes nice to hang out with people who have a similar belief and know what you're talking about and what you've been through.

That does not mean they are proselytizing each other, or have any intention to proselytize people outside the group. Not everyone finds proselytizing fun. Some people have other ways they prefer to spend their time.
I didn't say that no atheists or humanists proselytized. I said that not all did. I suspect the number who do proselytize is probably significantly less than the number who don't. It's just easier to notice when a person is proselytizing than when a person isn't.

If the topic of atheism is raised, and an atheist discusses their beliefs, that is not proselytizing in my book. Proselytizing is going out of one's way to bring up the subject and try to bring others to one's way of belief. Come on: haven't you noticed a lot of people on this board who don't do that?

Yes, there are nice people on this board that I like to talk to. But check this out and see if you notice a trend with atheists. On this forum what do atheists do all the time? They ask a question to each other all the time. It is a question that is so obvious that it jumps right off the website almost daily.

The atheists ask themselves here: "why don't other people get it?" We have "all the answers" and the "others" just "don't get it". That is why they are woo woo's, kooks, etc etc.

Every single day I come here to read that form of logic in a thread in a new posting. Now, if 99% of the population doesn't "get it", why don't they?

JK

 

[Nova Land]

Continuing with analysis of the passages C4ts quoted from Mein Kampf:

Fourth quoted passage:

TODAY it seems to me providential that Fate should have chosen Braunau on the Inn as my birthplace.

In quoting this passage, C4ts asks, "Why would an atheist hold Fate or providence responsible for anything? That's an interesting question (why some atheists would) but not a reason to believe none do.

An atheist (by the definition some of us use) is someone who does not believe in a god. Some people -- both anti- and pro-atheist -- think more can be deduced from that. For instance, some anti-atheists in this forum assert that atheists must, by definition be immoral. The evidence does not seem to support such a belief. Some pro-atheists in contrast seem to assert that atheists must, by definition, be rational in all aspects of their life. Again, the evidence does not seem to support such a belief.

Many atheists are quite rational, in many areas of life, and it is quite possible that atheists on average are more rational than theists on average. But there is no evidence to show that atheists can't also hold irrational beliefs. An atheist can be a racist, can believe in UFOs or vampires, can make insane decisions about personal relationships, and conceivably could even be a Republican.

Can an atheist believe in Providence? If one defines god to include Providence, then obviously an atheist could not believe in Providence. But not everyone sees a belief in "special destiny" as the same as belief in a god.

I guess the key question is, "What did Hitler mean?" Did Hitler believe in a cosmic being which guided people's lives, or did Hitler think the universe was in motion and natural forces would cause some things to happen?

It's quite possible for a person who has an optimistic view of humanity to believe that civilization will progress over time and become more humane, without necessarily believing in a god; or for a more pessimistic person to believe that there will always be wars and poverty (again without having to believe in a god); or for someone to look at the skies and believe that eventually humanity will find a way to fly to the stars, or to hold any number of beliefs and feel these things are "destined" to happen.

Hitler seemed to believe he was a special person, destined to be a major player on the world stage. Is it possible to believe such a thing without believing in a god? I don't see why not. The next question, then, is did Hitler believe that?

In order to know whether Hitler's belief in his destiny was connected to belief in a god or not, we need to refer to passages where he expounds on his beliefs, or where people who knew him closely say what he told them about his beliefs. Mere passing references to "fate" or "providence", such as these, may be more related to his writing style than his religious beliefs.

Fifth passage:

If today I am more attached to this city than to any other spot of earth in this world, it is partly due to the fact that it is and remains inseparably bound up with the development of my own life; if even then I achieved the happiness of a truly inward contentment, it can be attributed only to the magic which the miraculous residence of the Wittelsbachs exerts on every man who is blessed, not only with a calculating mind but with a feeling soul.

This talks about being "blessed" with "a feeling soul". This is religious language, but does it indicate religious belief?

Religion permeates the English language -- and, quite likely, German. It is very difficult to write or speak without using such words and phrases (as some atheists have indicated in threads in this forum, I believe).

Atheists can be moved by music, by works of art, by breath-taking scenery. An easy way to express it is that it "touched the soul". Are there no atheists here who have ever used such an expression? I'm a pacifist, but I often use expressions with military overtones just because they are so common and non-violent alternatives are often a bother and a distraction.

In recent years various groups have become more aware of language and made more efforts to remove undesirable connotations from their speech. Some vegetarians try to avoid talking about "the meat of the matter"; some pacifists try to avoid talking about being "hit by an idea"; and I assume some atheists are trying to avoid "bless", "soul", etc. But would this have been common in Hitler's time? (And would Hitler have subscribed to such a liberal, PC way of thinking?)

What I would consider good evidence is Hitler actually elaborating about the soul -- what he thinks it is, where it came from, etc. Trying to deduce too much from his word choice in a non-religious passage seems stretching.

Sixth passage:

...But the people on top made a cult of the 'ally,' as if it were the Golden Calf. They hoped to replace by cordiality what was lacking in honesty. And words were always taken for coin of the realm...

Using the Golden Calf as a metaphor gives us no clue to Hitler's actual religious beliefs.

Seventh passage:

It must be said that such a territorial policy cannot be fulfilled in the Cameroons, but today almost exclusively in Europe. We must, therefore, coolly and objectively adopt the standpoint that it can certainly not be the intention of Heaven to give one people fifty times as much land and soil in this world as another...

"the intention of Heaven"? Now that's an odd wording! Is Heaven a thinking entity?

Again, this is trying to draw deductions from the language, rather than getting evidence from the actual ideas. Hitler has not expressed an actual belief in heaven here, he has used the word as a poetic way to express an idea. If an atheist were to describe an exotic dessert as tasting "divine" or a back-rub as feeling "heavenly", would that indicate they had been converted to theism? Sometimes an expression is just an expression.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

"the intention of Heaven"? Now that's an odd wording! Is Heaven a thinking entity?

Again, this is trying to draw deductions from the language, rather than getting evidence from the actual ideas. Hitler has not expressed an actual belief in heaven here, he has used the word as a poetic way to express an idea. If an atheist were to describe an exotic dessert as tasting "divine" or a back-rub as feeling "heavenly", would that indicate they had been converted to theism? Sometimes an expression is just an expression. [/B]

Nova Land - the "intention of Heaven" isn't an unusual phrase - especially in older, less contemporary English - it's just a flowery way of saying "God".

 

[Nova Land]

Yes, there are nice people on this board that I like to talk to.

And aren't some of them atheists?

But check this out and see if you notice a trend with atheists...

The atheists ask themselves here: "why don't other people get it?" We have "all the answers" and the "others" just "don't get it". That is why they are woo woo's, kooks, etc etc.

Every single day I come here to read that form of logic in a thread in a new posting.

Yes, there are people who post threads that seem designed to taunt theists.

But haven't you been known, on occasion, to post some provocative threads in hope of getting a reaction from people who you don't think "get it"?

The fact that some atheists enjoy proselytizing for atheism, or that some theists enjoy proselytizing for theism, or that some conservatives enjoy proselytizing for conservatism, doesn't mean that is true of all atheists, theists, or conservatives.

You've asserted that all atheists, by definition, proselytize on behalf of atheism. My experience tells me that is not the case. Are you sure that every atheist on this board starts threads such as the ones you've described?

 

[thaiboxerken]

On this forum what do atheists do all the time? They ask a question to each other all the time.

Well, I'm an atheist and I don't talk about god all the time on this board. Look in other sections and you'll see me talking about other nonsense besides god, "Chi" is a big one. But, if you only stay in the religion threads, of course all you'll see people talk about are gods and religion.


The atheists ask themselves here: "why don't other people get it?" We have "all the answers" and the "others" just "don't get it". That is why they are woo woo's, kooks, etc etc.

Hardly
Do you have supportive evidence for your absurd insinuations?


Every single day I come here to read that form of logic in a thread in a new posting. Now, if 99% of the population doesn't "get it", why don't they?
JK

The population that believes in a god is hardly 99%. And the population that believes in the same god gets even lower.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"conceivably could even be a Republican. "

Hey now, no need to take a stab at us atheist Republicans. I simply make too much money to vote democratic. I work damn hard to feed millions on welfare.

 

[Nova Land]

The "intention of Heaven" isn't an unusual phrase - especially in older, less contemporary English - it's just a flowery way of saying "God".

It's a flowery way of saying "God" -- yes, agreed. So Hitler is using flowery language.

That's precisely the point. Is the reference to heaven / god intended as flowery metaphor or as literal indication of his religous belief? People often refer to heaven, god, soul, and other religious things in their speech, without intending any religious statement.

"Heaven only knows!"

"God damn it!"

"That woman would try the soul of a saint."

"These are the times that try men's souls."

"I think I've died and gone to heaven!"

"When hell freezes over."

Yes, one can excise all these, and any other religious allusion, from one's speech. But how many people do?

I believe in weighing the evidence. A conclusion based on a possibly metaphorical word choice carries little weight, whether it supports or disagrees with what I'd like to believe. If Jedi were trying to use something this slim to back up his beliefs, would people be so non-skeptical?

The remaining passages from Mein Kampf are more substantial. And even these, slim as they are, are worth considering in the larger picture. Even metaphoric language can be revealing, especially if a person repeatedly uses certain phrases or images. But let's be aware of the difference between a passage in which Hitler says, "God has chosen me to carry out his work" and one in which he says, "Oh my God, it's dinner time already!"

 

[Nova Land]

Concluding my analysis of the passages from Mein Kampf that C4ts posted

Eighth passage:

...Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.

A fight for freedom had begun, mightier than the earth had ever seen; for once Destiny had begun its course, the conviction dawned on even the broad masses that this time not the fate of Serbia or Austria was involved, but whether the German nation was to be or not to be.

For the last time in many years the people had a prophetic vision of its own future. Thus, right at the beginning of the gigantic struggle the necessary grave undertone entered into the ecstasy- of an overflowing enthusiasm; for this knowledge alone made the national uprising more than a mere blaze of straw.

The intent of the passage seems to be to stir the reader with emotion about the grand struggle Germany was to be engaged in. He uses religious language and images to do this. The obvious question arises: how much of this is what he truly felt, and how much is simply calculated to manipulate his audience, whom he believes to be religious? Hitler would not be the first national leader to use religious appeals to motivate the troops. The same skepticism we need to apply to the "table talks" needs to be applied to these passages.

Also, the way he expresses this is interesting. He was "overpowered by stormy enthusiasm..."? As young people, we often are carried away by our emotions. At some point years ago, if Hitler is to be believed, he did believe in god and heaven. Did he still believe in it at the time of writing Mein Kampf, or had he put it aside as a childish "enthusiasm"? Hitler doesn't say.

My reservations notwithstanding, this is evidence worth considering. Hitler directly states that (at some point in his life) he had a belief in a god.

Ninth passage:

Any attempt to combat a philosophy with methods of violence will fail in the end, unless the fight takes the form of attack for a new spiritual attitude. Only in the struggle between two philosophies can the weapon of brutal force, persistently and ruthlessly applied lead to a decision for the side it supports.

This is an intriguing passage, but what does it mean? While the word "spiritual" can have religious overtones, it is not clear that is the intended meaning here. Does Hitler elaborate on this idea?

It sounds like he's saying you have to fight a philosophy with a competing philosophy. I have no problem imagining an atheist saying that.

Tenth passage:

And so, internally armed with faith in the goodness of God and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the struggle for what is called 'the reconstruction of the Reich' can now begin.

As in the 8th passage, Hitler is using religious language in his call to people to take part in a grand struggle. He seems to have no interest in talking about his religious beliefs themselves, only in using the words as rallying cries. This indicates he believes his potential followers to be religious, but does not tell us much about whether Hitler truly was.

Eleventh passage:

A doctrine which forms a definite outlook on life cannot struggle and triumph by allowing the right of free interpretation of its general teaching, but only by defining that teaching in certain articles of faith that have to be accepted and incorporating it in a political organization.

Here Hitler is arguing that only one doctrine should be allowed and people should be indoctrinated with it. There is nothing here about the doctrine being correct (which is important to most religions, including Christianity). Hitler's sole concern seems to be with dominance. That does not show Hitler was an atheist, but does not contradict such a belief either. C4ts selected this to refute Jedi's belief, but it seems quite consistent with what Jedi has maintained about Hitler.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

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


How does this speech figure into the belief of Hitler being atheist.. No wait, I'll answer that myself- Hitler was merely lying to gain popularity amongst his people. But wait, how would this speech motivate a nation of atheists, this certainly throws a wrench in JK's assertion that German was atheist during WWII.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"I thank Heaven that a portion of the memories of those days still remains with me. Woods and meadows were the battlefields on which the 'conflicts' which exist everywhere in life were decided.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)"

There is a slim possibility that it's just a figure of speech that Hitler is using, but I think one really has to reach to make this seem anything other than a confirmation of Hitler's belief in a Heaven.

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

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)"

Hmm. Does the "figure of speech" arguement work well with this quote as well?

 

[Nova Land]

""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter... For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

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

Thanks! This is good evidence -- clearly not simply flowery language or metaphor, but a clear strong statement. Hitler could be lying, but as you point out if so he is lying to people whom he believes to be Christians, not atheists.

... this certainly throws a wrench in JK's assertion that German was atheist during WWII.

Not necessarily. The speech is from 1922, and I think Jedi's exact wording implied that Germany was atheist from 1932 to 1940.

Why and how he believes Germany became atheist in 1932 (or ceased to be atheist in 1940) I am not at all clear. But there is no inherent contradiction between Hitler appealing to the Germans as Christians in 1922 and Jedi's contention that the German's were atheists in 1932.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"Why and how he believes Germany became atheist in 1932 (or ceased to be atheist in 1940) I am not at all clear. But there is no inherent contradiction between Hitler appealing to the Germans as Christians in 1922 and Jedi's contention that the German's were atheists in 1932."

Hmm.. I think it is, as one doesn't use jesus to motivate people to be atheist. But here are some other excerpts from speeches.



"Except the Lord built the house they labour in vain.... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty-- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us....
We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in March 1933 "

"While we destroyed the Centre Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests. The union of the Evangelical Church in a single Church for the whole Reich, the Concordat with the Catholic Church, these are but milestones on the road which leads to the establishment of a useful relation and a useful co operation between the Reich and the two Confessions.
-Adolf Hitler, in his New Year Message on 1 Jan. 1934 "

"We have experienced a miracle, something unique, something the like of which there has hardly been in the history of the world. God first allowed our people to be victorious for four and a half years, then He abased us, laid upon us a period of shamelessness, but now after a struggle of fourteen years he has permitted us to bring that period to a close. It is a miracle which has been wrought upon the German people.... It shows us that the Almighty has not deserted our people, that He received it into favour at the moment when it rediscovered itself. And that our people shall never again lose itself, that must be our vow so long as we shall live and so long as the Lord gives us the strength to carry on the fight.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the "Old Guard" of the Party at Munich on 19 March, 1934 "

 

[Nova Land]

"I thank Heaven that a portion of the memories of those days still remains with me. Woods and meadows were the battlefields on which the 'conflicts' which exist everywhere in life were decided.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)"

There is a slim possibility that it's just a figure of speech that Hitler is using, but I think one really has to reach to make this seem anything other than a confirmation of Hitler's belief in a Heaven.

Page reference, please? I'd like to look this one up in context. From the brief portion presented here, I see nothing to indicate more than figure of speech.

People use the expression "thank heaven" all the time with no religious intent. What is there about "woods and meadows" or "conflicts" that leads you to read more into this?

It would be good to use standards here that can also be applied to other cases where a person's religious beliefs are in question. It is not only heinous people such as Hitler in question; there are some very decent people, such as Einstein, whose precise religious beliefs have been subject to debate. If the use of phrases such as "thank heaven" shows Hitler was a theist, is use of similar language good evidence that other people who used such language were theists as well?

This is interesting. Jedi seems determined to declare the overwhelming majority of humanity to be atheists, and you appear to be offering a standard which would put the overwhelming majority (including, I suspect, quite a few people who consider themselves atheists) back into the theist camp.

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

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)"

This is a good piece of evidence; a clear statement, not flowery language.

I've seen this one referred to before, so it should be easy enough for me to find if you don't have the page reference, but if you do have the page reference it would be appreciated.

 

[Aardvark_DK]

JK, do you believe that any Christian person in the history of Christianity has done a bad thing? And if they have was it because they were suffering from temporary atheism?

And we're still waiting for your evidence regarding the celebrating of Stalin and Communism at universities.

 

[CWL]

That is a load of BS--not the "denial" you admit to, but the part where you said: "I do not, and I do not have any reason to, "always think of God."

If you are an atheist as you claim to be you are putting yourself into a category where you are proselytizing against God. To be an atheist is to be anti-Christian (antichrist activity) or any other religion.

It simply has to be that way. See it?

Then you said: My point is that non-believers in God are not the enemy as such either, JK.

I agree. I don't look at people that way, except for communists and radical Islamists. But atheism already removes tolerance for all religion and all religious thought. That is what atheism does. It is a 1% minority population opinion and not a popular one.

JK

JK, I am sorry but you are just dead wrong. I am myself a non-believer (I usually categorize myself as a secular humanist, but I have no objection to the term "atheist" being used about myself, as far as it connotes doubt as to the existence of, or non-belief in, God). Most of my friends and relatives (and a large number of people in Scandinavia in general) hold the same view.

I am not "proselytizing against god" in any way, nor do any of the people of the same persuasion that I know. I respect religious beliefs and people are most welcome to them - as long as such thinking does not become fundamentalist and anti-intellectual. Again, the enemy is not religion, but ignorance. Non-belief in god as such does not remove any tolerance.

You seem to indicate that christians are tolerant towards other beliefs. Excuse me if I beg to differ slightly...

I and the people I know tend to think of religion as a very private business which neither the state, nor any friendly neighbors (christian or otherwise) should interfere with. Do you know of many christians that share this view?

As to your 1%, I suggest that you submit your source. Perhaps there was a significant number of people who answered "no religious affilation". How many are "agnostics"? How many are "humanists"? How many refuse to answer?

This graph from www.adherents.com (which shows the major beliefs of the world population) clearly indicates that your 1% figure may not be entirely accurate:

Again, we are off topic. You omitted to answer my hypothetical question:

Do you agree that Hitler could have believed in a god despite the atrocities for which he was responsible?

A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Are you sure that every atheist on this board starts threads such as the ones you've described?

Absolutely, either that or they contribute to threads started by other atheists. Atheism is not true skepticism. Skepticism is doubt. Atheism does not doubt--it is convinced of an outcome and treats it as fact minus evidence.

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

And we're still waiting for your evidence regarding the celebrating of Stalin and Communism at universities.

Here is the evidence part 1.

Here is some more evidence about missing diversity.--the missing diversity being non-communists.

Here is some more evidence for you to read.

Here is some more evidence about commencement speakers that is interesting.

Here is some more for you to read.

Here is some more to check out.

Here is some more if you haven't read enough already.

Here is some more to cap it off.

JK

 

[CWL]

Absolutely, either that or they contribute to threads started by other atheists. Atheism is not true skepticism. Skepticism is doubt. Atheism does not doubt--it is convinced of an outcome and treats it as fact minus evidence.

JK

...and doubt as to the existence of God in the absence of any evidence (my personal stance) is what in your dictionary? I am not "convinced of any outcome" as you put it - I do not believe in a supreme supernatural being because I see no evidence therefor. How is that not being a "true skeptic"? Should we be "agnostic" as to the existence of unicorns as well? Or, should we doubt their existence until the contrary has been proven?

BTW, you have failed to respond to two other questions I have asked you:

1) What is your source for your statement that "atheism" is a "1% minority population opinion"?

2) Do you at least admit the possibility that Hitler could have believed in a god despite the atrocities for which he was responsible?

(Point being that if you do not admit such a possibility, any discussion with you as to whether or not Hitler was an atheist seems rather pointless. Your mind is then made up no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. I would personally not call this a skeptical position - as HS4 so puts it, we have in such case "passed beyond a place where fact, logic, history, etc. have any meaning".)

 

[Aardvark_DK]

JK, we can easily agree that political correctness is rubbish and a a lot of people take it to ridiculous extremes, but apart from that I was unable to find a single reference to Stalin in any of the links you provided. Maybe I just missed it?


And I ask again: Do you believe that any Christian person in the history of Christianity has done a bad thing? And if they have was it because they were suffering from temporary atheism? Popes? Crusaders? Inquisitors? Were they Christians at the time they did various horrible things?