Well, once again, go away for a weekend, and all hell breaks loose. I note, with appreciation, that Nova and a couple of others continue to try and stick to the core of the assertion: “Hitler was an atheist.” However, their brave attempts to interject facts, logic and sources into the discussion have seemingly fallen on deaf ears. Alas, for there are some very interesting statements from the texts cited – if potentially inconvenient.
I also note, reading back through the thread, that many of my most brilliant points have been completely ignored. I assume it is because the insights are, well, staggeringly insightful (if not redundent), well reasoned and beautifully logical. I can only imagine that addressing them would present the most difficult of challenges, and thus it would be better to be ignored. So, I conclude by thinking that I’ve essentially proved the case in opposition to the proposed assertion (Hitler was an atheist) as, in particular, JK has done nothing to refute my arguments (even to call them silly, etc).
Just a reminder, my core argument is that Hitler and Nazism arose out of a cultural context that included a vast amount of Christian inspired anti-Semitism. More importantly, killing Jews just for being Jews, and killing ALL Jews, is an action completely antithetical to any form of atheism (note, not that atheists could not perpetrate mass murder, only that killing Jews for genetic reasons is the action of a state/philosophy that is rooted in some form of conviction in the existence of a higher authority, a chosen people mentality, a Manichician (sp?) view of Good vs. Evil as differing faces of God, etc.)
Now, having looked over the posts from the last couple of days, I am going to Cherry pick. JK, as you have avoided commenting, refuting or acknowledging so many of my points, I will only respond to those that interest me and not to complete arguments. Further, my comments will mostly be observational as opposed to hard refutation…now, if I weren’t ignored, I’d waste even more time on it, so you all are lucking JK is ignoring me.
_________
JK: “Absolutist regimes of any form simply find the sharing of political power with religions unnatural”
An interesting observation. It brings to mind the question of what, ultimately, is the goal of religion? Using Christianity as an example for the purposes of this discussion, is the goal of Christianity to share or control all “political” and “temporal” powers? I thought, again citing Christianity, that it was spiritual salvation. Further, I would argue, as many of the great Christian philosophers and martyrs have, that spiritual salvation can be had without achieving political power of any form (indeed, political power has been known to pervert the spiritual message, as has form over function in the exercise of spirituality).
Further, I note that throughout the history of western culture, and again I use Christianity purely as an example, wherever the “church” (be it Catholic or Protestant) has either shared power with the state, or (in the case of the Papal States) controlled power absolutely, not only are other religions persecuted, but inevitably Jews have the worst of it.
JK: “Religion is the ultimate form of human freedom of thought…”
Again, an interesting statement. However, it would seem to be preposterous. Religion by necessity is the ultimate in opposition to freedom of thought. If there is a god, and (again, as an example) a Christian God, there can be no “freedom” of thought. Specifically, freedom of thought, doubt, belief in some other God(s) is a sin and not only will bring about eternal damnation on the individual freethinker, but must is usually crushed in an effort to prevent the “free thinker” from polluting the spirituality of the believer. So often, throughout history, the religiously oppressed have left one oppressive society to set up an alternative society where everyone thinks like they do about god – not to establish “freedom” of worship. In the US, for example, The Puritans persecuted the Quakers, the Protestant establishment persecuted the Mormons, the Mormons tried to build a Mormon utopia, and on and on.
I repeat: religion is the antithesis of freedom of thought and must be by necessity, definition and philosophy. Now, for JK’s argument that “atheism = religion,” than there is some merit to his construction. However, as most (to use a JK expression, 99%) of the users of the word “atheist” don’t conceive of it as a religion or equate “atheism” with “religion” or “worship” (as has been pointed out numerous times, this is an interesting conceit of JK and a few others on other threads), the analogy seems to fail.
JK: “If you are an atheist as you claim to be you are putting yourself in to a category where you are proselytizing against God. To be an atheist is to be anti-Christian (antichrist activity) or any other religion.”
I quote this along with the statement above. If you accept the definition that JK puts forth – atheism = religion – than the point has a modicum of merit. However, that is as may be. What I find interesting about the statement is its relationship to the above assertion that “religion is the ultimate form of freedom of thought.”
Now, putting aside for the moment the inherent contradiction of that statement with the belief that atheism = a religion (ergo, atheism would be part of the ultimate freedom of thought…) I am particularly struck by the lack of any historical or practical awareness of the above assertions. For instance, to be a Christian must, necessarily to be anti-any other religion. It isn’t that Christianity is a menu item (I’ll have a little Christianity today, please), to be a Christian is to view the world in a Christian context – Judeo/Christian context to be more precise.
Thus, it is that there is only one god, and only one way to spiritual salvation and “heaven” (through Jesus). All other religions are inherently in error. More importantly, they are sinful, idolatrous, anathematic, heretical, etc. More importantly, they are dangerous to Christianity, as their philosophies and errors might lead true Christians astray from the true path. In this respect, Christians in political power have, when not constrained by instruments such as the US Constitution and which requires that civil life respect and tolerate religious and political diversity, been so ready to drive those they disagree with to destruction. Just go look at the history of Jews under “Christian” government, or Quakers, or American Indians, or Aztecs or African slaves (whose religion was suppressed). And on and on.
Now, just to make it clear, I am not arguing that Christianity is unique. Moslems, Hindus, Jews, etc. have all done it or are doing it now. It is the nature of “religious” belief, in short, not to respect freedom of thought, but to repress all that which offends the concept of heaven.
____
JK: “take a look at this forum. You have hundreds of people on this forum who say people who believe in religion are ‘stupid believers’….”
Indeed, and I digress for a moment, but so? Not that it matters, but I’ve visited many religious sites (usually Christian), where the evil of those who do not believe as they believe is lamented, condemned and hated. While this observation of yours is consistent with your contention that Atheism is a “religion” (and, thus should be no surprise to you that those who think alike [or ‘worship’] alike, as the case may be, might find disbelievers in the message to be blind or “stupid” or evil. However, it doesn’t answer the inherent contradiction of the “religion” is the ultimate freedom of thought vs. “atheism” is the antithesis of religion theme that runs through your arguments….
___
JK: “You just don’t ‘get it”. I said on this thread in particular that Hitler selected atheism as the natural tool for the advancement of the Nazi state. There was no room for religion….”
This is just flat-out contradicted by history and fact, to which you have only responded with assertion and misdirection.
First, I note that you’ve argued that Hitler had to use the words and concepts of Christian Europe in order to dupe people into his madness. Specifically, your argument has essentially been that Hitler and Nazism were secret “atheists” and the theist/deist pieties he (and they) spouted about mandates from heaven, etc., were mere propaganda. But than, there must have been a plan to depose religion over time, for no true atheist, it seems to me, could stand to have his legacy be the perpetuation of a perverted deist/theist religion…i.e. he would want to believe that there would come a time when there would be no other god but Hitler (sort of the Kim Il Sung methodology). Can you show us that plan? Cite it?
I note, in addition, that the crazies in the SS highirarchy, were hell-bent (if you’ll pardon the expression) to re-establish pre-Christian, “Germanic” Tribal beliefs and worship. Hitler, as has been pointed out repeatedly, thought this was plain silly. However, I raise it to point out that as “atheists” these supposed “atheists” would have replaced one set of false beliefs with another? Seems silly.
Generally speaking, atheists are proud to proclaim their atheism. Hitler’s words show no such inclination.
Second…”no room for religion”. Huh? Of course there was room for religion. Hitler signed a concordant with the Catholic Church. He co-opted the leaders of the Protestant churches. There were “chaplains” in the army to minister to believing Germans. Because you don’t want to recognize that the Christian mainstream churches (foolishly) opted for stability and Hitler and to be part of the establishment, doesn’t negate the fact that the established churches existed and functioned.
More importantly, and this is the core of the issue, individuals – rightly or wrongly – who attended those churches AND participated in the regime (either tacitly or actively, a’la Goldhagen’s books on the participation of the average German in Nazi atrocities) believed in God – and specifically, that they were Christian. Now, you may conclude that these were un-Christian acts, and that their faith was misplaced, but – to use your statistical method – 99% of them found some way to keep their faith and compromise with the Nazi regime. That doesn’t suggest that there was no room for religion. It might suggest that Christianity adapted to the evil – and in some cases embraced it. I might suggest, as I have (without refutation from you) that Christians throughout Europe had a tradition of persecuting not only Jews but also anyone who did not share their state Christianity. However, what it doesn’t do is get away from the fact that individually, these people believed not only in God, but also, presumably, the salvation of Christ.
____
JK: “Nazi Germany and World War II, history books…. you don’t have a library card do you?”
Have to respond to this little piece of intellectual shenanigans. You’ve never cited a book. You merely make assertions. So, it is a bit, well, amusing to hear you lecture someone about not being well-enough read on the topics. Perhaps it would help if you would name which books in particular you believe prove your point.
For my own part, when I read this statement, I counted the books on my home library shelf on WWII, Nazism, Fascism and Hitler. They number 46. I can say with confidence that I’ve read at least 40 of them – even cover to cover. They include Shire, Hitler, Trevor-Roper, Speer, Ardent, and on and on. In not a one of these volumes has anyone made the assertion that Hitler was an atheist. Now, that is not to say that they say Hitler was a “Christian” (as I repeatedly have said, I don’t believe he was), but not a one says Hitler was an atheist. That is not to suggest that Hitler wasn’t an atheist, rather only to suggest that as a revisionist, the burden is completely on you to refute, dispute and reconstruct the known facts to reach a reasonable, believable and supportable conclusion. You’ve not done so. You’ve never done so.
Finally,
JK: “ When an evil atheist like Hitler says something and then does the opposite…”
Here, I think is my biggest argument with you. You have continually dismissed Hitler’s words and argued look to his actions. First, and ignored, have I demonstrated to you that Hitler’s actions were completely consistent with Theist/Deist and Christian tradition in Europe (with respect to Jews in particular).
Second, Hitler – throughout his career – was completely up front not only about his antipathy for Jews, but his desire to do something about them to save Germany. There are no flowery words; there are only threats, hatred, libels, slander and more threats against the Jews. I am not the first to point out that no German can claim to not have heard Hitler’s message about the Jews, but only thought he was bluffing of puffing. Hitler said the Jews must be taken care of; he set out to do it.
In short, his words and deeds in this most critical of matters is completely consistent. COMPLETELY. So, at the very least, when Hitler says things along the line of … it is our mission from God/Heaven to deal with the filthy Jews….there is every reason to believe NOT ONLY that he was going to get the Jews, but that he saw himself as a mission under “God”.
Now, it might not be any god you recognize, but seemingly Hitler did. And, by believing himself under a “god” he is not an atheist…no matter how much you torture the definition.
