(Ed) Hitler's Atheism
- Thread starter Girl 6
- Start date
-
- Tags
- adolf hitler atheism
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
MRC_Hans said:
Your country offends the world. Maybe you should apologize.
JK
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,573
Jedi Knight said:
His country doesn't offend me. You really are a hateful person, aren't you? But, I'm sure that doesn't surprise anyone in the forum.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
You mean the last 10 or so, ehh? (With the one by HS as an exception).
Well, I dont wish to make this personal, but it does hamper any discussion if a prominent participator consistently refuses to follow the rules. Rules like:
Accept the axioms of the discussion.
Use accepted terminology.
Present you arguments and documentation.
Assess the opponent's arguments and documentation.
Making unfounded (and completely off-topic) insults doesn't help any. I'm all for playing by the rules, but I feel that the same rules should apply to all.
Hans
Well, I dont wish to make this personal, but it does hamper any discussion if a prominent participator consistently refuses to follow the rules. Rules like:
Accept the axioms of the discussion.
Use accepted terminology.
Present you arguments and documentation.
Assess the opponent's arguments and documentation.
Making unfounded (and completely off-topic) insults doesn't help any. I'm all for playing by the rules, but I feel that the same rules should apply to all.
Hans
Throughout this discussion, it has seemed evident that Jedi somehow equates atheism with heinous behavior. In arguing that Hitler was an atheist, Jedi has seemed to be defining an atheist as someone who does heinous things, leading some people to assume Jedi had simply defined the term in a way that led to the conclusion he had already reached.
I do not think that is actually the case. I think I am beginning to understand how Jedi is defining "atheist". If I am understanding correctly, it is actually a meaningful and fairly reasonable definition, even though it is significantly different from the one many of us are used to.
Let's start with the obvious. An atheist is someone who does not believe in god. Surprisingly (considering the way the discussion in this thread has gone) we may actually be in agreement on that. The problem -- and the reason Jedi seems to be talking about something else entirely -- may be that the word "believe" has 2 meanings.
Many of us understand the phrase "does not believe in god" to mean "does not believe in the existence of god". However, the phrase could also be taken to mean, "does not believe in the teachings of god".
That seems to square with what Jedi has been saying. If I'm understanding correctly, Jedi is saying that Hitler, Dahmer, Manson, etc., were aware that god existed but felt that they could ignore god. Reasons for doing this could include: feeling god is over-rated; feeling one is superior to god, or even feeling god is non-existent.
It's a much broader definition of atheist than the conventional one, and a somewhat biased one because it largely assumes the existence of a particular god with particular rules. That, however, may be what makes it so attractive to some theists. My guess is that this is the definition some (many?) conservative Christians I hear on the radio are using.
There are some theists who are unable to grasp the concept of atheist as someone who does not believe in the existence of god, since, to them, everyone knows god is real. (For example: "There are no atheists in foxholes." And: "All humans will call out to a God as they get ready to check out of the big hotel.") But they can understand the concept of someone rejecting god.
I believe Jedi is not the only person to hold this new conception of atheist. He is simply the only one present in this discussion.
It's actually a fairly useful concept to have a label for. It's just a shame to take a label, atheist, that was already being put to good use.
I believe the definition of atheist as someone who does not believe in the existence of god is the historically-correct definition. (I also believe it is the one that people who call themselves atheists intend when they use the word.)
If that is correct, then people using the definition of someone who rejects god could be seen as hijacking the term atheist -- taking a good, useful term and giving it a new meaning.
So?
Words get hijacked all the time. I get annoyed, for example, when people refer to embezzlers, swindlers, or marijuana smokers as "non-violent criminals". That mis-usage has become so wide-spread that it will probably be necessary for pacifists once again to coin a new term for the concept of non-violence. If there are many theists now using the word atheist to mean "person who has rejected god", then atheists may be in a similar situation.
That's something that can be discussed elsewhere. What I'm interested in is why some people believe Hitler was an atheist and what, if any, merit there is to the claim. Understanding what Jedi is actually saying is important to that.
Jedi: have I got the hang of what you are saying yet?
I do not think that is actually the case. I think I am beginning to understand how Jedi is defining "atheist". If I am understanding correctly, it is actually a meaningful and fairly reasonable definition, even though it is significantly different from the one many of us are used to.
Let's start with the obvious. An atheist is someone who does not believe in god. Surprisingly (considering the way the discussion in this thread has gone) we may actually be in agreement on that. The problem -- and the reason Jedi seems to be talking about something else entirely -- may be that the word "believe" has 2 meanings.
Many of us understand the phrase "does not believe in god" to mean "does not believe in the existence of god". However, the phrase could also be taken to mean, "does not believe in the teachings of god".
That seems to square with what Jedi has been saying. If I'm understanding correctly, Jedi is saying that Hitler, Dahmer, Manson, etc., were aware that god existed but felt that they could ignore god. Reasons for doing this could include: feeling god is over-rated; feeling one is superior to god, or even feeling god is non-existent.
It's a much broader definition of atheist than the conventional one, and a somewhat biased one because it largely assumes the existence of a particular god with particular rules. That, however, may be what makes it so attractive to some theists. My guess is that this is the definition some (many?) conservative Christians I hear on the radio are using.
There are some theists who are unable to grasp the concept of atheist as someone who does not believe in the existence of god, since, to them, everyone knows god is real. (For example: "There are no atheists in foxholes." And: "All humans will call out to a God as they get ready to check out of the big hotel.") But they can understand the concept of someone rejecting god.
I believe Jedi is not the only person to hold this new conception of atheist. He is simply the only one present in this discussion.
It's actually a fairly useful concept to have a label for. It's just a shame to take a label, atheist, that was already being put to good use.
I believe the definition of atheist as someone who does not believe in the existence of god is the historically-correct definition. (I also believe it is the one that people who call themselves atheists intend when they use the word.)
If that is correct, then people using the definition of someone who rejects god could be seen as hijacking the term atheist -- taking a good, useful term and giving it a new meaning.
So?
Words get hijacked all the time. I get annoyed, for example, when people refer to embezzlers, swindlers, or marijuana smokers as "non-violent criminals". That mis-usage has become so wide-spread that it will probably be necessary for pacifists once again to coin a new term for the concept of non-violence. If there are many theists now using the word atheist to mean "person who has rejected god", then atheists may be in a similar situation.
That's something that can be discussed elsewhere. What I'm interested in is why some people believe Hitler was an atheist and what, if any, merit there is to the claim. Understanding what Jedi is actually saying is important to that.
Jedi: have I got the hang of what you are saying yet?
A key question in this discussion is whether a person who believes in god can commit heinous acts. Jedi seems to be asserting that the actions that the Germans committed against the Jews during WW II were not actions that god would have approved of so they must have been the actions of someone who had rejected god.
On the surface that sounds plausible. It depends, however, on a particular conception of god. I believe that there are many, many different conceptions of god, and that actions such as the Nazis are indeed compatible with some of these.
Let me try to list some of the different conceptions of god.
1. God = creator of the universe. This is common to many religions, including most Christian ones: the idea that god created everything.
2. God = master of the universe. This is also fairly common, and is a part of manyChristian religions: the idea that god is an all-powerful being that controls everything.
3. God = source of all that is good, or embodiment of all that is good. This is also fairly common: the idea of god as representing all that is right and good.
3-A. God = perfect love. (This may or may not be the same as the previous one.)
4. God = the ultimate judge. Liberal Christian religions tend to emphasize god as perfect love; conservative Christian ones tend emphasize god as the harsh judge who will send the righteous to heaven and everyone else to hell.
Those are some of the major modern (Western) conceptions of god. However, there are others in the Judeo-Christian tradition. One very important older one, less emphasized today, is:
5. God = tribal protector and military leader. In old testament times, different tribes worshipped different gods, and these gods were seen as helping tribes to conquer their enemies. In many old testament stories, god directs the military actions, and victory is seen as being a result of following god's instructions, in daily life and on the battlefield. These instructions were often baffling (take only the soldiers who drink out of cupped hands) and often appallingly violent (kill every woman, every man, every child, every animal).
Now, if a religion taught a conception of god that was primarily # 3 or # 3-A, it might be reasonable to conclude that a person who committed atrocities such as the Nazis' had rejected god's ways. But if a religion taught a conception of god as # 5, then there would be no inherent contradiction between following god and committing atrocities. Indeed (as HS4 as pointed out in several well-written posts) the religion could even be the foundation for such actions.
If Jedi is defining atheist as "someone who has rejected god", the question comes up, whose god? Are we talking about the god the Hitler recognized, or are we talking about the god Jedi recognizes? In order for Hitler to knowingly reject god, it would need to be the one Hitler recognized.
If Hitler was raised on a god of love and forgiveness, of turn the other cheek and swords into plowshares, then his actions as leader of the Nazis were a clear rejection of that god (and he would be an atheist by Jedi's standards, if I've understood Jedi's standards correctly).
But if he were raised as a conservative Catholic in the early 20th century, that was probably not the god he was raised on. And it certainly does not seem to be the god he recognized as an adult! He seemed to despise the conception of god as loving and forgiving. In that case, Hitler was not necessarily rejecting god -- the god Hitler recognized -- when he instituted the "final solution." Nor were other Germans, if they too recognized a god who called for harsh actions against the enemy.
Two questions arise then.
(1) What god did Hitler and his followers recognize?
(2) Were the acting in accordance with their perceptions of this god's ways, or in rejection of that?
Can we determine this? Possibly. In his appeals to his followers, Hitler sometimes used religious language. What conceptions of god does Hitler draw on in these? This may give us a clue what Hitler's own beliefs are; it should also give us a clue what the beliefs of his followers were, since if Hitler were lying in order to manipulate people, the language and images he used in these appeals must be the ones he thought they would respond to best.
Surely, either Hitler's references to god and religion in his speeches are lies designed to appeal to and sway his followers, or they are indications of his true beliefs. The other alternative, that they are lies which represent neither his own beliefs nor those of his followers, would present a baffling mystery as to what his purpose could possibly be.
Was Hitler acting in accordance with his perception of this god's ways, or in rejection? Here, the table talks and other records of his conversations with associates should give us a clue. Did he speak positively or belittlingly of god? Did he place himself above god? Indicate god was foolish? An ego large enough to feel superior to god would be unlikely to conceal such superiority, so if this claim is true there should be evidence of it.
On the surface that sounds plausible. It depends, however, on a particular conception of god. I believe that there are many, many different conceptions of god, and that actions such as the Nazis are indeed compatible with some of these.
Let me try to list some of the different conceptions of god.
1. God = creator of the universe. This is common to many religions, including most Christian ones: the idea that god created everything.
2. God = master of the universe. This is also fairly common, and is a part of manyChristian religions: the idea that god is an all-powerful being that controls everything.
3. God = source of all that is good, or embodiment of all that is good. This is also fairly common: the idea of god as representing all that is right and good.
3-A. God = perfect love. (This may or may not be the same as the previous one.)
4. God = the ultimate judge. Liberal Christian religions tend to emphasize god as perfect love; conservative Christian ones tend emphasize god as the harsh judge who will send the righteous to heaven and everyone else to hell.
Those are some of the major modern (Western) conceptions of god. However, there are others in the Judeo-Christian tradition. One very important older one, less emphasized today, is:
5. God = tribal protector and military leader. In old testament times, different tribes worshipped different gods, and these gods were seen as helping tribes to conquer their enemies. In many old testament stories, god directs the military actions, and victory is seen as being a result of following god's instructions, in daily life and on the battlefield. These instructions were often baffling (take only the soldiers who drink out of cupped hands) and often appallingly violent (kill every woman, every man, every child, every animal).
Now, if a religion taught a conception of god that was primarily # 3 or # 3-A, it might be reasonable to conclude that a person who committed atrocities such as the Nazis' had rejected god's ways. But if a religion taught a conception of god as # 5, then there would be no inherent contradiction between following god and committing atrocities. Indeed (as HS4 as pointed out in several well-written posts) the religion could even be the foundation for such actions.
If Jedi is defining atheist as "someone who has rejected god", the question comes up, whose god? Are we talking about the god the Hitler recognized, or are we talking about the god Jedi recognizes? In order for Hitler to knowingly reject god, it would need to be the one Hitler recognized.
If Hitler was raised on a god of love and forgiveness, of turn the other cheek and swords into plowshares, then his actions as leader of the Nazis were a clear rejection of that god (and he would be an atheist by Jedi's standards, if I've understood Jedi's standards correctly).
But if he were raised as a conservative Catholic in the early 20th century, that was probably not the god he was raised on. And it certainly does not seem to be the god he recognized as an adult! He seemed to despise the conception of god as loving and forgiving. In that case, Hitler was not necessarily rejecting god -- the god Hitler recognized -- when he instituted the "final solution." Nor were other Germans, if they too recognized a god who called for harsh actions against the enemy.
Two questions arise then.
(1) What god did Hitler and his followers recognize?
(2) Were the acting in accordance with their perceptions of this god's ways, or in rejection of that?
Can we determine this? Possibly. In his appeals to his followers, Hitler sometimes used religious language. What conceptions of god does Hitler draw on in these? This may give us a clue what Hitler's own beliefs are; it should also give us a clue what the beliefs of his followers were, since if Hitler were lying in order to manipulate people, the language and images he used in these appeals must be the ones he thought they would respond to best.
Surely, either Hitler's references to god and religion in his speeches are lies designed to appeal to and sway his followers, or they are indications of his true beliefs. The other alternative, that they are lies which represent neither his own beliefs nor those of his followers, would present a baffling mystery as to what his purpose could possibly be.
Was Hitler acting in accordance with his perception of this god's ways, or in rejection? Here, the table talks and other records of his conversations with associates should give us a clue. Did he speak positively or belittlingly of god? Did he place himself above god? Indicate god was foolish? An ego large enough to feel superior to god would be unlikely to conceal such superiority, so if this claim is true there should be evidence of it.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
Nova: two interesting posts...the problem I have with it -- with what you attribute to JK, not your effort to determine what JK means in lieu of any proffered explanation (i.e. my concern about secret wisdom and hidden understandings instead of discussion) -- is quite simple.
If, as you say, JK's definition of atheism is that it incorporates someone who recognizes god, but believes themselves to be either unaccountable or able to ignore god, does not seem to me to fit the bill with respect to Hitler in particular.
Keeping in mind, for a moment, that the only contrary arguments offered has been assertions rather than any sort of historical documentation, scholarly analysis or logical re-interpretation of known facts, it is important to focus on the fact that you, and others, have introduced much into the discussion that specifically shows the following:
Hitler didn't merely acknowledge that God exists and ignore it, or contend that rule/authority, etc. did not extend to him (or his regime -- I think it important to not let single Hitler out as a lone operator a'la Bundy, Manson, etc., he was an "actor" and perpetrator on a much larger scale...), Hitler argues that he is EXPLICITLY fulfilling God's plan.
In other words, Hitler doesn't ignore god, he continually presents himself as motivated, selected, protected and defended by God, by God's laws and as God's agent for the salvation of the Aryan/German people, and as God's agent of retribution against the Jewish people.
Now, while the thought that Hitler ignored god's law is convenient and not entirely illogical conclusion, it rests entirely on a premise, it seems to me, that a). God's law is a fixed thing; b). understood by most people (inherently (sp?) and culturally); and c). that most people (civilized at least) understand both God and God's law in the same way.
In short, it would appear that, for your explanation to work, it requires that there be a conclusion drawn that specifically it is a "Christian" god that exists (God of the old and new Testament), that that God is the only possible god, and that the rules laid out by that god are universal truths and that to ignore or defy those rules is to embrace "atheism".
Now, not only is that a definition that is not common, I suggest it is almost unique. Further, it is an interesting definition for it is essentially, as I have argued, the "atheism" argument in reverse.
By this I mean, it is the argument that I've made that suggests that religion, inherently, is completely antithetical to freedom of thought (contrary to JK's assertion). In other words, under this definition/understanding, no Hindu, Moslem --even Jew (rejecting Jesus as the Messiah) can be determined to be other than an atheist (i.e. rejecting, ignoring god and god's law). Everyone BUT those who hold to some definition of god's law is, in short, an atheist.
But, how do we know what God's law is? JK doesn't really tell us. We can assume from his writings, however, that it is pretty narrowly defined to some sort of pre-reformation interpretation of Catholic Christianity -- minus, of course, all of the abuses of Christianity by "Catholic" authority that can be shown to have existed pre-reformation.
Anyway, my point is that for JK to get anywhere and support his assertion that religion is the ultimate respecter of freedom of thought. He essentially must limit his definition of "religion" -- or at least free thought -- to his interpretation of Christian thought (this, for a moment, gets away from his argument that atheism is a religion and worshiped). In other words, the only way to interpret his views is that all forms of religious worship, understanding, revelation, prophesy, etc. that is not Christian (and Christian as he defines it) is, essentially atheistic (and here, it seems to me, it leads to atheism as a religion -- but a incorrect, imperfect and morally suspect religion/form of worship).
The bottom line, is that for JK Hitler can't be a theist/deist and especially not a Christian, nor his regime be under any of the above, because he is incapable of recognizing any God but the God he has determined to exist and his own interpretation of the true path to that god. Any "believer" that exists outside of that path, is of course, essentially an atheist.
Thus, for instance, it doesn't matter how "humanists" define themselves, they can't/don't/won't recognize JK's version of God and God's law, so they are atheists. Similarly, so are Marxists. Similarly so are Islamics. Similarly so are Hindus, and on and on. Not a one has the right to define for themselves what they believe because it is in conflict with what JK "knows" to be true religion, faith, understanding, etc.
The problem, if it isn't obvious, is that this is inherently a very unique interpretation and position to be in. No matter what "facts" are proffered, they can always be dismissed or ignored because they do not seem to fit into the basic operating principal of the universe, as JK has individually defined it.
No matter how anyone else defines God, God's existence, their relationship to God, etc. Jk, ultimately, knows better and can dismiss that individual experience. First, because he is incapable of knowledge of it (i.e. he can't know what you, I, or Hitler think); second, he can assert that the alternative definition, interpretation, explanation is a lie (i.e. if you say you are acting under God's authority, he (JK) knowing what that authority is, can dismiss your claim as he has more complete knowledge of the situation and can discern that you are either deluded but more likely a liar).
In the end, JK -- and JK alone -- is able to determine who is an atheist and what atheism is, who is lying about their beliefs (as he has more perfect knowledge not only about how the universe is really constituted, but, indeed, how god manifests himself in the world), and how belief truly manifests itself in the world.
I say all of this knowing full well that there will be no response, no argument, no acknowledgement that my arguments, conclusions have any merit or are full of sh**t -- which, will of course, lead me to conclude that I am right on the money.
If, as you say, JK's definition of atheism is that it incorporates someone who recognizes god, but believes themselves to be either unaccountable or able to ignore god, does not seem to me to fit the bill with respect to Hitler in particular.
Keeping in mind, for a moment, that the only contrary arguments offered has been assertions rather than any sort of historical documentation, scholarly analysis or logical re-interpretation of known facts, it is important to focus on the fact that you, and others, have introduced much into the discussion that specifically shows the following:
Hitler didn't merely acknowledge that God exists and ignore it, or contend that rule/authority, etc. did not extend to him (or his regime -- I think it important to not let single Hitler out as a lone operator a'la Bundy, Manson, etc., he was an "actor" and perpetrator on a much larger scale...), Hitler argues that he is EXPLICITLY fulfilling God's plan.
In other words, Hitler doesn't ignore god, he continually presents himself as motivated, selected, protected and defended by God, by God's laws and as God's agent for the salvation of the Aryan/German people, and as God's agent of retribution against the Jewish people.
Now, while the thought that Hitler ignored god's law is convenient and not entirely illogical conclusion, it rests entirely on a premise, it seems to me, that a). God's law is a fixed thing; b). understood by most people (inherently (sp?) and culturally); and c). that most people (civilized at least) understand both God and God's law in the same way.
In short, it would appear that, for your explanation to work, it requires that there be a conclusion drawn that specifically it is a "Christian" god that exists (God of the old and new Testament), that that God is the only possible god, and that the rules laid out by that god are universal truths and that to ignore or defy those rules is to embrace "atheism".
Now, not only is that a definition that is not common, I suggest it is almost unique. Further, it is an interesting definition for it is essentially, as I have argued, the "atheism" argument in reverse.
By this I mean, it is the argument that I've made that suggests that religion, inherently, is completely antithetical to freedom of thought (contrary to JK's assertion). In other words, under this definition/understanding, no Hindu, Moslem --even Jew (rejecting Jesus as the Messiah) can be determined to be other than an atheist (i.e. rejecting, ignoring god and god's law). Everyone BUT those who hold to some definition of god's law is, in short, an atheist.
But, how do we know what God's law is? JK doesn't really tell us. We can assume from his writings, however, that it is pretty narrowly defined to some sort of pre-reformation interpretation of Catholic Christianity -- minus, of course, all of the abuses of Christianity by "Catholic" authority that can be shown to have existed pre-reformation.
Anyway, my point is that for JK to get anywhere and support his assertion that religion is the ultimate respecter of freedom of thought. He essentially must limit his definition of "religion" -- or at least free thought -- to his interpretation of Christian thought (this, for a moment, gets away from his argument that atheism is a religion and worshiped). In other words, the only way to interpret his views is that all forms of religious worship, understanding, revelation, prophesy, etc. that is not Christian (and Christian as he defines it) is, essentially atheistic (and here, it seems to me, it leads to atheism as a religion -- but a incorrect, imperfect and morally suspect religion/form of worship).
The bottom line, is that for JK Hitler can't be a theist/deist and especially not a Christian, nor his regime be under any of the above, because he is incapable of recognizing any God but the God he has determined to exist and his own interpretation of the true path to that god. Any "believer" that exists outside of that path, is of course, essentially an atheist.
Thus, for instance, it doesn't matter how "humanists" define themselves, they can't/don't/won't recognize JK's version of God and God's law, so they are atheists. Similarly, so are Marxists. Similarly so are Islamics. Similarly so are Hindus, and on and on. Not a one has the right to define for themselves what they believe because it is in conflict with what JK "knows" to be true religion, faith, understanding, etc.
The problem, if it isn't obvious, is that this is inherently a very unique interpretation and position to be in. No matter what "facts" are proffered, they can always be dismissed or ignored because they do not seem to fit into the basic operating principal of the universe, as JK has individually defined it.
No matter how anyone else defines God, God's existence, their relationship to God, etc. Jk, ultimately, knows better and can dismiss that individual experience. First, because he is incapable of knowledge of it (i.e. he can't know what you, I, or Hitler think); second, he can assert that the alternative definition, interpretation, explanation is a lie (i.e. if you say you are acting under God's authority, he (JK) knowing what that authority is, can dismiss your claim as he has more complete knowledge of the situation and can discern that you are either deluded but more likely a liar).
In the end, JK -- and JK alone -- is able to determine who is an atheist and what atheism is, who is lying about their beliefs (as he has more perfect knowledge not only about how the universe is really constituted, but, indeed, how god manifests himself in the world), and how belief truly manifests itself in the world.
I say all of this knowing full well that there will be no response, no argument, no acknowledgement that my arguments, conclusions have any merit or are full of sh**t -- which, will of course, lead me to conclude that I am right on the money.
CWL
Funkateer
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,401
Why is this thread suddenly about guessing what JK may or may not believe? If the man is so unwilling to explain and defend his strange convictions I say let it go.
As to the subject of this thread, I think that the arguments presented by HS4 are very compelling. All quotes presented by Nova Land, myself and others clearly indicate that Hitler not only believed in a supreme being, he was convinced that he was carrying out the will of such a supreme being.
I therefore think it is time to declare "Hitler was a Theist" winner over "Hitler was an Atheist" - even if it is due to walkover.
As to the subject of this thread, I think that the arguments presented by HS4 are very compelling. All quotes presented by Nova Land, myself and others clearly indicate that Hitler not only believed in a supreme being, he was convinced that he was carrying out the will of such a supreme being.
I therefore think it is time to declare "Hitler was a Theist" winner over "Hitler was an Atheist" - even if it is due to walkover.
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
MRC_Hans said:
I have honor. Your country ran from a global challenge. I am not going to apologize to you for saying that. If your feelings are hurt, elect some national leaders with some courage.
JK
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
CWL said:
lol, appeal to sympathy logical fallacy. This is the best example of that I have seen in some time. Great job, CWL.
JK
CWL
Funkateer
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,401
Jedi Knight said:
A logical fallacy in relation to what? What are you talking about?
How about presenting some evidence for your your claim that Hitler was an atheist instead? How about answering some of the questions put to you?
Not holding my breath...
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
Nova Land said:
Atheism in the individual isn't a problem. When the individual says: "I do not believe in the omnipotent God", that is fine with me. I do not have a problem whatsoever with that.
This discussion is not about that. This discussion is about Hitler's atheism, and how he used atheist institutions at the nation-state level to perform godless acts (acts removing omnipotent morality).
That is radical humanism, a "collective" atheist trait. It has nothing to do with the atheist who does not seek power and does not proselytize for the removal of other religions and other agendas that impact the structure and wellbeing of the nation-state.
In sum, I was merely pointing out that atheism empowered Hitler, empowered the Nazi state and created a climate that nurtured gross miscalculations of human moral judgement.
JK
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
If that is indeed what the discussion is about, than your problems still remain, for if we are now going to argue that the Nazi institutions were atheist, you still have a long way to go. Nazi state laws recognizing various christian churches, allowing them to function inside and alongside the Nazi state, the supplying of pastors and priests to Army and SS units, the promotion of "traditional" German culture (including national mythology about christianity, Jews, etc), the endless stream of propoganda designed to enrage the people to align with the Nazis and their fithgt against atheistic, Jewish, communism...and on and on...
Further, as a leader/Feuher State, the state, its organization, its functioning was entirely dependant upon the lead of Hitler...my point is that because Hitler believed himself to be acting as an agent of God, so to, than, the State believed itself to be acting as an agent of God.
In short, while you might not like that interpretation of God, and while you might conclude that Hitler/Nazism was trying to create a new religion...it was explicitly a religion that saw the state as functioning under the mandate of higher authorities -- i.e. under Hitler, Hitler under god....
(Someone check me on this, but I'd bet dimes to dollars that the oath that members of the German Army swore to Adolf Hitler was an oath before god...at least that's how I remember it),
Once again, we are at a point of an assertion and interpretation that may be uniquely yours...it doesn't make it incorrect, but it means that the burden is on you to show how the state was "atheistic", how all of the symbols and references to a belief in god and Germany's role under god can be dismissed.
Finally, we are back to you determining what is "atheism" and doing so using a definition that is uniquely yours...
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
MRC_Hans said:
Credibility? Take a look at the credibility of one of your own government ministers.
JK
Aardvark_DK
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2002
- Messages
- 448
Pssst! JK! Hans is Danish, not German. There's a difference, you know.Jedi Knight said:
Anyway, does the questionable acts of various American politicians reflect badly on you? (The answer to that rhetorical question is no.)
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Nice going, Jedi.Jedi Knight said:
I did consider asking you if knew at all what country I come from, but then you could have checked it. Now, however, you have, on your own volition, exposed yet another example on how you make statements based on ignorance.
I'm not German. I'm Danish. Because of certain things happening in the past, mistaking a Dane for a German might be considered an(other) insult. But since I'm sure you just did it out of ignorance, Mr. Genious, I'll let it pass.
(Sorry G6, this was probably not appropriate for a moderated thread, but a man can only take so much without answering.)
Hans