Does it Matter that Hitler was a Theist?

[Storm]

I hate to say this but I think I am going to have to partially agree with you about Hitler and socialism. That is a very dissagreeable thing to me and an impossible one for many so I am going to have to make sure and see to what percentage I will have to agree. I think his actions at times were consistent with socialism and at times not and I will have to see what percentage (approx) that will be and that will take time. It will not be today.

Fascism and Socialism do have some practices in common, but they're not the same thing. The Nazi Party was not Socialist, whatever they may have claimed.

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

Thread closed for Staff review.
​

 

[Badran]

***Mod Post***

Thread reopened.

Some posts have been deleted and some have been edited as they were in violation of the rules. Please refrain from personal attacks and address only the ideas and arguments of others.​

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Now and then one or another person on this board has raised Hitler's religious beliefs as evidence for...what? Does it matter that Hitler seems to have believed in a god? Was his belief in deity at all significant to what he did? Do you think it would have changed anything if he had been less religious -- perhaps even an atheist? Why or why not?

I was not aware of this thread previosly. Apologies.

Hitler's specific beliefs have no bearing on history. However, his religious frame of reference allowed for the rationalization of an absolute morality based on authority. More significant, this frame of reference was shared by a majority of Germans, allowing them to be manipulated by religious propaganda and led to support or tolerate the atrocities. His use of Christian propaganda is well documented. The propaganda is not significantly different from much that is used by the conservative right in America the past 30 years, or that found in many tales of Joshua’s victories in the OT. Neither are the results. Hitler attempted genocide, so did Joshua. Many muslim nations would like to give it a try.

This is not a criticism of Christianity or any other other religion. Nor is this restricted to religious beliefs. It is a criticism of any government that is not required to maintain objectivity.

 

[Pegg]

Now and then one or another person on this board has raised Hitler's religious beliefs as evidence for...what? Does it matter that Hitler seems to have believed in a god? Was his belief in deity at all significant to what he did? Do you think it would have changed anything if he had been less religious -- perhaps even an atheist? Why or why not?

even Satan the devil is a theist.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

even Satan the devil is a theist.

Exactly!!! And it was Eve's belife in god and desire to be like him that allowed her to be decieved.

 

[Pegg]

Exactly!!! And it was Eve's belife in god and desire to be like him that allowed her to be decieved.

so in the end, it comes down to personal belief systems. Having wrong ideas can be dangerous and can lead us down a slippery path.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

so in the end, it comes down to personal belief systems. Having wrong ideas can be dangerous and can lead us down a slippery path.

Ah, very inciteful! I think that is something everyone could agree on. I think it might be a little bit more than that though. I don't believe anyone can be absolulty certain of anything. Yet the need for certainty is hard wired into us. There was a very recent study, I'll try to find it if you like, that in essence showed that all of us will tend to 'conform' objective fact with our subjective morals. If we are confronted with something that is not consistent with our moral values, we get defensive and will look for facts to support our moral values. We will then stretch, twist, and even bend these facts to the extent our rationality will allow to close the loop between subjective value and objective fact.

The study also indicated that, while every single one of us has this tendecy, some will go quite a bit further, to the extent of denying negative consequences. The study looked at conservative and liberal minded individuals. It asked base questions, two which conservatives generally agree with, two which liberals generally agree with. E.g. Is it abortion always wrong? For each bae question they asked numerous background questions. E.g. Even if it saves a life? As well as questions regarding objective facts to suport their position. As the ethical issue becomes more complex everyone was willing to stretch facts to some extent. As the issue became less and less clear, one of two things happened. Either the individual at some point backed off and said you know what, I'm really not absolutly sure, or the individual continued to twist and bend objective fact to greater and greater limits.

Sorry I wasn't planning on citing this as it only snaped into my head. I will try to find it. What this indicates to me, is that a persons objectivity is inverserly correlated with their conception of absolute morality. Individual who believe their ethic is absolute/perfect, will deny, ignore, twist and bend objective facts to support their morality. So will we all, we have an evolutionary need to close the gap between judgment and observation. We all will either modify our moral judgments to account for the facts, and we will all sacrifice our objectivity to bring 'facts' in line with our moral judgments. Those with absolutes tend to bend more facts, those with objectivity, tend to modify moral judgments.

 

[Pegg]

Ah, very inciteful! I think that is something everyone could agree on. I think it might be a little bit more than that though. I don't believe anyone can be absolulty certain of anything. Yet the need for certainty is hard wired into us. There was a very recent study, I'll try to find it if you like, that in essence showed that all of us will tend to 'conform' objective fact with our subjective morals. If we are confronted with something that is not consistent with our moral values, we get defensive and will look for facts to support our moral values. We will then stretch, twist, and even bend these facts to the extent our rationality will allow to close the loop between subjective value and objective fact.

The study also indicated that, while every single one of us has this tendecy, some will go quite a bit further, to the extent of denying negative consequences. The study looked at conservative and liberal minded individuals. It asked base questions, two which conservatives generally agree with, two which liberals generally agree with. E.g. Is it abortion always wrong? For each bae question they asked numerous background questions. E.g. Even if it saves a life? As well as questions regarding objective facts to suport their position. As the ethical issue becomes more complex everyone was willing to stretch facts to some extent. As the issue became less and less clear, one of two things happened. Either the individual at some point backed off and said you know what, I'm really not absolutly sure, or the individual continued to twist and bend objective fact to greater and greater limits.

Sorry I wasn't planning on citing this as it only snaped into my head. I will try to find it. What this indicates to me, is that a persons objectivity is inverserly correlated with their conception of absolute morality. Individual who believe their ethic is absolute/perfect, will deny, ignore, twist and bend objective facts to support their morality. So will we all, we have an evolutionary need to close the gap between judgment and observation. We all will either modify our moral judgments to account for the facts, and we will all sacrifice our objectivity to bring 'facts' in line with our moral judgments. Those with absolutes tend to bend more facts, those with objectivity, tend to modify moral judgments.

this is why i think it is necessary for mankind to have a superior authority. Its probably why we have a tendency to look to a higher power for guidance. We have very limited experience and knowledge...its based on our own personal experiences...for that reason it is very limited. What i would do in a situation is different to what you might do in the same situation. And one thing we are not good at is knowing the consequences of our decisions....we dont have the foresight to see the negative consequences.

There is another interesting study which shows that people who believe in an ideal will ignore their own morality in obedience to the ideal. I think that is what happened in the case of Hitler and Germany. the study was done with two subjects, one was to recieve and electric shock every time they got an answer wrong, and the other was the one giving the electric shock. You probably know the study....apparently 98% of participants continued to give the electric shocks even though they believed the person receiving the shocks was being badly hurt by them. They continued to give the shocks because they had a scientists sitting in the room with them asking them to continue for the sake of the study. It shows that ideologies can make people do things they know is wrong.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

this is why i think it is necessary for mankind to have a superior authority.

You pointed out the problem yourself. We all react differently. Now, why is that. Absolute/superior/divine ethics, are not known by us, other wise we would all act the same and make the same decisions. We would not struggle with ethical decisison because we would know the correct answer. We would either do the right thing, or we would not. There would be no need for debate. There would be no need for leaders. If god has given us a perfect absolute moral standard, then it must still be hidden.

When we belive we have a superior authority that knows better then us, we suspend judgment. This is evidenced by my example with hitler, the study I discussed, and the study you discussed. If the test subjects had acted on their own objective judgment, all most all of them would have stopped. But believing the scientist knew better, they suspended their judgment and committed atrocities. Now, if it were a priest, how much more would a religious individual question the instructions.

Understanding that we do not have an absolute certainly does not make things perfect. But it improves our judgment because we are more likely to use objective reasoning when making moral judgments.

There is an human need to close the loop between our objective experiences and our moral judgments. Belief in absolute morality increases the risks of making mistakes when we do this by increasing the tendency to distort objective facts. Belief in an objective morality decreases the risks of making mistakes when we close this loop by decreasing the tendency to distort objective fact.

 

[Pegg]

You pointed out the problem yourself. We all react differently. Now, why is that. Absolute/superior/divine ethics, are not known by us, other wise we would all act the same and make the same decisions. We would not struggle with ethical decisison because we would know the correct answer. We would either do the right thing, or we would not. There would be no need for debate. There would be no need for leaders. If god has given us a perfect absolute moral standard, then it must still be hidden.

i guess thats why some people choose to live by the guidance of scripture (whether that be the bible or quran or vedas etc) because they believe those morals and ethics are given by a higher power...not by a fellow human with flaws and misunderstandings, but by a higher life such as our creator.

And it certainly makes sense to me to adhere to something which is beyond the limited experience of humans for all the reasons you've stated above.

When we belive we have a superior authority that knows better then us, we suspend judgment. This is evidenced by my example with hitler, the study I discussed, and the study you discussed. If the test subjects had acted on their own objective judgment, all most all of them would have stopped. But believing the scientist knew better, they suspended their judgment and committed atrocities. Now, if it were a priest, how much more would a religious individual question the instructions.

very true...hence why we should be very weary about whom we put our trust in.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you believe that scripture can lead to superior ethics, despite being pretty much dependent on humans to be interpreted and have any meaning?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

So you believe that scripture can lead to superior ethics, despite being pretty much dependent on humans to be interpreted and have any meaning?

And the fact that once you decide someone is on your side and a position of power, you just do what they say as the representative of the authority?

 

[Pegg]

So you believe that scripture can lead to superior ethics, despite being pretty much dependent on humans to be interpreted and have any meaning?

Yes i do.

You dont have to 'interpret' a statement of law. For example, 'you must not murder' needs no interpreting. 'You must not steal' needs no interpreting. 'You must not commit adultery'.... Gods stated laws do not require interpretation.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Yes i do.

You dont have to 'interpret' a statement of law. For example, 'you must not murder' needs no interpreting. 'You must not steal' needs no interpreting. 'You must not commit adultery'.... Gods stated laws do not require interpretation.

A first off, interpreting statements of law, is an entire profession. It's called Judge. Secondly
Leviticus 19:19 “‘Keep my decrees.
“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.
“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Do you were blends? Have you ever worn a blend? Sinner!

 

[Pegg]

A first off, interpreting statements of law, is an entire profession. It's called Judge. Secondly
Leviticus 19:19 “‘Keep my decrees.
“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.
“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Do you were blends? Have you ever worn a blend? Sinner!

a judge as we know them do not interpret laws as such...they interpret how ones behavior violated a given law.

But with regard to mosaic laws, Im not an isrealite living under that covenant arrangement...so the laws that I apply to myself are only the laws of Christs teachings. Thats why i call myself a christian and not a Jew.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes i do.

You dont have to 'interpret' a statement of law. For example, 'you must not murder' needs no interpreting. 'You must not steal' needs no interpreting. 'You must not commit adultery'.... Gods stated laws do not require interpretation.

With all due respect, that is simply not really true. People may mean well, but they will still need to decide when those sayings apply and when they do not.

Surely you are aware that this is not a trivial matter, either? The controversies about how to apply religious law of the Abrahamic Faiths are many and painful.

 

[Pegg]

With all due respect, that is simply not really true. People may mean well, but they will still need to decide when those sayings apply and when they do not.

Surely you are aware that this is not a trivial matter, either? The controversies about how to apply religious law of the Abrahamic Faiths are many and painful.

its really not as difficult as some people make it.

Originally the mosaic law consisted of only 10 laws...the 10 commandments.

 

[Walkntune]

With all due respect, that is simply not really true. People may mean well, but they will still need to decide when those sayings apply and when they do not.

Surely you are aware that this is not a trivial matter, either? The controversies about how to apply religious law of the Abrahamic Faiths are many and painful.

As a Christian I apply none except to love God with all of my heart soul and mind and my neighbor as myself.Walk in love, against such there is no laws.To claim to be Christlike and not follow these two commandments is superficial no matter how you slice it.There is no greater code of ethics than to walk in love. Love does not seek its own.It only sacrifices and gives.To be a Christian is to follow after Christ and seek his will and follow his commandments. Any other claim is superficial.(including Hitlers)

 

[LuisDantas]

its really not as difficult as some people make it.

Originally the mosaic law consisted of only 10 laws...the 10 commandments.

It shouldn't be as difficult as some people make it, certainly. But when those people are so many and insist that they are doing as God wills, things do get difficult.