Does it Matter that Hitler was a Theist?

[1robin]

If Hitler actions were consistent with evolution he wouldnt have died before the avarage age of death of most people of his time.

Well that's bizarre. How did you come by this? By the way I said his actions (implying, as always in similar situations, some of his actions). Not every single action he ever took. I would have thought that was obvious if you are talking about his suicide.


By the way I am not claiming it is but if natural selection resulted in our brains and includes behavior how would suicide be outside the scope of evolution. Evolution includes behaviors that dead end species, as well as ones that advance them I would think. However I find evolution is whatever ever the person you are talking to says it is.

 

[1robin]

A "theist" is someone who believes in the existence of a God, not someone who believes in a specific God - for example, the Christian God.

I will post what I previously did. In Hitler's case this is not true in a general hypothetical case it is mostly true. Hitler selected his version of the Hypotheical "God". The Catholic God. We are not left to wonder what type of generic God he said he believed in.

This is from another post:
By what standard do you judge him a theist?

If by intellectual consent then that is fine but that is no more meaningless than me claiming I am a chair.

People's claims of allegiance are usually judged by their actions. His actions are about as opposite to what theism implies as is possible.


Theism equals: In a more specific sense, theism is a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheisticGod and God's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and some forms of Hinduism. The use of the word theism to indicate this classical form of monotheism began during the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century in order to distinguish it from the then-emerging deism which contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Not only that but the specific type of theism he is connected with is Catholicism. In what way did he indicate or show that he sincerely believed and followed Catholicism? By killing 6 million of God's chosen people or practicing almost every sin forbidden by the Bible as a daily practice?You can claim to be a turkey buzzard or an F22 Raptor but unless you jump off a cliff and fly the claim is meaningless and isn't relevant and no one would believe you were either one.

This is essentially a no true scotsman fallacy. "Well, he says he was one, but he didn't act in the way that I personally define a person under that label as being capable of acting, so clearly he wasn't one". What if I'd done the same thing with Stalin? "Well, he says he was an atheist, but since he acted in such an irrational manner that couldn't be true since all atheists are rational, kind and non-murderous people."

I used to love logical phallacies until they became as common and worthless as pennies. However there is an element of truth in what you said in general but with Hitler this is not the case. As every Christian Critic loves to attempt to prove, Hitler chose the Catholic God of the Bible as his version of a general theistic God.

See what I mean?

I saw what you meant, agree with it, but it has no application here.

 

[oldbadger]

I get it! The atheists and us theists don't really give a hoot whether this ugliest piece of humanity was a theist or otherwise. So it seems the majority of us just want to point a finger at the other lot and shout, 'Hitler.... was a bit like you lot!'

It can't be anything else, because the posts in this thread are heated beyond the point of 'history' or 'interest' or even 'debate'.

I was merely interested in the general idea about what Hitler did or did not believe in. But I am just so glad that this maniac did not win, or else we would be absolutely in no doubt whatsoever, and it wouldn't have been good news for any of us!

See you all in any other thread........ all the best to all of you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Theism equals: In a more specific sense, theism is a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheisticGod and God's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and some forms of Hinduism. The use of the word theism to indicate this classical form of monotheism began during the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century in order to distinguish it from the then-emerging deism which contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

You seem to have left out the first sentence:

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Not only that but the specific type of theism he is connected with is Catholicism. In what way did he indicate or show that he sincerely believed and followed Catholicism? By killing 6 million of God's chosen people or practicing almost every sin forbidden by the Bible as a daily practice?You can claim to be a turkey buzzard or an F22 Raptor but unless you jump off a cliff and fly the claim is meaningless and isn't relevant and no one would believe you were either one.

See the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

I used to love logical phallacies until they became as common and worthless as pennies. However there is an element of truth in what you said in general but with Hitler this is not the case. As every Christian Critic loves to attempt to prove, Hitler chose the Catholic God of the Bible as his version of a general theistic God.

I saw what you meant, agree with it, but it has no application here.

It absolutely has an application, if you're going to make claims like these:

"If by intellectual consent then that is fine but that is no more meaningless than me claiming I am a chair.

People's claims of allegiance are usually judged by their actions. His actions are about as opposite to what theism implies as is possible."

Like it or not, Hitler was a theist. Or, at least, that's what the weight of evidence indicates. The fact that he doesn't fit your personal preconceptions about what constitutes a theist is irrelevant to the point: saying "he did horrible things and I think doing horrible things is contrary to being a theist" is just a fallacious argument.

 

[F0uad]

Why should it matter? Bush is a theist.. Obama is a theist..
Stalin was a atheist..

Both killed and some are still killing.

 

[LuisDantas]

I get it! The atheists and us theists don't really give a hoot whether this ugliest piece of humanity was a theist or otherwise.

Sorry, I do mind that he was a theist. He is a reminder of how dangerous theism can be when it goes stray.

Alas, nor is he a particularly unusual example, either. It just turns out that he had more political power than most, at a time when that was particularly dangerous.

 

[Storm]

I point out your gross inaccuracies as often as your false claims necessitate it.

No, you pretend not to understand slang as a means of feigning superiority. It's fooling no one.

I am trying to get it to go away, and substitute it with some honesty and relevant discussion apparently to no effect.

You know a better way to do that? Stop talking about it.

That is why I am pointing out the meanings of words and the fact that not only is your claim here technically wrong on every level, it is also irrelevant. The fact that your false accusation of lying is in fact a lie is pathetic.

Bull ****. You know it's bull ****. I know it's bull ****. Why do you keep spouting it like you expect to be believed?

They have different levels of proof.

You're right. The fascism of the National "Socialists" is indisputable historical fact, while your speculations on a nutjob's sincerity will never be more than that. And yet, you persist.

I hate this personal back and forth garbage.

Well, then... learn to do something else.

 

[1robin]

You seem to have left out the first sentence:

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

No I didn't, I intentionally took it out because it does not apply to Hitler in the context it was originally given in. We are not dealing with general or generic theism concerning Hitler IMO. We are dealing with the Christian like version that was in the part I posted. We either are dealing with the narrow band that is bounded by the God of the Bible or we are in fact dealing with the broadest sense. In either case my points stand unless like evolution it's definition is simply expanded or contracted based on convenience not reality. In only the only case where Hitler had a narrow view of theism that was not Catholicism would your points stand. That is not the case. I do applaude your thoroughness but it is irrelevant here.

See the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

I see it as it applies to a generic theist. Let me put it this way. If Marilynn Monroe claimed to be a man was she correct. If she meant it in a generic sense that she was a homo sapien then yes. If she meant it in the sense that she was of the male gender then she was not (hopefully). The same is true. Hitler claimed to be a theist of the Catholic type. His actions reveal that claim to be superficial if not just plain garbage. If that does not clear it up I quit.

Like it or not, Hitler was a theist.

I do not like or dislike it. It simply isn't true beyond a superficial level like claiming I am a rocking chair or that you have a point (I am kidding). I can claim to be Tiger woods but if I never shoot below 190 I am not telling the truth. Hitler can claim to be a Unicorn, a triggerfish, or a theist but if he has no horns or two, and can't swim at 30 mph, and kills 6 million of God's children he is actually 0 for 3. Either the power to claim a thing makes it so or actions and evidence determine a claim. If the former he is a theist and I am a rocking chair and you are right. If the latter none of those are a reality no matter how many Scotsmen you know.

Or, at least, that's what the weight of evidence indicates.

Evidence has led to his being more associated with Satan than any other human that has ever lived. The evidence suggests it was a politically convenient claim and never a sincere belief. In fact there is just as substantial a claim he made that the religion Wagner invented was just as true for him. Neither was followed.

 

[1robin]

Sorry, I do mind that he was a theist. He is a reminder of how dangerous theism can be when it goes stray.

I do not mind whether he was a theist or not but he was not in any real sense. I do mind that his theism that he did not follow is used to blame for his actions. The first claim is wrong but debateable. The second is simply nonsense. He himself said evolution is what justified his claims and that is debateable but that is never the less what he actually thought.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not mind whether he was a theist or not but he was not in any real sense. I do mind that his theism that he did not follow is used to blame for his actions. The first claim is wrong but debateable. The second is simply nonsense. He himself said evolution is what justified his claims and that is debateable but that is never the less what he actually thought.

You are sort of proving my point, you know.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No I didn't, I intentionally took it out because it does not apply to Hitler in the context it was originally given in. We are not dealing with general or generic theism concerning Hitler IMO. We are dealing with the Christian like version that was in the part I posted. We either are dealing with the narrow band that is bounded by the God of the Bible or we are in fact dealing with the broadest sense.

Then it's not "Does it matter that Hitler was a Theist" it's "Does it matter than Hitler was a Christian/Catholic". I was very clear about what the definition of a theist was in my first response to you - do not now back-peddle and tell me you meant something else.

In either case my points stand unless like evolution it's definition is simply expanded or contracted based on convenience not reality. In only the only case where Hitler had a narrow view of theism that was not Catholicism would your points stand. That is not the case. I do applaude your thoroughness but it is irrelevant here.

Nothing you just wrote made any kind of sense - could you rephrase it?

I see it as it applies to a generic theist. Let me put it this way. If Marilynn Monroe claimed to be a man was she correct.

No, but gender (are as as our biological bodies are concerned, at least) are trivial to demonstrate. Allegiance or adherance to a given movement or ideology is far more difficult to ascertain, as every individual in a given ideological group may have different ideas or concepts about what it means to belong to that particular group. There is no "no meanies allowed" sign at the steps of the Catholic church. You cannot simply dismiss the fact that he was raised Roman Catholic, and the evidence indicates that he never renounced his belief in the Bible or in the Catholic church. He most likely was a Catholic.

I do not like or dislike it. It simply isn't true beyond a superficial level like claiming I am a rocking chair or that you have a point (I am kidding). I can claim to be Tiger woods but if I never shoot below 190 I am not telling the truth. Hitler can claim to be a Unicorn, a triggerfish, or a theist but if he has no horns or two, and can't swim at 30 mph, and kills 6 million of God's children he is actually 0 for 3. Either the power to claim a thing makes it so or actions and evidence determine a claim. If the former he is a theist and I am a rocking chair and you are right. If the latter none of those are a reality no matter how many Scotsmen you know.

And just because you claim he wasn't, doesn't make it so either. You are not the person who determines who or what "qualifies" as a Catholic, superficial or otherwise. Your argument is entirely subjective and based on a fundamental fallacy.

Evidence has led to his being more associated with Satan than any other human that has ever lived. The evidence suggests it was a politically convenient claim and never a sincere belief. In fact there is just as substantial a claim he made that the religion Wagner invented was just as true for him. Neither was followed.

According to you, but according both to Hitler's diaries and those who studied his beliefs extensively, he followed his beliefs to a tee. And this is why so many people in this thread point to Hitler as a prime example of the potential evils of religion.

 

[Me Myself]

Well that's bizarre. How did you come by this?

Because survival o the fittest has to do with survival and nothing more.

Well that's bizarre. How did you come by this? By the way I said his actions (implying, as always in similar situations, some of his actions). Not every single action he ever took. I would have thought that was obvious if you are talking about his suicide.


By the way I am not claiming it is but if natural selection resulted in our brains and includes behavior how would suicide be outside the scope of evolution.

Not necessarily. Evolution is a process of change that happens in biological life. The changes that are not good for survival will be eliminated from the species in the long run. Keep in mind that we are FAR from the long run as a species. Since when has suicide happened in human beings? if it was bad for the species as a whole (and not always what is bad for a single living being is bad for the species as a whole (google apoptosis) ) then it will disappear after some thousands or millions of years.

 

[Father Heathen]

The method was not bizarre the application was. I said someone did (oh never mind if you haven't gotten it by now there is no hope, and saying it again will not help).
As for your scientific method:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

How is anything related to evolution concerning creatures more than 5000 years old verified by that method?. They can't observe it, can't recreate it in a lab. Even when their best efforts to create life in a lab fail over and over they claim it happened by chance anyway even if it is against their own laws of biology. The scientific method is nothing but an honorable concept that is ignored at will.

However none of that had any thing what so ever to do with your use of it in response to my claim. It's use made no sense and was irrational.

Christian: So Mr Evolutionist how can you explain the existence of morality without God?
Evolutionists: Well that's easy because we are smarter than everyone else. Evolution made some behaviors become instinctual or inherent and be passed on because they benefitted survival.
Christian: So Evolution would make behavior like killing all competitors that are not a direct benefit a moral behavior.
Evolutionist: Oh no, if were a little smarter you would see that evolution would only create benevolent morals.
Christian: What are you talking about?
Evolutionist: You are not smart enough or have enough degrees to appreciate how smart we are.
Christian: Ok let’s change the subject. For evolution to even be possible life came from non-life.
Evolutionist: How dare you insinuate that abiogenesis has any bearing or influence on the pure pristine field of evolution. But yes it happened because I would have no evolutionary science to do unless it did.
Christian: How do you know that life came from non-life?
Evolutionist: Because my primitive and ignorant friend, we have the all mighty and virtuous scientific method.
Christian: So you made life in a lab somewhere?
Evolutionist: NO
Christian: So you observed it happen in nature?
Evolutionists: NO
Christian: So you have seen the undeniable evidence it had happened but didn't directly observe it happening?
Evolutionist: NO
Christian: Then at least scientific theory suggests it must have happened.
Evolutionists: No. We even have laws that state it can't ever happen and many reasons to believe it could never have happened.

IN Summary.


Christian: It seems Evolution either produces morals that are only benevolent, or none at all based on convenience. That life came from non-life even though the scientific method has never shown that, it can't even be done in a lab where they cheated, and there is no example of it ever occurring anywhere, yet it is still a fact even though the entire food industry is based on the fact that it doesn't happen.

Evolutionist: Stupid creationist.........I have many degrees...........gravity...........Dawkins drew a cartoon proving the eye evolved........bias.


This was of course for the sake of humor and entertainment but there is certainly a lot of truth in it.

What a ridiculous straw man.

 

[F0uad]

Actually, he's like that towards anyone who disagrees with him.

Hmm but he always uses Muslims to generalize not sure if he does that with Atheist to.. But maybe your right.

 

[LuisDantas]

Little point in persisting, but I will just comment this:

No, if you forget to say the Rosary that is subtle, if you systematically murder 6 million of God's chosen in cold blood for no reason that is about as obvious as possible. There is no starker contrast than between Catholicism and Hitler's actions in human history. How cognitive dissonance and desperation can obscure that is a wonder.

Are you even aware that Catholic beliefs played a key role in the Crusades and in the bloody conflicts with Protestants in Ireland? Or in the near extinction of South American Native Americans?

 

[LuisDantas]

Acting like a Christian makes one a Christian?

If by acting you mean also enganging in attempts at understanding the doctrine and following it to the best of their abilities, then I suppose that yes it does.

Have we ignored the fact of propaganda?

How do we measure it in this case?

Courting the churches in Europe makes sense because of the power base they provide with State sponsored religions. To assume that is genuine simply because he said things in public is naive.

Yes, it is. But that is a very slippery slope to thread. Besides, it is also largely irrelevant. Any number of political leaders may turn out to be insincere believers deep down, but we neither have a way of truly knowing nor do we have a reason to disregard the actual religious wrappings of their leaderships.

As it turns out, Hitler very explicitly claimed to be acting in harmony with God's desires time and again, in the Mein Kampf among other places. I'm not sure what else could we desire to conclude that he was indeed a Theist - and more significantly, that his leadership depended on Theistic beliefs to reach so far as it did.

Every statement Hitler made in regards to Christian faith was made either when alliances needed to be cemented or speeches. Hitler saying he would always remain a Catholic was in discussion about cementing relations with German Catholics.

That may well be true, but what does it show? Were there even any times that did not fit that description?

As to Hitler's Table Talk only Dr. Steigmann-Gall is the one who claims it isn't legitimate and with rather flimsy reasoning. Of course his research is largely based on the Positive Christianity movement initiated by the Nazis and thus I feel his research blinders have creeped in with Hitler. He offers much more legitimacy to Hitler's public speeches and commentary than his inner circle dialogues.

As arguably he should, even if that might shift the matter of our interest from the importance of Hitler's own personal beliefs to those of German people as a whole.

The biggest reason Steigmann-Gall claims it isn't real is bizarre as well since he states that it was simply hand written accounts.

There is also a question of how faithful the translations into French and English were. As well as how much Bormann allowed the text to be faithful to Hitler's intent.

Yet if Steigmann-Gall was as familiar with Hitler as he was Nazi Positive Christianity he would know Hitler was utterly paranoid about recording devices in regards to personal conversations. Thus with Steigmann-Gall's reasoning you could reject anything Hitler said privately. Yet Steigmann-Gall accepts anything reported second hand and in line with his thinking as legitimate.

If you concede that much, then it must follow that Hitler's Table Talk is unavoidably unreliable, despite your earlier statement that it was definitive in proving that Hitler was a non-believer.

I fear he has fallen into confirmation bias. The book does have translation issues but those quotes were never my bias for my opinion. Hitler always had a respect for Jesus Christ but not as a messiah of any sort but as a fighter against Jewish corruption. There are also claims that Martin Bormann Hitler's personal secretary was part of the Red Orchestra ring and thus his obsession of keeping recordings of personal conversations. The reason this claim still bounces around is for the fact that we do know the Soviets had an inside man in the Bunker and Bormann completely disappears shortly after Hitler's death. Though that is mere circumstantial evidence and it could be just as likely Bormann was just one of countless many dead in Berlin at that point.

Now would I personally call Hitler an atheist? No the term doesn't fit his views of the world. Hitler had an idea of divinity but it doesn't fit any traditional religion. He makes references repeatedly to a divine mandate for racial warfare and an idea that the Germanic race has a special place in history. Which is somewhat similar to ideas espoused by Martin Luther as well. The problem with Hitler as I highlighted in my previous post is the man put up so many fronts for who he was I don't know if anyone really knew the man except for maybe Eva Braun.

Myself, I think he was just a paranoid nutcase with some talent for speeches and a rather mediocre overall intelect. Unfortunately, he happened to live at just the right time and place for that to be disastrous - but he is hardly the unique, irreplaceable kingpin of disaster that so many seem to hope he was.

 

[Dingbat]

If by acting you mean also enganging in attempts at understanding the doctrine and following it to the best of their abilities, then I suppose that yes it does.




How do we measure it in this case?





Yes, it is. But that is a very slippery slope to thread. Besides, it is also largely irrelevant. Any number of political leaders may turn out to be insincere believers deep down, but we neither have a way of truly knowing nor do we have a reason to disregard the actual religious wrappings of their leaderships.

As it turns out, Hitler very explicitly claimed to be acting in harmony with God's desires time and again, in the Mein Kampf among other places. I'm not sure what else could we desire to conclude that he was indeed a Theist - and more significantly, that his leadership depended on Theistic beliefs to reach so far as it did.




That may well be true, but what does it show? Were there even any times that did not fit that description?




As arguably he should, even if that might shift the matter of our interest from the importance of Hitler's own personal beliefs to those of German people as a whole.





There is also a question of how faithful the translations into French and English were. As well as how much Bormann allowed the text to be faithful to Hitler's intent.




If you concede that much, then it must follow that Hitler's Table Talk is unavoidably unreliable, despite your earlier statement that it was definitive in proving that Hitler was a non-believer.




Myself, I think he was just a paranoid nutcase with some talent for speeches and a rather mediocre overall intelect. Unfortunately, he happened to live at just the right time and place for that to be disastrous - but he is hardly the unique, irreplaceable kingpin of disaster that so many seem to hope he was.

That was my fault I didn't mean to say he was atheist or anything of the sort but that I doubt he was a Christian. Though if he was one then he surely wasn't typical. I don't think I made a very good point that Hitler was just a man of many, many faces and I'm not sure anyone really knows the truth of what he really believed and what he simply said to please people. I do believe in had some kind of belief in Divinity of some sort but what that entirely entailed I'm not even sure.

 

[1robin]

You are sort of proving my point, you know.

I don't know. I have no idea what you mean. What in the wild world of sports is parallel between me saying that your point was incorrect and Hitler killing millions of people? I think I am getting burned out on this issue and will probably leave you to believe whatever it is you find convenient, as that will be the case either way most likely.

 

[LuisDantas]

The point is that it is dangerous to associate one's belief in God with his or her morality.

It serves little purpose other than to create dangerous assumptions and, sometimes, dishonest conclusions.

 

[1robin]

Then it's not "Does it matter that Hitler was a Theist" it's "Does it matter than Hitler was a Christian/Catholic". I was very clear about what the definition of a theist was in my first response to you - do not now back-peddle and tell me you meant something else.

If you will go back and review I told you when I posted my statement that I copied it from another post and it might not be exactly the same context. None of that makes any difference anyway. If Hitler claimed to be both a theist (Catholic) and a Quasar and someone asked if his being a theist matters of if his being a Quasar mattered. I can guarantee you would not post anything about his being a Quasar is meaningful. That would be because he was no Quasar and his claims mean nothing. That is exactly the same as with his theistic claims except his being a theist is apparently convenient for some reason.
1. You and I both hopefully agree that simply claiming to be something does not in its self-make a person that thing.
2. By that obvious concept something additional must be done besides a simple claim to be meaningfully considered true.
3. What is that additional thing or things that allow you to claim that Hitler's claims rise above a superficial intellectual agreement to a concept.
4. Whatever you answered for "things" in #3, prove that it isn't arbitrary.

Nothing you just wrote made any kind of sense - could you rephrase it?

It wasn't important and it connected with another earlier conversation I do not think you were involved in. I was simply saying that if a term is defined liberally enough it will eventually include everyone and everything and mean nothing.

No, but gender (are as as our biological bodies are concerned, at least) are trivial to demonstrate. Allegiance or adherence to a given movement or ideology is far more difficult to ascertain, as every individual in a given ideological group may have different ideas or concepts about what it means to belong to that particular group. There is no "no meanies allowed" sign at the steps of the Catholic church. You cannot simply dismiss the fact that he was raised Roman Catholic, and the evidence indicates that he never renounced his belief in the Bible or in the Catholic Church. He most likely was a Catholic.

In his later life as another poster illustrated Hitler excoriated Christians. I think I have become burned out on this and finally determined as you hinted at there is no way to prove it and I do not think it would matter if it could be proven. After years of debate I am becoming more and more convinced that what a person wants to be true (cognitive dissonance) is the most power force in human history. It is truly remarkable. That was not primarily directed at you but in general.

And just because you claim he wasn't, doesn't make it so either. You are not the person who determines who or what "qualifies" as a Catholic, superficial or otherwise. Your argument is entirely subjective and based on a fundamental fallacy.

Please spare me from any more Scotsmen. Catholicism is in principle at least based on the Bible.
1. The Bible says do not murder. He killed millions.
2. It says men are equal. He said Arians are superior.
3. It says turn the other cheek and be kind. He attacked without cause or warning.
4. It says do not lie. His entire life was a lie.
5. It says be humble. He thought he knew more than anyone.
I could do this all day. I am surprised he wasn't claimed to be the Pope.
If he claimed to be a Cadillac and the only thing he ever did was sit in a garage would you conclude he was a car and general motors is responsible for his actions?

According to you, but according both to Hitler's diaries and those who studied his beliefs extensively, he followed his beliefs to a tee. And this is why so many people in this thread point to Hitler as a prime example of the potential evils of religion.

Add about ten thousand contradictions to my 5 above and then recalibrate. His diaries are one of the sources people use to argue his superficial attachment to God and they contain diabolical accusations against the faith.
From post #143 Indeed, the book Hitler's Table Talk which is a compilation of notes from his personal secretaries of conversations eliminates any idea that Hitler believed in any kind of deity. He lambasts Christianity throughout conversations that focus on religion.