The Nihilist Equation

The Nihilist Equation

click on image to enlarge

NAA Cartoon #100!

For the 100th NAA cartoon, I wanted something shocking and explosive. Here it is!

A Word of Thanks

Thanks to the thousands of people who’ve come here over the past two years and especially to those who were gracious enough with their time to leave messages.

Joshua of NAA

Advertisements

286 thoughts on “The Nihilist Equation

  1. Hey’ where’s the cartoon showing anti-choice butchers in medical garb withholding treatment only because of your shared religious sentiments from Savita Halappanavar? Their religiously-motivate inaction killed her… but they didn’t perform an abortion! Your god must be so happy that this stone age ignorance is still a force for unnecessary suffering!

    Like

    • How do you establish unnecessary suffering?

      Remember that making a claim is not the same as proving it. Besides, if you want to claim that suffering disproves God’s existence, I could just as easily say that you caring about it affirms His existence.

      NOTE: Before you and your keyboard get warmed up, try to make your response short and to the point. Please don’t think that I’m going to be spending my time responding to long, drawn out comments or an endless stream of objections and pointless rants from those who are just here to preach and belittle. Life, family, and friends are much more deserving of my time.

      Joshua

      Like

      • Funny you say that: my first thought was that life is too short to argue with someone who doesn’t see Savita’s death as ‘unnecessary suffering’. If you see her suffering as necessary, then go for it.

        Like

      • Well, thanks for proving the point I was making in the second paragraph of my previous comment.

        Yet, according to your naturalistic view of life, nothing really matters anyway. The Universe doesn’t care one whit whether or not people, including Savita or any of the thousands of babies that were aborted just today, live or die. Why do you pretend to?

        Thankfully, there is evidence that you are wrong, part of it being the moral sense that causes you to feel a sense of outrage over the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar.

        Joshua

        Like

      • “Yet, according to your naturalistic view of life, nothing really matters anyway”

        Nope, not according to my view of life. Nor indeed the view of anyone else I know. And no pretence is required, nor indeed any God belief. If you need a God belief before you care about others, then it’s good you believe. But don’t assume others cannot care without sharing your belief.

        Like

      • I wasn’t arguing that point. You can reference “moral argument” for more information on the point being made that the moral sense operating within you is evidence of God.

        And I’ll gladly point out, in my last attempt to bring this thread back to the point of the cartoon, this: no matter how much people insist that life is ultimately purposeless and meaningless, no one can live out that philosophy consistently.

        So how would you convince a convinced nihilist to not commit suicide?

        Joshua

        Like

      • ” no matter how much people insist that life is ultimately purposeless and meaningless”

        Who is arguing that? No-one I know. A couple of 19th C French writers perhaps. Neither killed themselves so I agree even they didn’t believe it. But people do kill themselves all the time, and I’ve seen no figures showing Christians are less likely to do it. I seem to remember Swedes do it a lot, possibly due to the endless dark winters there!

        Like

  2. I think you missed a great opportunity, Joshua, for your 100th No Apologies Allowed cartoon because the issue of access and availability to therapeutic abortion is important… important for exactly the reason we saw unfold in the tragic and unnecessary suffering and death of a healthy woman who wanted to have a baby. Such ‘pro-life’ women are made into real victims in real life saddled with real suffering that really is not just unnecessary but really does kill women… an outcome easily predicted and fulfilled by those who support implementing anti-choice legislation into health care. I think that fits the bill of ‘shocking’ and ‘explosive’ much better than imaginary nihilists.

    Like

    • Do you know anything about laws regarding abortion in Ireland? (Perhaps your time would be better spent researching them than leaving comment here.)

      RE: Your Off-topic Rants

      Well, since we’re veering off into the abortion topic, let’s bring Dr. Kermit Gosnell into the conversation. How’s that? In him, we’ve got an evil doctor who performed abortions legally — even when patients didn’t want them! — in a country where it is legal while making millions of dollars doing it.

      Did I mention that he delivered some late-term babies alive and then cut their spine with scissors? Did I mention that he permanently maimed and gave venereal diseases to some of his patients? Did you know that he even killed one, Karnamaya Mongar?

      Why didn’t you mention him in your anti-pro-life rant? Rather convenient to overlook a woman’s death due to an abortion, no?

      Anyway, here, you can even see pictures of the remains of the “non-persons” (as you and your friends refer to them) wrapped in garbage bags and crammed into a refrigerator:

      Woman ‘forced to go through with abortion she wanted to halt’ at ‘House of Horrors’ clinic

      Joshua

      Like

      • ” even when patients didn’t want them!”

        The whole point of being pro-choice is that you back people’s right to choose. So obviously we don’t back abortions performed against the mother’s will – what do you expect us to say?

        Like

      • That wasn’t the point.

        Regardless, I’m stopping my responses to that important subject here. tildeb has hijacked this thread with his own agenda that has very little to do with the cartoon. The cartoon is about suicide and nihilism. Address those issues, dudes! Save the abortion back and forth for a future cartoon on the subject…

        Like

  3. I think the Savita story is being exploited by the abortionists. There’s no proof that her death was caused by her not getting an abortion. In fact, there is no details whatsoever on her condition and the condition and location of her baby. Many mothers die from shoddy hospital care provided by shoddy doctors who couldn’t care less.

    Like

    • There’s no proof that her death was caused by her not getting an abortion. In fact, there is no details whatsoever on her condition and the condition and location of her baby.

      Her heath care was compromised because she didn’t receive the therapeutic abortion due to her health care team respecting the beating heart of the 17 week old detached fetus that took days to die. Because of this delay, she died of septicemia. Her death was caused by her not getting an abortion. In fact, there are lots of details on her condition, and the doomed condition of her fetus. To state otherwise is to show a remarkable intransigence to not face reality, to avoid facing facts, to avoid responsibility that one’s opinion about abortion can and does lead to legislation that creates the conditions necessary to kill otherwise healthy, responsible, pro-life adults.

      Congratulations. You’ve given birth to a murderous monster.

      Like

  4. A serious question Josh. If you stopped believing in God, would you go and kill yourself? I’m guessing not. You still care about your family and wouldn’t want to cause them suffering (if you did top yourself then I’d say you never cared in the first place). If this is just the same moral argument again in different clothes, then why even bother doing a new cartoon? We’ve done it to death already, surely?

    I’m not sure who your cartoon is aimed at. If an atheist says it’s all pointless and kills themself, I guess you’d say that was the result of atheism. If an atheist does NOT kill themself you can say that’s proof of God. In other words you set yourself up to win regardless.

    I see life as finite; that makes it precious to me, not pointless. Can you think of any commodity that becomes LESS valuable the more limited it is? There’s lots to enjoy in life, so nihilism makes no sense to me. To say nihilism is a natural result of atheism makes as much sense to me as saying that standing on one leg with a fish on your head is a natural result of Christianity! Or you might as well say it’s Christians who should welcome death as they supposedly believe this life is crappy compared to the next one. The bible may tell them not to kill themselves (tho many still do) but there’s no reason Christians shouldn’t do other things to shorten their lives in moral ways – volunteer for dangerous jobs, engage in dangerous sports, offer kidneys and other organs to strangers. But instead they seem just as keen to avoid heaven as long as possible. We have a strong survival instinct, whether we believe or not. And we don’t need a God to explain that instinct either.

    Like

    • Glad you described life as “precious”. Many — and an ever-growing number — of people don’t. I just talked to one last week (which inspired the cartoon in part). I’ll keep my eyes open for some more news stories to share with you on this point…

      I think you did hit on something there with your observation about some Christian perceptions about the so-called “afterlife”, a preoccupation with which in many ways hinders their enjoyment and interaction in this one. I know nearly everything I say is suspect to you (sadly), but I really do feel the point. Thankfully, I’m not one of those types. I see life now and the choices we make now as extremely important. And this Earth and every person throughout history and the future are extremely important in the great scheme of the history of the Universe. (Everyone will eventually, willingly, and gladly affirm that Jesus is the Son of God.)

      If you stopped believing in God, would you go and kill yourself?

      Don’t know if you got the first version of this cartoon or not. In the original post, I did share my encounter with suicide before becoming a Christian. (Obviously, I didn’t go through with it. I deleted that so I could expand it for the book.)

      But regardless, try to reconsider the end-product of your naturalism. I don’t know how reductionist you are, but naturalists explain everything naturally. So things like love, care, compassion are reduced to mere chemical reactions. And the naturalist would have to explain suicidal tendencies as mere chemical reactions, too. Now, imagine approaching the convinced nihilist on the verge of suicide. What would you say? “Hi, pal. Now, I know your genes and body chemistry have forced you to have suicidal tendencies, but, as one chemical reaction speaking to another, I tell you: Don’t kill yourself! Why? Well, because other fleshy chemical reaction containers will have additional, sad chemical reactions if you do.”

      In a Christian worldview, God has entrusted humans with the capacity to choose (and all the pitfalls it entails, since it implies we could also choose to act / choose wrongly). We are not merely reacting to chemistry or genes. Our choices are deliberate; we are rightly justified and judged accordingly, according to the things God has and hasn’t given us. So, affection, love, kindness, these deeds have actual merit because they are done out of a being’s capacity to choose to do so when they could just as easily choose not to.

      Joshua

      Like

      • “things like love, care, compassion are reduced to mere chemical reactions.”

        That doesn’t reduce those feelings for me. Reducing a picture down to pixels says nothing about the picture. I might be able to explain the reactions that make me feel hungry or in pain, but it doesn’t stop me feeling hungry or hurt. Love and compassion would become no realer to me if I started believing in God again, just like they become no less real when I stopped believing in God.

        So if you lost your faith now, would you kill yourself or keep living? You could still enjoy the company of your friends, a good movie, a glass of wine, arguing with strangers online (!).

        “Now, imagine approaching the convinced nihilist on the verge of suicide.”

        People kill themselves for all sorts of reasons, but I’ve never heard of someone doing so because of nihilism, so I’m not sure how common this actually is. I’ve known three people kill themselves and the reasons each time were pretty complicated. It wasn’t lack of faith or nihilism.

        Like

  5. “So how would you convince a convinced nihilist to not commit suicide?”

    Good question. If they have loved ones who care about them, then you could try to convince them not to kill themselves in order to spare others needless pain. But if they don’t have anyone who cares about them–therein lies the challenge.

    Like

    • How do you explain all the Christian suicides? They presumably believe God cares about them, but they still off themselves.

      Like

      • Yes I’m sure there have been Christians who have committed or attempted suicide. No one ever claimed that Christians are infallible and cannot lose their faith and become de facto nihilists–buying into the media’s glamorization of suicide.

        Like

    • “No one ever claimed that Christians are infallible and cannot lose their faith and become de facto nihilists”

      That contradicts Josh’s claim: “no matter how much people insist that life is ultimately purposeless and meaningless, no one can live out that philosophy consistently.”

      Which is it then?

      Perhaps this is one where it’s actually an argument between Christians.

      Like

    • “Hope you guys won’t give each other sore shoulders from all this back patting…”

      That’s pretty ironic given the number of times I’ve seen “Nice post Getic”; “Thanks Synapt” on this board. Or a lame gag from one of you followed by a “lol” from the other.

      Like

  6. Josh:

    “And I’ll gladly point out, in my last attempt to bring this thread back to the point of the cartoon, this: no matter how much people insist that life is ultimately purposeless and meaningless, no one can live out that philosophy consistently.
    So how would you convince a convinced nihilist to not commit suicide?”

    Excellently put, buddy. I’ve genuinely been waiting for any atheistic materialist or adherent of naturalism to give a satisfactory answer to such a question. And before this gets dragged out on a tangent with an generous sprinkling of straw, let me state up front that:
    1) I have absolutely no doubt that people like tildeb and Andrew Ryan have generally good morals at their core: I’m sure they recognise suffering and believe that a person should not commit suicide or that life is precious (though they do not show consistently when it comes to the murder of millions of unborn human beings in the womb); and
    2) Just because we asked how it is that you find suffering, rape and other events abominations within your worldview doesn’t mean we automatically take the direct opposition position that these events are very enjoyable and worth having around.

    Like I’ve said before, we’re all made in the image of Christ (yes, that includes tildeb and Andrew Ryan), and goodness is meant to be at the heart of our very nature.

    What Josh, I and many others are after, though, is the ontological basis for those beliefs (about suffering, life, etc.), and where it can be found within materialism or naturalism. Fact of the matter is, when tildeb and Andrew Ryan refer to “unnecessary suffering”, or to life as being “precious”, these are value judgments that have no ontological reality undergirding them. “Unnecessary suffering” in tildeb’s worldview just means “tildeb doesn’t like it, and perhaps he can persuade you to not like it too”. If Andrew Ryan says life is “precious”, that view is just a result of certain chemicals and not others flowing inside his head, it sure doesn’t mean the same chemicals need be flowing in mine. And thus, based on their worldview, so what? Why should anyone else bother about it? Why should someone about to commit suicide care if you were to ask them not to, if such value judgments do not actually have any objective meaning?

    So tell us now, within your worldview, are these value judgments arbitrary, or based on something?

    Like

  7. “tildeb has hijacked this thread with his own agenda that has very little to do with the cartoon. The cartoon is about suicide and nihilism. Address those issues, dudes! Save the abortion back and forth for a future cartoon on the subject…”

    tildeb? Hijack a thread? Can’t be! =D

    (P.S.: I am, though, really looking forward to a cartoon on abortion in the future, because as of the last discussion on the subject, I have yet to see tildeb or anyone around here actually back up their claim that an unborn in the womb is not a human being with a single reference to an actual science book on the matter. But that one can wait, I guess…)

    Like

  8. Andrew Ryan:

    “Who is arguing that? No-one I know. A couple of 19th C French writers perhaps.”

    Really, no one you know? Do you not know Richard Dawkins?:

    “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    (Dawkins, “God’s Utility Function”)

    How about Will Provine?:

    “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent…”
    (Provine, Darwin Day, U Tenn, 1998)

    Both from the 21st century, I believe. ;)

    Tell me now, are they behaving inconsistently, and not you? How so?

    “How do you explain all the Christian suicides? They presumably believe God cares about them, but they still off themselves.”

    Good question. Those are obviously Christians who did not act consistently with the tenets of Christianity, as recognised with a look through the Bible and even by your own admission (“The bible may tell them not to kill themselves (tho many still do)”).

    What I want to know is, how are value judgments on life and suffering and other matters consistent within your worldview? Or are they just preference statements?

    Thanks for your time.

    Like

    • “Do you not know Richard Dawkins?”

      Better than you, it seems. Dawkins doesn’t say life is pointless. You’ve quoted him saying that the universe appears indifferent to us. That doesn’t mean he sees life as pointless. I won’t try to paraphrase him because he’s written very well and at length on this issue, such that it’s bizarre to paint him as a defender of nihilism. It’s like quoting Paul McCartney as a defender of factory farming. Have you read any of Dawkins’ books, or have you just searched for quotes from him on Christian websites?

      Never heard of Will Provine, but the key word there is ‘ultimate’. Saying your life has no ultimate meaning doesn’t mean you can’t find meaning in your own life.

      I don’t see nihilism in either of the two people you quote there. Where are the people claiming that there own lives have no meaning and aren’t worth living?

      Like

    • “Those are obviously Christians who did not act consistently with the tenets of Christianity”

      I don’t get what evidence you goes are looking for then. It seems to go like this:
      Atheist kills himself = proof that it leads to nihilism
      Atheist leads fulfilling life = proof that no-one can live according to a nihilistic philosophy, and that they actually sense God in some way
      Christian kills himself = he must have lost his faith or just wasn’t acting consistently with his faith.

      You’ll see whatever you want to see and regardless of the evidence you’ll claim it proves your point. It’s unfalsifiable.

      “Life, family, and friends are much more deserving of my time.”
      Yup.

      Like

    • Andrew Ryan:

      “Dawkins doesn’t say life is pointless. You’ve quoted him saying that the universe appears indifferent to us.”

      Dawkins suggests that in a universe of “blind physical forces”, we’re just gonna have to live with the fact that “some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky”, then carries on in the same breath to talk about a universe with “no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”, and you somehow manage to imagine he’s not referring to human life being pointless in any way?

      Good luck with that argument.

      “… it’s bizarre to paint him as a defender of nihilism.”

      Except I didn’t, if you’d bothered to read carefully. Josh made a point that “no matter how much people insist that life is ultimately purposeless and meaningless, no one can live out that philosophy consistently”, you said no one you know argues that, and I presented something from Dawkins suggesting exactly what Josh did. Do you have anything to say on that?

      “Have you read any of Dawkins’ books, or have you just searched for quotes from him on Christian websites?”

      It’s good that you ask. I have read some of his efforts actually, most recently ‘The God Delusion’. Admittedly though, it was a colossal waste of time, and a reminder that many of the New Atheists are distinguished from – for lack of a better term – “Old” Atheists by better marketing more so than by the quality of their scholarship or argumentation.

      “Never heard of Will Provine, but the key word there is ‘ultimate’. Saying your life has no ultimate meaning doesn’t mean you can’t find meaning in your own life.”

      Fair enough. So what kind of basis or criteria have you used in finding “meaning in your own life”? Is the criteria arbitrary?

      Like

      • “and I presented something from Dawkins suggesting exactly what Josh did”

        Except it didn’t.

        “and you somehow manage to imagine he’s not referring to human life being pointless in any way?”

        I don’t somehow imagine it – it’s a non sequitur to say that he does. He said there’s nothing ‘out there’ caring about us, he was saying this is what he’d expect the universe to look like if there was no God there looking out for us. He argues from that that we need to look out for each other and create meaning for our own lives. Yes, some people have crappier lives than others. Dawkins argues we should do our best to create social justice and improve the lives of the unlucky ones, because we can’t expect a God to do it and can’t expect that they’ll get justice in an afterlife.

        It obviously WAS a “colossal waste of time” you attempting to read his “efforts” as you’ve obviously not attempted to understand it.

        I’m not going to argue with you any longer about what Dawkins actually says. If you want to understand what he actually means, follow one of his arguments through from start to finish, or just figure that you can’t be bothered and hence won’t attempt to summarise his ideas to others. At the moment you’re just quote mining and reading what you want to read.

        Like

      • Andrew claims about our getic.apolo At the moment you’re just quote mining and reading what you want to read.

        Case in point:

        Andrew Ryan writes, I see life as finite; that makes it precious to me, not pointless.

        Our getic.apolo reads this, and then shows his comprehension skills by stating that the Fact of the matter is, when tildeb and Andrew Ryan refer to (“unnecessary suffering”, or to) life as being “precious”, these are value judgments that have no ontological reality undergirding them.

        (Ontological reality, by the way, is redundant; in its general use, ontology means we’re talking about what kinds of things exist in reality.)

        Claim by Ryan: life is precious BECAUSE it is finite. (He goes on to ask – very reasonably in my opinion) Can you think of any commodity that becomes LESS valuable the more limited it is?

        getic.apolo’s comprehension is that ‘life is finite’ has “no reality undergirding’ it.

        Really? There’s no evidence in reality that human life is finite?

        This is the level of discourse getic.apolo brings to the table: to grossly mischaracterize, misrepresent, misunderstand, and just make up all kinds of non sequitor claims to negatively portray atheists. There isn’t even any attempt to understand Andrew’s point even when it’s clearly laid out for all to see. What getic.apolo sees is deeply questionable because his comprehension skills are so poor… and intentionally so.

        This is why I continue to point out that our getic.apolo doesn’t care about what’s true; he cares only about what he believes to be true. And this makes his ‘contribution’ counter productive to any meaningful dialogue that seeks to find out from different perspectives what’s actually true.

        Like

      • Thanks again Tildeb. I generally pride myself on writing clearly, and arguing a point so that even if people don’t agree with me, they at least comprehend my point of view. Sometimes on this board though I wonder if I’m going mad, such is the number of points I make that simply don’t get understood. Glad that they make sense to you.

        Like

      • It’s the intent to misrepresent that is so tedious.

        No matter how well expressed, an important point we make that adds clarity is intentionally misrepresented or ignored while the claims loaded up on the belief-train continues to blissfully chug along uninterrupted by all the important criticism-sidings and roundabouts we point out along the route… a route that we can show leads to very poor conclusion-destinations.

        Like

      • Do you need a tissue? Really, guys? If it’s that bad, then go elsewhere. There are many other blogs where these massive, all-comprehensive, well written and well thought out points of yours could reach an apparently more receptive audience than we insignificant, ignorant little Christians here.

        Hope you guys won’t give each other sore shoulders from all this back patting…

        Then again, Snoopy did once ask, “Has it ever occured to you that you might br wrong?” Did either of you ever consider that you might be wrong?

        Joshua

        Like

  9. “Claim by Ryan: life is precious BECAUSE it is finite. (He goes on to ask – very reasonably in my opinion) Can you think of any commodity that becomes LESS valuable the more limited it is?”

    Hmm…good point. I guess nihilism is what made abortion as acceptable as getting a tooth extracted–and what could make euthanasia for the sick and the elderly just as acceptable in the near future.

    “Life is precious because it is finite.”

    Yet it seems that life is only “precious” when it comes to those that are more useful to society. And that certainly doesn’t include life a helpless baby. Unfortunately as we continue to devolve, “invalids” will also be included as they will be regarded as being useless parasites–just as many today (e.g., tildeb) regard the unborn as being parasites.

    Like

    • I guess nihilism is what made abortion as acceptable as getting a tooth extracted–and what could make euthanasia for the sick and the elderly just as acceptable in the near future.

      May I suggest you stop your guessing and start to comprehend the informed reasons why abortion – like end of life issues – is not a black and white, right and wrong moral issue alone (somehow detached from the pointy corners of other vital considerations like the health and welfare of those people gestating a fetus or incrementally dying and living with intolerable suffering they themselves want to end in a responsible fashion). These reasons underpin why choice is essential for a truly moral position… exactly what the fetus fascists attack under the guise of religious morality. But life is more complex than that.

      As usual, the majority of folk who are religious mistakenly assumes that on whatever they slap the bumper sticker of morality means that the object or action so labelled now falls into their area of ‘expertise’ (please notice the scare quotes; they are quite appropriate). It is the recognition of and reliance on this ‘expertise’ (again, the scare quotes are very appropriate) that allowed a healthy woman in a first world country under the care of educated health care professionals to first suffer unnecessarily and then die unnecessarily to maintain MORE respect for for this strictly religiously-approved ‘moral’ reason touted to be pro-life!

      The irony probably escapes you so you must blame atheists somehow… hence the guess about those dodgy nihilists playing some part.

      Good grief, but the blinders you wear are astoundingly effective at keeping reality at bay.

      Like

      • A person could get mauled by someone’s dog and die. Someone could choke to death on a ham sandwich. Does that mean all dogs and ham sandwiches should be destroyed? Would that solve all our problems? What else should we get rid of simply because they have been erroneously been associated with death?

        Great Orwellian solution: Fight death with death.

        Isn’t that like having a “War to End all Wars?”

        Like

      • What on earth are talking about?

        My claim is that a woman is dead who shouldn’t be. The reason why she shouldn’t be dead is because she should have received appropriate medical care. This appropriate medical care was denied for one reason only: a religious faith-based notion respected MORE by the ‘professional’ medical staff than the life of the woman. This is what ‘pro-life’ (notice the appropriate care quotes, please) looks like in action: pious barbarism.

        Religion poisons everything. And it kills in the name of life.

        Like

      • Your last two sentences were meant to be stating something profound. And they did — something profoundly absurd. Besides, it sounded more convincing coming from Hitchens. Don’t you have your own blog? Then take your agenda there and stop hijacking threads. The cartoon is about nihilism and suicide. Address those issues.

        Like

  10. “The reason why she shouldn’t be dead is because she should have received appropriate medical care.”

    Agreed. If she didn’t contract that bacterial infection, she would still be alive. And babies do not infect their mothers–though she can pass on her infection to her baby.

    It’s funny how unborn babies are simply a “mass of cells” when it comes to abortion, yet they they’re also “murderers” that can independently contract and spread diseases to their uninfected mothers with…deadly consequences.

    I think you’ve seen Alien one too many times. Media does have an influence on our collective consciousness–much of it being on a subliminal level.

    Like

  11. ” The cartoon is about nihilism and suicide. Address those issues”

    We were doing our best to to address those issues, we’d dropped the abortion topic. Then Synapt said:
    “Hmm…good point. I guess nihilism is what made abortion as acceptable…”

    This was deliberate trolling, written as if it was following on a train of thought from one of our posts when in fact doing nothing of the kind, in fact being directly in opposition to the points we were making. Tell HIM off if you think that’s derailing the discussion, or you’re saying it’s ok for your side to strike a low blow but not ok for our side to block it.

    Like

  12. Josh: “Can you show us where we compliment ourselves and our cleverness?”

    The following took me 30 seconds to find:

    synapticcohesion 2012/10/23 at 3:36 PM: “Impressive, GA. :)”
    Getic.Apolo 2012/10/23 at 4:18 PM: “Thank you, SC. =)”

    Just search for posts saying ‘thank’ or ‘lol’.

    Like

    • Unless you mean a person paying themself a compliment. In which case, you’re stretching it to say that ‘I take pride in trying to make myself understood’ = ‘patting myself on the back for my own cleverness’.

      Either way, how does your snide remark related to suicide and nihilism?

      Like

      • It wasn’t me who is trying to paint the picture that I was a clear communicator with many clear, good points that get ignored by or are too sophisticated for what are apparently dense or really ignorant Christians here. That’s kind of why I asked you if you ever considered that you might be wrong at any point along the line…

        Joshua

        Like

      • Josh, in case you didn’t notice, I didn’t just say that Andrew made his claim clear for ease of comprehension. I showed that the claim was very clear. And I did this to show evidence counter to the claim made by our getic.apolo, busy as is he is MISrepresenting, MISunderstanding, MISleading what others say and what others mean. That’s not self-congratulatory back patting: that’s demonstrable evidence that the MIScomprehension belongs solely and wholly to those like our getic.apolo who are UNWILLING to engage in honest dialogue.

        Are you sure you’re telling the right people to smarten up, stay on track, go away, find some other blog to rant?

        I don’t know about you, Josh, but I have never learned a damn thing from agreement alone; I have an opportunity to learn only when ideas challenge my understanding. But in order for ME to benefit, I first must be willing and able to comprehend what reasons inform the challenge. Next, I must be willing and able to compare and contrast which reasons have more merit by reality’s arbitration of them. (This is where honest dialogue plays such an important role: to explore the quality of the reasons behind the challenge.) Finally, I must be willing and able to change my mind. Without these, I have effectively closed my mind from ever being changed by anyone, or anything regardless of the merit of the challenge. I don’t want to be that kind of person because I don’t want a mind that is protected from learning while open to credulity and gullibility based on unquestionable authority. I don’t want to be a stupid person: busy fooling myself and feeling clever for doing so.

        Like

      • And your final paragraph seems to concisely encapsulate the general impression of Christians here — or anyone who has come to any different conclusions than you — that you apparently have. I could take a picture of my bookshelf to show you that challenging myself and what I believe is a daily thing for me. Some of us aren’t as narrowminded as you’d wish us to be.

        Like

      • Of course I could be wrong. I wasn’t claiming to always be right. I was talking about making a point clearly, not that my points are always right. I specifically said I was aiming so that even if someone thought I was wrong, they could at least understand my point. How come consistently Tildeb understands exactly what I’m saying, but you guys manage to reply as if I’d said something completely different? And there’s very rarely a request for clarification, just a bulldoze straight into a misunderstanding.

        I didn’t say ‘I write so clearly’. If someone says they take pride in their appearance, it’s a statement of intent, not a boast about how great they look. Once again my words get twisted. This is perhaps why your cartoons and arguments contain so many straw men – you just don’t listen when people try to tell you what they ACTUALLY believe.

        Like

      • Point taken. It’ll sound rude, but the remedy is simple: If my cartoons and my arguments frustrate you so, then don’t look at the cartoons and don’t leave messages. (tongue-in-cheek advisory) After all, none of these interactions and words mean anything in the end anyway, right? No sense in spoiling your right-here-and-now over something as trivial as staw-man-filled, Christian apologetics cartoons, no?

        But I think more of you, Andy.

        As intolerable as you may think I am now, I was much worse before the teachings of Jesus entered my heart and mind. And speaking as a person who had once stared face-to-face with the barrel of a gun many years ago, you’re not going to convince me that thinking life is ultimately meaningless has no real affect on the right-here-and-now. (I didn’t have a bunch of alcohol, drugs, and games to keep me preoccupied enough to not think about it.) I think the reason that more people haven’t committed suicide may be because God has put in a very strong survival mechanism that prevents them from carrying it out (which I ran head into in my own experience). I think if we examined the statistics, most people who commit suicide are either intoxicated or strung out on drugs, things which numb them to the mechanisms that would otherwise prevent them from doing it. (One statistic states that 50% of suicides are committed under the influence of one or the other. And it is the second most common risk factor, after depression [which makes one wonder what causes or contributes to that].)

        Belief in God isn’t a trivial thing or an on-off switch, which your question about whether or not I’d kill myself if I stopped believing in God tomorrow implies. It’s an intimate, spiritual interaction that is similar in some respects to a husband-and-wife relationship (with obvious differences).

        And the good news about Jesus dragged me out of a state of depression and suicide — body, soul, and spirit without any medication or 12-step program. I affirm that wholeheartedly.

        Joshua

        Like

      • No, you guys keep complaining that your points are ignored and making it seem like it was generally painful to interact here. If that’s how it really is, the what other solution do you recommend?

        I’ve already told you that I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to leave comments. And I was just half-heartedly teasing you guys about complimenting each other. Truth be told, I’d agree that you are a straight shooter. (I can’t say that about myself because I tend to over-think things.) But I apologize for coming across as snide, man.

        I’ll leave it there.

        Peace,

        Joshua

        Like

      • Thanks for the link. I read it and thought about posting a link that addresses starlight and the age of the universe (a great question), but I was genuinely concerned about 2 things: 1) going off-topic; 2) being that the physicist is a creationist, you’d likely discount it before even reading it. Now, I hope I could be wrong on point #2…

        Like

  13. Excellent. We have one fella (Andrew Ryan) who’s as far from comprehending Josh and I as possible. And then there’s cheerleader tildeb – ever ready with pom poms – apparently providing pseudo-support for anyone who says anything remotely against what Josh, synapticcohesion or I say, just because. Not to mention how he keeps us “informed” with yet another generous round of substance-free, rant-filled diatribes against religion, me, synapticcohesion, and anything else in between. tildeb provides all of this, of course, without making much coherent sense or contributing to the discussion.

    This kind of stuff can’t be scripted.

    In fact, the way tildeb is making repeated, rage-filled personal attacks against me – for the simple fact that I focus on and attack the heart of his arguments and dismantle his points on a regular basis – is starting to become somewhat creepy. Here’s a taste of tildeb at his non-substantial best:

    ”Josh, in case you didn’t notice, I didn’t just say that Andrew made his claim clear for ease of comprehension. I showed that the claim was very clear. And I did this to show evidence counter to the claim made by our getic.apolo, busy as is he is MISrepresenting, MISunderstanding, MISleading what others say and what others mean. That’s not self-congratulatory back patting: that’s demonstrable evidence that the MIScomprehension belongs solely and wholly to those like our getic.apolo who are UNWILLING to engage in honest dialogue.”

    Wow, quite an angry little man he is, isn’t he?

    (of course, I will go on now to show how neither he nor Andrew Ryan have made a single decent attempt at addressing the heart of what Josh and I are driving at)

    Anyhow, I’m gonna save on responding to tildeb (for obvious reasons), and focus on Andrew Ryan’s comments.

    (Footnote: And tildeb, any online dictionary would correct you rightaway: ontological relates to the “essence or the nature of being”, while reality pertains to “the quality or state of being actual or true” and “that which exists objectively and in fact.” There are subtle, but definite differences between the two. Just Google “ontological reality” if you’re really interested in education on the matter. Philosophy 101, my friend)

    Like

  14. Andrew Ryan:

    “I generally pride myself on writing clearly, and arguing a point so that even if people don’t agree with me, they at least comprehend my point of view.”

    But Andrew Ryan, you obviously have not written anything clearly tackling the issue. You didn’t even address it, much less answer it. In other words, the question makes you uncomfortable, so you dodged it.

    In fact, right from the offset when you suggested that I’m ”quote mining and reading what you want to read” off Dawkins book and have “not attempted to understand it”, it was clear that (i) you haven’t read or understood Dawkins’ book, (ii) do not understand what quote-mining means, and (iii) do not get the point Josh and I are making. So let’s get back to basics, lest Josh and I are accused of not being clear.

    When I quoted Dawkins to make my point, I was quoting very much within context, to back up the point Josh and I are making, and what New Atheists like Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have uncontroversially agreed with for years (as you’ll find if you’ve actually read ‘The God Delusion’): That there is simply no ultimate foundation for value based judgments, purpose and the likes in a naturalistic worldview (in fact, I challenge you to show me how Dawkins argues otherwise for “purpose” in his book).

    Now note, of course no one is saying that Dawkins doesn’t suggest “that that we need to look out for each other and create meaning for our own lives”, no one is saying it’s untrue that “Dawkins argues we should do our best to create social justice and improve the lives of the unlucky ones”, and no one is saying you can’t choose to “see life as finite” and “find meaning in your own life”.

    Again – and you’re stuck with what Josh and I are actually saying and not what you believe we’re saying – what we’re after is the naturalistic basis for those views by which you attach “purpose” to your life. As far as we see it, purpose, value judgments and the likes within a naturalistic worldview are arbitrary, and can’t be defined naturalistically.

    Suppose you view life as finite as you’ve said, and as a result you live doing good and loving everyone around you. Another person about to commit suicide could view life just as finite as you do, and say to himself “Oh why bother, do good, don’t do good, we’re all gonna die and disappear to a non-existent lifelessness anyway, so what’s the point dying 80 years from now if I could die rightaway?” Question is, within a naturalistically worldview, if your views are purely arbitrary, how are you able to tell him he’s wrong to think that way? Is he, in fact, wrong to think that way? How so? Why should he care what you have to say, given within your worldview, your view of life being precious is just a result of chemicals within your brain interacting in a way different from his? For that matter, can purpose be found anywhere within a naturalistic worldview? Is it a set of chemicals in our head, or our heart, or anywhere else? Within a naturalistically worldview, why should anyone care about “life being precious”?

    I hope I’m showing you the moral logic of a naturalistic worldview. Very few atheistic materialists or adherents of naturalism actually have the hard honesty of the old atheists like Nietzsche and Sartre, to willingly and candidly admit to the monstrous moral nihilism that the worldview entails.

    So these, Andrew Ryan, are the actual questions Josh and I have for you, and the questions I hope you’ll answer. Thanks for your time.

    Like

    • I think there is a lot to think about here, GA. The thing that was ironic to me about Dawkins et al. was that they claim that there is no meaning to life (ultimately — nihilistic), but then take it upon themselves to create meaning. The irony is that any meaning they create is, accordingly, a delusion, that is “a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary” (Wikipedia).

      My thoughts correspond well with those in the GA’s comment above. However, I think Andy is a pretty straight shooter most of the time. So I hope he’ll read these comments and then address why he, busy as I know he is, continues to interact with us here (especially when it was apparently very, uh, unpleasant ordeal).

      Is it to convert us? Is it to say we’re wrong? If we are wrong, then what does it matter if we have chosen one delusion over and against another that is equally delusionary?

      As a Christian, I think we’re not placed in an either/or situation, as if we can only have meaning either ultimately or day-to-day. We are designed for both. And I think the human constitution within us evidences that.

      And — to tie this in with a previous comment by Andy regarding the reductionist tendencies of naturalism — to think that we could reduce love, kindness, and compassion down to mere chemistry is a difficult thing to swallow. No one could be rightly applauded or justly condemned for any action since, in the end, they were merely following the dictates of their biology and had no choice in the matter. A very dangerous idea that robs a proponent of such a view with any right to judge, compliment, or complain. Everything would be meaningless and for nothing.

      Let me just add again that in a Christian worldview, God has entrusted humans with the capacity to choose (and all the pitfalls it entails, since it implies we could also choose to act / choose wrongly). We are not merely reacting to chemistry or genes. Our choices are deliberate; we are rightly justified and judged accordingly, according to the things God has and hasn’t given us. So, affection, love, kindness, these deeds have actual merit because they are done out of a being’s capacity to choose to do so when they could just as easily choose not to.

      Joshua

      Like

  15. On topic:

    “If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then – then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing.”

    – Jeffrey Dahmer

    Like

    • ‘From Darwin to Hitler’ by Richard Weikart (video)

      “Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism… there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm… These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao…

      The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

      The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

      Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!”

      – Vox Day

      Like

      • And if we look at the population as a whole, we find Christians much more likely to commit murders and crimes in general than atheists, who are far less represented in prisons than they are in the general population (and yes, that’s counting religion on ENTRY, so you can’t claim they all converted after incarceration). Atheists in one survery were 8-15% of the population, yet only accounted for 2% of those in prison. Furthermore, religiosity of a country is strongly positively correlated with its murder rate and with its crime rate in general. American, whilel one of the most religious countries on earth, also has the highest rates of teen pregnancy, STDs, and abortions.

        An ‘amazing coincidence’ or does it ‘reek of causation’?

        I was going to post out a long considered reply to your post of 2012/11/21 at 4:31 AM, and to Josh’s reply. But if your Weikart quote (Darwin to Hitler? From Darwin to the man who rejected speciation and banned Darwin’s books?) is where you want to go with this, then I’ll leave it there. We can hurl stats quotes at each other to make ourselves feel self-righteous if you’d rather than than a proper discussion, but I don’t see it as a good use of my time.

        Like

      • I note too that Weikart’s Darwin to Hitler was widely criticised by historians and other academics. Wiki has an amusing collection of quotes on it. Move on, nothing to see here.

        Like

      • Andrew Ryan:

        Hmm, I see lots of unsubstantiated assertions that are not worth following up for the simple fact that they’re taking us away from the main discussion, and are – as you note – not a good use of our limited time.

        But since you assure us that “I was going to post out a long considered reply to your post of 2012/11/21 at 4:31 AM, and to Josh’s reply”, yeah sure, I’ll wait for it. I’m not kidding when I say that I am sincerely seeking honest, satisfactory replies to some of the questions posed there from someone who subscribes to a naturalistic worldview, for I’ve yet to get them.

        Here’s hoping you’re the first. Good day.

        Like

      • “they’re taking us away from the main discussion”

        Right – it was you who unwisely tried to go down this irrelevant path in the first place.

        Like

  16. “I’m not kidding when I say that I am sincerely seeking honest, satisfactory replies to some of the questions posed there ”

    Then why post nonsense about Hitler and Stalin? Hitler wasn’t even an atheist and he rejected Darwinism. Not a nihilist as far as I can work out either. What’s any of that got to do with the topic? Sorry, your posts just strike me as someone trying to inflame and score points rather than actually find stuff out.

    “for I’ve yet to get them”

    Perhaps people have tried to explain to you before and you’ve been too busy looking for what you want to see in their answers you’ve not actually listened to what they’ve said. Because that’s what’s been going on here as far as I can see.

    If you are genuinely wanting answers, you could start by re-reading the responses we’ve already given. You want real explanations for people like Dahmer, read authors like Simon Baron Cohen on how sociopaths and psychopaths are made. Read a proper biography of Hitler to discover the genuine, complicated roots of his motives (Ian Kershaw for example). Read a Dawkins book all the way through, perhaps Unweaving the Rainbow, or see if you can find his recent TV series to watch (might be online), Sex, Death & The Meaning of Life, as at least one episode deals with many of these questions. Want to know how to counsel the suicidal? There are plenty of books on that subject too (my own wife often counsels such people, and doesn’t refer to Gods).

    That should keep you busy for quite some time.

    If you’re real busy and just want a short answer to why more people don’t just kill themselves – the survival instinct.

    Like

    • Andrew Ryan:

      “Then why post nonsense about Hitler and Stalin? Hitler wasn’t even an atheist and he rejected Darwinism. Not a nihilist as far as I can work out either.”

      All unsubstantiated assertions, of course. And you keep digressing even as I suggested we get back on topic. So very quickly now: if you’re interested in the facts, why not read the book (which – from the looks of it and contrary to your spin – is widely praised by historians and authors and is in fact well rated on Amazon by professional reviewers)? Or just as well, hear from the man himself?

      ‘General Response to Critics’ by Richard Weikart

      Excerpt:

      “Though my book, From Darwin to Hitler, has received many positive reviews, it has also aroused some criticism. Unfortunately, many of my critics have misrepresented my position, so I need to set the record straight…”

      ‘Can Ruse’s View of Ethics Save Us from Hitler?’ by Richard Weikart

      ‘Historian Richard Weikart on the controversial associations between Darwin and Hitler – and why he risks writing about them’

      That’s all I have to say. Note that this is the last I will be speaking about Darwin and Hitler on this thread, for I am more interested in the questions specifically pertaining to this thread that I have yet to get a response to.

      Like

      • “All unsubstantiated assertions, of course.”

        If you actually read up on Hitler from someone not blinded by Weikart’s agenda, you’d know they’re thoroughly backed up. Hitler specifically said that speciation doesn’t occur, he specifically voiced his belief in other anti-Darwinian ideas, he banned Darwin’s books. He countless times invoked a deity, he said he was stamping down on atheism, he never said he didn’t believe in a God.

        These aren’t assertions, they are FACTS.

        Like

      • Andrew: Hitler wasn’t even an atheist and he rejected Darwinism. Not a nihilist as far as I can work out either.”

        Getic: All unsubstantiated assertions, of course.

        Not according to the historians.
        Hilter’s writings are still available. His public speeches are on record.
        It’s even still possible to find out the books he banned and the laws he had enacted and the wording of the oaths he got his minions to swear.

        Like

  17. Andrew Ryan:

    “Perhaps people have tried to explain to you before and you’ve been too busy looking for what you want to see in their answers you’ve not actually listened to what they’ve said. Because that’s what’s been going on here as far as I can see.”

    Um, nope. I’ve yet to get a single honest and satisfactory answer to the question, just plenty of dodging, even from you here. In fact, I don’t see you making an attempt at answering any of the specific questions I’ve posed. I’ll repost my earlier entry just so we can be clear as to what I’m asking:

    “When I quoted Dawkins to make my point, I was quoting very much within context, to back up the point Josh and I are making, and what New Atheists like Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have uncontroversially agreed with for years (as you’ll find if you’ve actually read ‘The God Delusion’): That there is simply no ultimate foundation for value based judgments, purpose and the likes in a naturalistic worldview (in fact, I challenge you to show me how Dawkins argues otherwise for “purpose” in his book).

    Now note, of course no one is saying that Dawkins doesn’t suggest “that that we need to look out for each other and create meaning for our own lives”, no one is saying it’s untrue that “Dawkins argues we should do our best to create social justice and improve the lives of the unlucky ones”, and no one is saying you can’t choose to “see life as finite” and “find meaning in your own life”.

    Again – and you’re stuck with what Josh and I are actually saying and not what you believe we’re saying – what we’re after is the naturalistic basis for those views by which you attach “purpose” to your life. As far as we see it, purpose, value judgments and the likes within a naturalistic worldview are arbitrary, and can’t be defined naturalistically.

    Suppose you view life as finite as you’ve said, and as a result you live doing good and loving everyone around you. Another person about to commit suicide could view life just as finite as you do, and say to himself “Oh why bother, do good, don’t do good, we’re all gonna die and disappear to a non-existent lifelessness anyway, so what’s the point dying 80 years from now if I could die rightaway?” Question is, within a naturalistically worldview, if your views are purely arbitrary, how are you able to tell him he’s wrong to think that way? Is he, in fact, wrong to think that way? How so? Why should he care what you have to say, given within your worldview, your view of life being precious is just a result of chemicals within your brain interacting in a way different from his? For that matter, can purpose be found anywhere within a naturalistic worldview? Is it a set of chemicals in our head, or our heart, or anywhere else? Within a naturalistically worldview, why should anyone care about “life being precious”?”

    There you go. Perhaps you’d care to show me how your responses have actually addressed these questions, and not the questions you believe we’re asking?

    “If you’re real busy and just want a short answer to why more people don’t just kill themselves – the survival instinct.”

    Again, that’s not one of the questions I asked. Let’s try keeping to the ones I actually did ask, shall we? ;)

    Like

  18. “if your views are purely arbitrary”

    Arbitrary: “Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle”

    Who says my views are purely arbitrary? Who says the way I live my life is based on whims? Speak for yourself, not for others.

    “If your view of life being precious is just a result of chemicals within your brain interacting in a way different from his?”

    Who said that our brains being composed of chemicals means we can’t reason?

    “how are you able to tell him he’s wrong to think that way?”
    What do you mean by ‘wrong’?

    “Why should he care what you have to say”
    Why are you asking ME about what someone ELSE should care about? Ask him. Who is this guy anyway? You just made him up. I could easily come up with some strawman Christian who figures that he might as well take a short-cut to heaven by taking part in very dangerous sports and donating organs to others such that he dies soon afterwards without actually committing suicide. What’s the significance of what I can or can’t say to ‘convinced nihilists’? I’ve never met one of these chaps and have no idea what they’re supposed to prove. Anyone would think they’re dropping like flies the way you guys carry on.

    Anyway, I already discussed the ‘we’re just chemicals’ idea on my post of 2012/11/19 at 2:18 PM. I guess you decided it wasn’t ‘honest’ or ‘satisfactory’.

    Like

    • Or I could ask you what you’d say to someone who believes in God, but hates him and wants to go to hell, so he’ll go round killing people to get there. Or someone else convinced that the best way to get people to paradise is to kill them as soon as possible, figuring that his own punishment for this will be worth it for the favour he’s doing other people. Given that these people, like your nihilist, or virtually non-existent, who cares? Why is it up to us to come up with arguments against these idiots anyway? There are suicidal people out there, but I’m not aware of any who any who subscribe to these philosophies – one CAN actually reason with them and counsel them. Often they need medication as severe chemical imbalances have caused their depression. Such people can be theist or atheist.

      Like

      • Given that these people, like your nihilist, or virtually non-existent, who cares? Why is it up to us to come up with arguments against these idiots anyway?

        Ah, wait! I know this one.
        ‘Cause we atheists are all secret nihilists but we just can’t admit it to ourselves and need religious people to tell us what we really believe.
        Or something silly like that.

        Like

  19. “Andrew: Hitler wasn’t even an atheist and he rejected Darwinism. Not a nihilist as far as I can work out either.”

    Some Hitler quotes:

    “The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.”

    “Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.”

    “It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .”

    –Adolf Hitler, Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944

    http://johnadavid.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/the-truth-adolf-hitler-talks-about-christianity/

    Maybe it’s just me, but Hitler’s anti-Christian rants are virtually indistinguishable from your typical flaming militant atheist rant.

    Like

    • That’s funny, to me his anti-atheist rants are pretty indistinguishable from those of people like you.
      “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith…”

      “We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

      ““I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
      Creator”

      This one from 1941:
      “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”

      And to finish on a biggie:

      “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
      fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
      by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
      summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

      Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the factthat it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

      Like

    • Always check your sources:

      According to historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, the statements found within the Table Talk seem to “reveal an unmistakable rupture with his previous religious attitudes.”

      Historian Richard Carrier cautions that no one “who quotes this text is quoting what Hitler actually said.”

      There is absolutely no doubt that Hitler was a catholic and that he supported catholic privilege in public matters. There is no doubt Hitler had a polikcy of elimination for atheists and repeatedly atheist organizations and its members. There is also no doubt that when catholicism came into conflict with National Socialism, Hitler favoured his nazi policies.

      The guy was a dictator of a totalitarian state. Like all such dictators, he used similar techniques of religious indoctrination, used religion when convenient, and presented it as a problem when it interfered in any way with his quest for absolute power. I would no more blame religion for a Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot as a reasonable theist would blame atheism; neither has anything to do with these totalitarian states.

      Like

      • “There is absolutely no doubt that Hitler was a catholic and that he supported catholic privilege in public matters.”

        As I had already stated, that is “political posturing.”

        Seething words against the Christian majority, on the other hand, has no political advantage. But it certainly offers a lot of insight into what Hitler really was–ideologically and psychologically.

        Like

      • synapticcohesion:

        “As I had already stated, that is “political posturing.”

        Seething words against the Christian majority, on the other hand, has no political advantage. But it certainly offers a lot of insight into what Hitler really was–ideologically and psychologically.”

        Well put. Anyone who makes the ridiculous assertion that “Hitler was a catholic and… supported catholic privilege in public matters” – an assertion that history and facts seriously and clearly undermine – is far detached from reality. I don’t think tildeb intends for you to take him seriously. Seriously. =D

        Like

    • Put up or shut up, Synapt – do you have a single quote from Hitler where he said he doesn’t believe in God? Because if quotes from someone dissing a particular religion make them atheist then any Christian who attacks Islam qualifies. What makes someone an atheist is not believing in God. Quotes to support this charge for Hitler?

      Like

      • “Put up or shut up, Synapt – do you have a single quote from Hitler where he said he doesn’t believe in God?”

        He uses cold, clinical words such as “Godhead” instead of God, Lord, Almighty–words that real Christians would use when speaking of the God that they revere. I don’t know about you Andrew, but I don’t need someone to spell out that they do not believe in God to know that they don’t.

        Like

    • Andrew Ryan:

      “Put up or shut up, Synapt – do you have a single quote from Hitler where he said he doesn’t believe in God?”

      But wait, aren’t you the guys who’re always saying you can’t prove a negative? Burden of proof, remember? How about you show inform us on the religion that Hitler subscribed to, with some proper evidence? What was he now, um, Hindu, perhaps?

      Like

    • And as for the “Hitler wasn’t even an atheist and he rejected Darwinism” bit, one thing has to be made clear. There perhaps were some other minor factors that played into Nazi racism and the holocaust, but to say that Darwinism played no role, or even an insignificant role, is absurd. The Nazi emphasis on proper breeding, racial purity, and weeding out defectives come from taking Darwin’s theory seriously and applying it at that level of society. That the Darwinist-Haeckelian frame of thought strongly shaped Hitler’s thinking, speech and behaviour is well documented in history – even by his own words – and is beyond reasonable doubt.

      “That’s in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed. The law of natural selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.”
      (Hitler, Table Talk, 10th October, 1941)

      “For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to “save” feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned.”
      (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 4)

      Enough said. Now if only someone would finally get round to sharing with us the naturalistic basis for purpose in life. Any takers at all?

      Like

      • “The Nazi emphasis on proper breeding, racial purity, and weeding out defectives come from taking Darwin’s theory seriously and applying it at that level of society”

        Animal husbandry and selective breeding was practiced for thousands of years by humans before Darwin came along, so no I don’t think your argument works.

        “But wait, aren’t you the guys who’re always saying you can’t prove a negative?”

        YOU are arguing that Hitler was an atheist. I’m not asking for proof, I’m asking for evidence. So far, zip. We’ve got loads of quotes of him talking about his faith in a God, we’ve got none where he says he doesn’t believe in a God.

        “Burden of proof, remember?”

        Right – and you’re the one making the claim, not me. Therefore the burden of proof rests with you.

        Like

      • Andrew Ryan:

        “We’ve got loads of quotes of him talking about his faith in a God…”

        And this God/religion that he has faith in, and which is supposedly backed up by clear evidence, is….?

        Like

      • Exactly. Hitler’s naturalistic outlook on life is completely independent of God. This is how he could promote racial superiority and eugenics without contradiction. If he truly adhered to Christian ideals, he would not be able to promote Darwinism and racial superiority and inferiority as that would conflict with the Christian assertion that we are all God’s children created in His image.

        Like

      • You’re very confused, synapticcohesion: the only leader who mentions reading Darwin’s TOS is Churchill, where he writes,

        “It was not until this winter of 1896, when I had almost completed my twenty-second year, that the desire for learning came upon me. I began to feel myself wanting in even the vaguest knowledge about many large spheres of thought. […] So I resolved to read history, philosophy, economics, and things like that; […] From November to May I read for four or five hours every day history and philosophy. Plato’s Republic it appeared he was for all practical purposes the same as Socrates; the Politics of Aristotle, edited by Dr. Welldon himself; Schopenhauer on Pessimism; Malthus on Population; Darwin’s Origin of Species: all interspersed with other books of lesser standing.”

        In contrast Hitler never mentions Darwin and activley pursued policies contrary to it. In fact (not that you care) there is ZERO connection between Hitler’s insane policies and the theory explained by Darwin. That you continue to promote the crazy lie that Darwin’s theory of evolution somehow motivated Hitler is right out the Discoveroids tactical handbook of spreading creationist lies in spite of ignoring compelling historical evidence to the contrary.

        The point is that if knowledge of Darwin’s theory caused any effect about anything leading up to WWII and its resolution, the little mantra you should be saying is, “No Darwin, No Churchill.” But that doesn’t support your misapplied a priori faith-based belief, now does it?

        Facts are such trouble, aren’t they? If only they’d just go away so we could believe whatever we wanted… in the safety of our own bubble-mind.

        Like

      • Are you denying that Hitler spoke of evolution repeatedly in Mein Kampf? That he claimed that blacks and Jews are closer to “apes?”

        Are you denying that Darwin himself wrote that blacks and Australian aborigines are closer to gorillas and other “higher apes” than are Caucasians?

        Like

      • That’s certainly not Darwin’s opinion of human evolution; he writes very clearly about the significant problems in trying to divide humanity into ‘races’ and ‘sub-species’. He relies on the lack of evidence for sterility to support his notion that we are one species with reasonable differences based on long term interaction with our environments. Hitler’s understanding is not Darwinian at all; it is much more along the lines of the eugenicist Broun. As for the notion of Galton’s eugenics, Darwin wrote a letter to him where he stated that he would “doubt greatly whether such would be advantageous to the world at large at present.”

        He explained patiently that, “Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.

        Clearly, linking Hitler’s policies of racial purification and eugenics and Nazi actions of forced sterilization and death of ‘impure’ racial stock to Darwin’s theory of evolution is a lie. I cannot be plainer. History is clear: Hitler believed stuff contrary to what Darwin thought and expressed.

        Like

    • “If he truly adhered to Christian ideals, he would not be able to promote Darwinism and racial superiority and inferiority as that would conflict with the Christian assertion that we are all God’s children created in His image.”

      Your assertion was not that he wasn’t a Christian, it was that he was an atheist. Evidence please.

      (I’m leaving aside the fact that if you ruled out any Christian who has ever been racist, you’re casting aside a huge number of Christians. You’re playing ‘no true Scotsman).

      Like

      • I just answered your question. Christians or any other religious persons would not use terms such as “Godhead” when speaking of their God. These are terms that atheists/Darwinists use.

        Like

      • “(I’m leaving aside the fact that if you ruled out any Christian who has ever been racist, you’re casting aside a huge number of Christians. You’re playing ‘no true Scotsman).”

        Sure there’s many claiming to be Christians that not only promote racism–they burn crosses, tie and drag other human beings to the back of their trucks, commit mass murder…you name it. Common sense would tell you that these are not practicing Christians.

        Like

      • “Christians or any other religious persons would not use terms such as “Godhead” when speaking of their God”

        Not good enough, and pure supposition on your part. How do you know what words German speakers use to describe their God anyway? Besides, he also refers to the Lord and Saviour, words I’ve never heard an atheist use to refer to God. Where’s the quote where Hitler denies the existence of a God? Loads of quotes where he cites his faith, says he’s

        Like

      • Sorry, last post got cut off. You get my drift, anyway.

        “Common sense would tell you that these are not practicing Christians.”

        Common sense tells me that it’s not just atheists putting America at the top of Western countries for abortion rates, murders and prison population. Then we’ve got all the Catholic abuse scandals in Britain, Australia, North America, Ireland, etc, stretching back decades. I could go on, but if these are all ‘not true Christians’ then I’m afraid there’s not many left, if there ever were any, and I’m sure a few would say you three don’t qualify either.

        Like

      • And what a surprise Synaptic, you’re talking nonsense anyway:
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead_in_Christianity
        “Godhead is a Middle English variant of the word godhood, and denotes the Divine Nature or Substance (Ousia) of the Christian God, or the Trinity. Within some traditions such as Mormonism, the term is used as a nontrinitarian substitute for the term Trinity, denoting the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit not as a Trinity, but as a unified council of separate beings.

        HideAppearance in English Bibles

        The ending “-head”, is not connected with the word “head”. John Wycliffe introduced the term godhede into English Bible versions in two places, and, though somewhat archaic, the term survives in modern English because of its use in three places of the Tyndale New Testament (1525) and into the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611). In that translation, the word was used to translate three different Greek words”

        Like

  20. Andrew Ryan:

    “Who says my views are purely arbitrary? Who says the way I live my life is based on whims? Speak for yourself, not for others.”

    Well, I certainly didn’t say any of that. When I asked if your view on “purpose in life” was “arbitrary”, I meant to find out if you came to that view by your own judgment. If so – and by all accounts, it does seem that way for now – would it be fair to say that, for instance, 5 people with a naturalistic worldview could derive 5 different “purposes” for life, and they would all be acceptable within that worldview? Or is there any ultimate foundation for some specific “purpose” within a naturalistic worldview (that all 5 people would share), with a naturalistic explanation?

    I hope you don’t mind me probing for an answer. Like I’ve said, I’m looking for a naturalistic foundation for “purpose”, and I’ve yet to get an explanation from someone that covers it. tildeb and Cedric Katesby keep running from the question, I’m glad you’re around to give it a go.

    “Who said that our brains being composed of chemicals means we can’t reason?”

    No one on this thread, it seems.

    Like

    • Sure, I might say the purpose of my life is to raise my kids, my brother might say his purpose is to create great art and my sister might say it’s to save lives in her job as a doctor. And my (made up) cousin might say he was born purely to provide a spare kidney for his older brother, so that’s his purpose.

      Like

    • Andrew Ryan:

      “Sure, I might say the purpose of my life is to raise my kids, my brother might say his purpose is to create great art and my sister might say it’s to save lives in her job as a doctor. And my (made up) cousin might say he was born purely to provide a spare kidney for his older brother, so that’s his purpose.”

      Thanks for the response.

      So, is there any ultimate foundation for some specific “purpose” within a naturalistic worldview that you, your brother, your sister, and your (made up) cousin might share? One with a naturalistic explanation? Or is there no such thing?

      Like

      • Not as far as I can see.

        “And this God/religion that he has faith in, and which is supposedly backed up by clear evidence, is….?”

        What do you mean ‘is…?’. I don’t give a monkeys what name he gave to his religion. If he believed in a God then he wasn’t an atheist. Millions of people say they’re ‘non-denominal’. Perhaps he was one of them. Perhaps, as he claimed, he genuinely considered himself a Catholic, or perhaps one could argue he was more a Paganist.

        None of that matters – the claim on your part was that he was an atheist. If you believe in a God, regardless of what religion that God gets pigeonholed in, then you’re not an atheist.

        Again – put up or shut up: where’s your evidence that Hitler was an atheist?

        Like

      • Anyone put forward any evidence of Hitler being an atheist while I slept, then? Nope, nothing. The best Synapt managed is that when when you translate Hitler’s words from German, he uses the word Godhead, which he feels is only ever used by atheists. A simple Google shows many many theists using this term though. I even found a long-running theistic magazine of that title. It seems it’s a term common to Christians, Mormons, theistic Buddhists.

        So it seems no-one has evidence Hitler was an atheist. Meanwhile we’re stuck with hundreds of quotes where he insists he’s doing the Lord’s work, influenced by his Saviour etc.

        Are we done? I’ll check back to see if anyone comes up with anything new. Godwin’s Law is true – I notice that apologists tend to bring up Hitler in any debate they’re starting to lose, as it pretty much shuts down whatever was originally being discussed – it’s their ‘nuclear option’.

        Like

      • Christians or any other religious persons would not use terms such as “Godhead” when speaking of their God. These are terms that atheists/Darwinists use.

        What possessed you to lie about something like this?
        What do you gain?
        If you were addressing only atheists and you just didn’t care, then I could maybe understand your motivation but Joshua and Getic and presumably other people read your comments as well.
        Why lie to them too?
        Why would you just make something up like that and just put it out there on the internet?

        What was Andrew’s super-complicated methodology?
        He googled it.
        It’s a 10 second job.

        This is the internet. Anybody can just type in the key words on an issue and find out loads of stuff.
        (Even certain creationists should be prepared to factcheck rather than just passively accept any old rubbish and wait for the atheists in the house to clean up your slop.)
        If you go out on a limb and tell a whopper then chances are you will be caught out on it straight away.

        Google is not your friend.
        Shame on you.

        Like

      • “What possessed you to lie about something like this?”

        I’d guess ‘desperation’.

        Like

    • Except he didn’t even use the term – that was introduced in translation. In fact all the quotes you supplied are misquotes, mostly translated into English badly from someone else’s translation into French.

      For example, you gave the following quote:
      ” I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .”

      All the paragraphs you quotes are several different quotes bolted together without context, sometimes with a giveaway ‘…’ But often with no sign that that is what has been done. The last two lines there are particularly misleading.

      The original actually said something very different:
      “I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn’t possible to maintain oneself in the world without force. Life is granted only to those who fight the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself!
      The time in which we live has the appearance of the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance.”

      Other references that are apparently critical of Christianity are in fact references to his anger at other people destroying the TRUE Christianity with a false version. To misquote him in this way is as dishonest as those who quote Jefferson as saying:
      “Christianity is… the most perverted system that ever shone on man”
      …when the full quote makes it clear he means perverted as in twisted by others rather than being inherently twisted.

      I’ll leave with two things. First a genuine quote from Table Talk, in 1942: “The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator”. Very Darwinian, no? Note he doesn’t even say OTHER animals.

      Second, you see if you can find which word Hitler used that you report translates as ‘Godhead’.

      Like

      • Given that Table Tank comes up every single bloody time in these stupid Hilter/atheist discussions, it’s worth having a closer look at the source material.

        (From Wikipedia)
        …………………………………

        “Although considered authentic, contentious issues remain over particular aspects of the work, including the reliability of particular translated statements within the French and English editions, the questionable manner in which Martin Bormann may have edited his notes, recommended caution using the Table Talk as a historical source, and disputes over which edition is most reliable.

        Hitler’s comments on religion

        Recent controversy has arisen regarding the reliability of François Genoud’s French translation and Hugh Trevor-Roper’s English translation of the Table Talk, particularly with respect to Hitler’s statements regarding Christianity. According to historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, the statements found within the Table Talk seem to “reveal an unmistakable rupture with his previous religious attitudes.” Historian Richard Carrier maintains that much of Trevor-Roper’s English edition is actually a verbatim translation of Genoud’s French, and not the original German. Carrier asserts that a textual analysis between Picker’s original German text and Genoud’s French translation reveals that Genoud’s version is at best a poor translation, and in some instances fraudulent. Many of the quotations used to assert Hitler’s anti-Christianity are derived from the Genoud–Trevor-Roper translation. Carrier cautions that no one “who quotes this text is quoting what Hitler actually said.”

        One disputed example includes Hitler’s statement that, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” The original German reads, “Die Zeit, in der wir leben, ist die Erscheinung des Zusammenbruchs dieser Sache.” Which Carrier translates (in bold) as: “I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn’t possible to maintain oneself in the world without force. Life is granted only to those who fight the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself! The time in which we live has the appearance of the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance.”

        The Trevor-Roper edition also quotes Hitler saying, “I realise that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors—but to devote myself deliberately to error, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. In acting as I do, I’m very far from the wish to scandalise. But I rebel when I see the very idea of Providence flouted in this fashion. It’s a great satisfaction for me to feel myself totally foreign to that world.” However the original German reads:
        Ich weiß, dass der Mensch in seiner Fehlerhaftigkeit tausend Dinge falsch machen wird. Aber entgegen dem eigenen Wissen etwas falsch tun, das kommt nicht in Frage! Man darf sich persönlich einer solchen Lüge niemals fügen. Nicht weil ich andere ärgern will, sondern weil ich darin eine Verhöhnung der ewigen Vorsehung erkenne. Ich bin froh, wenn ich mit denen keine innere Verbindung habe.

        Which Carrier translates: “I know that humans in their defectiveness will do a thousand things wrong. But to do something wrong against one’s own knowledge, that is out of the question! One should never personally accept such a lie. Not because I want to annoy others, but because I recognize therein a mockery of the Eternal Providence. I am glad if I have no internal connection with them.”

        According to Carrier, there are also crimes of omission. In the original German Picker and Jochmann’s text, Hitler had stated, “What man has over the animals, possibly the most marvelous proof of his superiority, is that he has understood there must be a Creative Power!” However this text is missing from both the Genoud and Trevor-Roper translations.

        Carrier states that Hitler does indeed criticize the Church and various Christian dogmas in the Picker and Jochmann text of the Table Talk. For example, Hitler argues against belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus, in favor of a spiritual one. Carrier suggests these criticisms are only directed at Roman Catholicism and the institutionalization of religion generally. Historians Richard Carrier, Werner Jochmann, and Richard Steigmann-Gall state that Hitler was certainly religious, citing him expressing a belief in God, divine providence, and Jesus as an Aryan opponent of the Jews. Steigman-Gall’s own book however admits that by holding this position he “argues against the consensus that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it.”

        Between 1941 and 1944, the period in which the Table Talk was being transcribed, a number of Hitler’s intimates cite him expressing negative views of Christianity, including Joseph Goebbels, Albert Speer, and Martin Bormann. However Nazi General Gerhard Engel reports that in 1941 Hitler asserted, “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” Similarly Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber reported that Hitler “undoubtedly lives in belief in God….He recognizes Christianity as the builder of western culture.”

        Steigmann-Gall, in his study on the Nazis’ attitude towards Christianity, states that Hitler’s criticism of Christianity in the Table Talk, if reliable, reflects a newly formed anticlerical attitude which began in 1937. Steigmann-Gall suggests that this change might have emerged as a result of Hitler’s frustration over his failure to unify all German Protestant churches. Despite his private rupture with institutional Christianity, Steigmann-Gall emphasizes that Hitler continued to hold Jesus in high esteem, considering him to have been an Aryan fighter who struggled against Jewry. In Hitler’s view, Jesus’ true Christian teachings had been corrupted by the Apostle Paul, who had transformed them into a kind of Jewish Bolshevism, which Hitler believed preached “the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire.” The Table Talk also shows he continued for some time to wish for a united Christian Church of Germany. By 1940, however, it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianity.”
        …………………………………

        Precious little evidence that Hitler was an atheist.

        Like

    • Common sense possesses me. I have never referred to God as “Godhead.” That is disrespectful.

      That was not your claim.
      Do you need some help with heaving those goalposts around?
      Remember your claim.
      The rest of us certainly do.

      Christians or any other religious persons would not use terms such as “Godhead” when speaking of their God. These are terms that atheists/Darwinists use.

      See? These are your words.
      You lied. It’s a complete fib from start to finish.
      Google is still not your friend.
      Even now you don’t have the moral integrity to honestly admit it.
      Shame on you.

      Like

  21. “However Nazi General Gerhard Engel reports that in 1941 Hitler asserted, “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.””

    Yes, because the claims made by Nazis are so truthful and reliable. *sarcasm*

    Rather than take what they say to the public at face value, I’d rather trust that they are typical lying politicians. And as such, I will only trust them when they make candid claims that are in contradiction to what they report officially to the public.

    Like

    • You are remarkable, synapticcohesion: because you are so able to discern god, his nature, thoughts, desires, intentions, meanings, purposes, preferences, and pleasures, it surprises no one that you are easily capable of knowing the private side of Hitler’s.

      I wonder why he ordered all Wehrmacht belt buckles stamped with ‘Gott mit uns’? Oh, right… a clever atheist plot to confuse those us without synapticcohesion‘s supernatural second sight!

      Like

      • “I wonder why he ordered all Wehrmacht belt buckles stamped with ‘Gott mit uns’?”

        Would you like your name right next to other men’s crotches? This is the ultimate symbol of disrespect to God.

        Like

      • Would you like your name right next to other men’s crotches? This is the ultimate symbol of disrespect to God.

        Who says? You?
        Seriously, where do you get this babble from?
        Why do you allow yourself to sound like an idiot?
        Stop making things up.
        Stop lying.
        All Andrew had to do was (again) a quick google search to find belt buckles with religious messages on them and show you up.
        Not very likely that atheists are wasting their money on them, right?

        Besides, “Gott Mit Uns” isn’t even a Nazi thing.
        Google it.
        It’s pre-WW2. Very pre-WW2, belt buckles and all.

        Like

      • “What a couple of intellectual midgets who don’t have the integrity to retract bullshit claims but seek, instead, to replace what’s true with what they believe is true… even when it’s shown to be bullshit.”

        Calm yourself, Tilde. There’s no need for bitterness and ad hominems. No one “believes” that Hitler hated Christians and Christianity–he made that abundantly clear in his own words.

        Like

    • ” And as such, I will only trust them when they make candid claims that are in contradiction to what they report officially to the public.”

      Engel was reporting a private statement, so that qualifies as one you should trust, by your own reckoning. All you’ve offered in return are disputed, badly translated out of context misquotes, as Cedric and I both already pointed out. By the way, any luck finding the passage where Hitler uses a German term meaning Godhead? You’ve gone strangely quiet on that one.

      “This is the ultimate symbol of disrespect to God”

      Tell that to all the Christian retailers selling WWJD belts. Seriously, you are clutching at straws.
      http://www.churchsupplier.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/belt_3894.html

      Like

      • “Engel was reporting a private statement, so that qualifies as one you should trust, by your own reckoning.”

        Right. If a political figure, especially a Nazi one “reports” something as being a true piece of private insight into another political figure–then it must be true.

        Like

      • SC:

        “Right. If a political figure, especially a Nazi one “reports” something as being a true piece of private insight into another political figure–then it must be true.”

        Is it alright if I report the private statements Dawkins and Harris made to me, about their admission that God exists?

        Like

      • “If a political figure, especially a Nazi one “reports”…”

        YOU were the one offering quotes noted by Martin Boorman as evidence! That’s Boorman, who directly gave orders for tens of thousands of Jews to be sent to their deaths. Even if we leave aside the major problems we’ve already noted in the quotes you offered, by your own logic, the fact that they originated from Boorman is alone enough to dismiss them.

        So, what evidence ARE you offering that Hitler was an atheist, if you don’t think a ‘Nazi political figure’s reports on true pieces of private insight’ for Hitler qualify as being trustworthy?

        Like

      • “Is it alright if I report the private statements Dawkins and Harris made to me, about their admission that God exists?”

        How’s about the statements Jesus gave to me saying he was converting to Islam? Are we supposed to give these statements more or less weight than the quotes Synapt offered, which were private statements Hitler gave to Martin Boorman?

        Like

      • “So, what evidence ARE you offering that Hitler was an atheist, if you don’t think a ‘Nazi political figure’s reports on true pieces of private insight’ for Hitler qualify as being trustworthy?”

        As I has said earlier, it’s because that there is no advantage to reporting Hitler’s anti-Christian sentiments. In fact that is clearly a political disadvantage.

        Like

      • “Martin Boorman genuinely WAS anti-Christian, so it wouldn’t be surprising if he was happy to paint Hitler in that light.”

        What does Boorman’s personal beliefs have to do with political strategy? Politicians feign religiosity all the time to their political advantage to gain support. The Nazis were certainly no different.

        “Any luck finding Hitler referring in German to a ‘Godhead’?”

        I have no reason to doubt the original translations of the experts. It is German after all, not some ancient, obscure language that is subject to interpretation. I do have reason to doubt the revised, atheist-friendly translations, though.

        Like

      • “Well you’re contradicting yourself then – if the original Table Talk genuinely shows anti-religious sentiment, why did they note it down and allow it to be printed, if – according to you – that would be such a stupid thing to do? You’re digging yourself deeper and deeper.”

        These were private meetings and candid conversations that were recorded by a secretary. Many idiots do this, believe it or not. There was a high profile discrimination case with Texaco in which minutes at meetings were recorded–and these recordings were used as evidence. Executives felt free to use various racial slurs during these meetings. That contrasted with the company’s official stance that they believed in “equal opportunity.”

        Like

      • “Again, where are your quotes where Hitler says he doesn’t believe in God?”

        He doesn’t have to spell it out. You can easily deduce this based on what he’s said. Let just say that it’s certain that he doesn’t believe in a Christian God. And if that’s the case, what God would he believe in if you insist that he is not an atheist?

        Like

      • SC:

        “I have no reason to doubt the original translations of the experts. It is German after all, not some ancient, obscure language that is subject to interpretation. I do have reason to doubt the revised, atheist-friendly translations, though.”

        You’d think? =D

        (Andrew Ryan: ‘Again, where are your quotes where Hitler says he doesn’t believe in God?’)

        “He doesn’t have to spell it out. You can easily deduce this based on what he’s said. Let just say that it’s certain that he doesn’t believe in a Christian God. And if that’s the case, what God would he believe in if you insist that he is not an atheist?”

        Good question. Oh rats, I haven’t told anyone that I don’t believe in unicorns. I guess that makes me a believer. Am I in trouble, SC?

        Like

      • “By the way, whose translations are you using for Table Talk? How’s about you provide a complete paragraph quote – you know, one without loads of elispses (…) and jumps and errors?”

        Here’s just one example (source: http://archive.org/stream/HitlersTableTalk/HitlersTableTalk_djvu.txt):

        >>What is this God who takes pleasure only in seeing men
        grovel before Him? Try to picture to yourselves the meaning of
        the following, quite simple story. God creates the conditions for
        sin. Later on He succeeds, with the help of the Devil, in causing
        man to sin. Then He employs a virgin to bring into the world a
        son who, by His death, will redeem humanity!

        I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of
        Mahomet, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians ! In
        your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner.
        After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving
        of palms, children of an age for the feeding-bottle, and hoary
        old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of

        144 RELIGIONS AND PEOPLES

        nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains : one
        could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent
        way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A
        negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being
        who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.<<

        *gasp*

        Isn't this the same guy who said that he's a devout Catholic and Christian?

        What?! Hitler…LIES??! :O

        Like

      • SC:

        Ooh, my turn, my turn! =D

        “The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.”(pg 75)

        “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.” (pg 7)

        “[I]t’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble…” (pg 59)

        (all quotes brought to you by Hitler’s ‘Table Talk’)

        Like

  22. (part 1)

    Finally back from overseas, and I’m glad to see the conversation’s still alive. =)

    I’m gonna split my comments into 3 posts for the sake of keeping them brief. First, I shall address the ridiculous, assertions that Andrew Ryan, tildeb and Cedric Katesby have been peddling, that Hitler was somehow “Christian”.

    Now, there is a simple reason why many atheists in recent memory (even in debates) are busier defending their case for Hitler not being influenced by Darwinism or atheism than harboring notions that Hitler was Christian or Catholic. And that is because those claims simply fly in the face of common knowledge and historical facts, at the slightest scrutiny. So Andrew Ryan, Cedric Katesby and tildeb, instead of forwarding silly Internet atheist arguments circulated by people who haven’t done their homework, how about we look at what actual historical facts and evidence bring to bear on the matter?

    To begin, you guys might want to get properly acquainted with recent Nuremberg investigatory documentation that states – in no uncertain terms – what Hitler and company were planning to do to the Christian churches. Titled ‘The Persecution of the Christian Churches,’ this document summarises the Nazi plan to subvert and destroy German Christianity, which it calls ”an integral part of the National Socialist scheme of world conquest.” This, of course, is further backed up by actual, documented evidence of the formal denunciations the Catholic church and Confessing churches as they sought to directly rebuke the Nazis. Here’s some more reading on those matters if you’re really interested in the facts: ‘Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler’s Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity’

    Once you’ve wrapped your head around those documents, you might want to educate yourself with the facts as stated by actual historians. For instance, historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a great fervour, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended “to stamp out Christianity root and branch.” Also, as Hitler grew in power, he made other anti-Christian statements, for instance, being quoted in ‘Hitler: A Study in Tyranny’, by Allan Bullock, as saying: “I’ll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews.”

    Not to mention, the first group of people murdered at Auschwitz were Catholic Poles, and over 2 million Catholic Poles were murdered, making them one of the top casualty groups of the Holocaust. So much for his love of Catholicism yeah?

    What else do we have? Let’s see: Hitler’s secretary, Martin Bormann, openly declared that “National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable” and Hitler didn’t make much of it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, famously said, “One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both.” In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools. Is all of this enough for you, or should I allow it to get more embarrassing? =D

    Then finally, of course, there’s that little inconvenient detail of the man’s words themselves that you guys have to contend with:

    “So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

    Originally, religion was merely a prop for human communities. It was a means, not an end in itself. It’s only gradually that it became transformed in this direction, with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can love only to the detriment of society collectively….
    Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.”

    (Adolf Hitler, ‘Hitler’s Table Talk’, pp 58-62)

    ‘Was Hitler a Christian?’

    Excerpt:
    “After taking a careful look at the words and actions of Hitler, it’s clear that the closest one can associate him with Christianity is that he gave lip service to the faith when it was convenient for his political image. However, his true feeling was much more like the secularists and atheists who try to attack Christians by lumping us in with this historical monster: that Christianity is an obstruction, a relic that needs to be done away with to make room for a grander philosophy. Even when Hitler tried to hijack Christian scripture and belief and inject his own twisted ideals into it, the result was quite antithetical to anything found in the Bible.

    So whose beliefs are really more like Hitler?”

    And so, I hope that keeps some people educated on the matter, for good. Of course, in the face of such damning evidence to the contrary, from numerous sources as cited, Andrew Ryan, Cedric Katesby and tildeb are still welcome to peddle the same old silly argument that Hitler was somehow “Christian. But as rational minded people with a duty of care towards objectivity and truth, none of us have good reason to take them seriously.

    Like

  23. (Note: part 1 is in moderation and should appear soon, do look out for it)

    (part 2):

    My second post shall deal with what has already been established: It is a relatively uncontroversial fact that Hitler was largely motivated by atheistic/secular ideology, and justified his ideology by reference to Darwin’s theory. And that’s something we’re all gonna have to face up to, whether we like it or not.

    To begin with, I notice people like Andrew Ryan wax lyrical about a supposed “genuine quote from Table Talk, in 1942”, and yet, he and others are conspicuously quiet on the numerous other quotes I’ve put up from the same Table Talk and elsewhere. How about dealing with those, champ? Or should I refresh your memory?

    “That’s in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed. The law of natural selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.”
    (Hitler, ‘Table Talk, 10th October, 1941)

    “For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to “save” feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned.”
    (Adolf Hitler, ‘Mein Kampf’, Chapter 4)

    Here’s more for you to chew on:

    ‘The Dark Legacy Of Charles Darwin – 150 Years Later’ (video)

    David Berlinski, mathematician and agnostic, as quoted from the video:

    ”The connection between Hitler and Darwinism is of course historically a difficult connection because they were separated by a good many years. One was English, one was German. Nonetheless, if you open ‘Mein Kampf’ and read it – especially if you can read it in German – the correspondence between Darwinian ideas and Nazi ideas just leaps from the page. Of course you have to add every historical caution: not everyone who reads Darwin becomes a Nazi. Obviously not; not one is making that case. Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism, but I think it is certainly a necessary one.”

    Therefore, that the Darwinist-Haeckelian frame of thought strongly shaped Hitler’s thinking, speech and behaviour is well documented in history – even by his own words – and is beyond reasonable doubt. And so, even as you deny the Darwin/Hitler influence, an actual historian would disagree, and seems to go into a little more detail on the subject than any of you. And so it seems no responsible discussion of this topic or related concerns can ignore the evidence brought forward by by an actual historian:
    ‘From Darwin to Hitler’ – lecture by Prof Weikart (video)

    ‘Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress’ by Richard Weikart

    Excerpt:
    “In ‘Hitler’s Ethic’ Weikart helps unlock the mystery of Hitler’s evil by vividly demonstrating the surprising conclusion that Hitler’s immorality flowed from a coherent ethic. Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. Hitler’s evolutionary ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy.”

    ‘Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism?’ – October 2011

    ‘Darwin had nothing to do with Hitler? Aw come on!’ – November 2011

    There you go, I believe I’ve provided more than enough to make my point. So, when people like Cedric Katesby – in denying Hitler’s Darwinian motivations or in suggesting his belief in Christianity – are reduced to quoting good ole atheistic Wikipedia of all sources, not to mention unverifiable claims by others as to what Hitler said (even Andrew Ryan admits “Engel was reporting a private statement”, which really casts doubts on the statement’s verifiability), as opposed to highlighting what the man said himself, or highlighting actual historians or facts, it’s really easy to see who’s clutching at straws.

    So, what say you now? I’m seriously curious as to whether any of you will show the conviction required to watch Prof Weikart’s lecture and actually address the points an actual historian raises. Suffice it to say I’m not holding my breath.

    Like

    • So, when people like Cedric Katesby – in denying Hitler’s Darwinian motivations or in suggesting his belief in Christianity…

      What “Darwinian motivation”? What are you talking about?
      You do realise that Hitler banned Darwin’s work, right?

      …quoting good ole atheistic Wikipedia of all sources…

      Since when did Wikipedia become “atheistic”?
      Where do you get this nonsense from?

      Like

      • Cedric quite reasonably asks, Where do you get this nonsense from?

        The answer is that it’s a mental disorder:

        A delusion is a psychiatric disorder where the patient holds a firm belief in something that can be empirically proven to be false. However any proof provided will be rejected out of hand and any attempts to convince the patient that their delusion is incorrect will merely become part of the delusion.

        Our getic.apolo and synapticcohesion demonstrate exactly this.

        Like

    • Cedric Katesby:

      “What “Darwinian motivation”? What are you talking about?”

      Hey Jug-Of-Milkist, the answer to that, as stated by actual historians and people who actually know their stuff (as opposed to, um, you) is right on top, and you look at it and go on acting out a reply as if it isn’t there. Did you just wake up or something? Let me jolt your selective memory to life.

      ‘From Darwin to Hitler’ – lecture by Prof Weikart (video)

      ‘Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress’ by Richard Weikart

      Excerpt:
      “In ‘Hitler’s Ethic’ Weikart helps unlock the mystery of Hitler’s evil by vividly demonstrating the surprising conclusion that Hitler’s immorality flowed from a coherent ethic. Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. Hitler’s evolutionary ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy.”

      ‘The Dark Legacy Of Charles Darwin – 150 Years Later’ (video)

      David Berlinski, mathematician and agnostic, as quoted from the video:

      ”The connection between Hitler and Darwinism is of course historically a difficult connection because they were separated by a good many years. One was English, one was German. Nonetheless, if you open ‘Mein Kampf’ and read it – especially if you can read it in German – the correspondence between Darwinian ideas and Nazi ideas just leaps from the page. Of course you have to add every historical caution: not everyone who reads Darwin becomes a Nazi. Obviously not; not one is making that case. Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism, but I think it is certainly a necessary one.”

      ‘Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism?’ by historian Richard Weikart

      “That’s in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed. The law of natural selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.”
      (Hitler, ‘Table Talk, 10th October, 1941)

      “For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to “save” feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned.”
      (Adolf Hitler, ‘Mein Kampf’, Chapter 4)

      Boy, you sure have a lot of reality and evidence to face up to. Looks like nap time’s over, kiddo! =D

      Like

  24. “it’s because that there is no advantage to reporting Hitler’s anti-Christian sentiments”

    Martin Boorman genuinely WAS anti-Christian, so it wouldn’t be surprising if he was happy to paint Hitler in that light. But that aside, we’ve already pointed out that the quotes you offered from Table Talk were poor, selective translations of translations that often gave the opposite meaning to the original German. And not one quote you offered, even if taken at face value, gave evidence that Hitler was an atheist – which was, after all, the claim you were trying to defend.

    Since you’ve completely ignored it, let’s pick one example again. Your quote:
    ” I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .”

    The actual paragraph that purported quote comes from:
    “I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn’t possible to maintain oneself in the world without force. Life is granted only to those who fight the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself!
    The time in which we live has the appearance of the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance.”

    Any luck finding Hitler referring in German to a ‘Godhead’?

    Like

  25. “I have no reason to doubt the original translations of the experts.”

    Which expert were you quoting? As already pointed out, the Genoud and Trevor-Roper translations have been much criticised for their inaccuracy.

    “It is German after all”

    But you don’t even know if the word Godhead even has an equivalent in German, no? If you’re quoting from Trevor-Roper, you’re quoting from an English translation of a French translation.

    “What does Boorman’s personal beliefs have to do with political strategy?”

    Well you’re contradicting yourself then – if the original Table Talk genuinely shows anti-religious sentiment, why did they note it down and allow it to be printed, if – according to you – that would be such a stupid thing to do? You’re digging yourself deeper and deeper.

    And again, where are the quotes where Hitler says he doesn’t believe in God.

    Like

  26. “These were private meetings and candid conversations that were recorded by a secretary”

    They weren’t off the cuff remarks that happened to be noted; These were long monologues – speeches – delivered by Hitler to people who had to listen in silence, deliberately recorded for posterity on the instructions of Martin Boorman, among others. Hitler invisioned a legacy of a thousand years. If he was so careful of his image, why would he say things in direct contradiction to his public speeches that he knew were being noted down?

    Again, where are your quotes where Hitler says he doesn’t believe in God?

    Like

  27. “Oh rats, I haven’t told anyone that I don’t believe in unicorns. I guess that makes me a believer. Am I in trouble, SC?”

    Sorry to break the news to you GA, but if you do not specifically state that you do not believe in unicorns, then you must obviously believe in unicorns. Shame on you. : |

    Like

    • Not really. You’re the one making the claim – that Hitler was an atheist. Me asking you for evidence to back that up is not remotely analogous to ME making a claim about YOUR beliefs. And it’s not analogous to me saying ‘he never said he was one therefore he can’t have been one’. You were the one making the claim, not me. You’re the one making an equivalent to that unicorn claim, not me.

      Oh, and as expected, no equivalent term for Godhead was in the original German passage you gave the dodgy translation for.

      Like

      • Andrew said:

        “Not really. You’re the one making the claim – that Hitler was an atheist.”

        Look back at what I said–I never made that claim:

        “Maybe it’s just me, but Hitler’s anti-Christian rants are virtually indistinguishable from your typical flaming militant atheist rant.”

        This is not the equivalent of my calling Hitler an atheist–I am simply stating the obvious. His rants do sound just like the typical seething, anti-Christian rants made by many atheists.

        You on the other hand made the following statement:

        “There is absolutely no doubt that Hitler was a catholic and that he supported catholic privilege in public matters.”

        Thus, YOU are the one who has been proven WRONG.

        Although I could logically deduce that Hitler was indeed most likely an atheist/non-religious based on his words, I did not state such a conclusion as fact. If one was truly religious and God-fearing, however, it would be unlikely that one would disrespect their religious tenets (and their creator) by espousing the virtues of another religion and by claiming to worship another God that they do not believe in. This would only be easy for one unattached to any religion. One unconcerned about having to answer to a higher power.

        Either way, it is irrelevant because YOU are the one who claimed that there’s “no doubt” that Hitler was a Christian–even though Hitler’s own words prove the opposite.

        Just admit defeat and move on.

        Like

  28. “Let just say that it’s certain that he doesn’t believe in a Christian God”

    Well you insisted he was an atheist. Now you’re saying he doesn’t spell it out but you can deduce it from what he said. Go on then, what quotes are you deducing it from?

    Sure, you’ve not mentioned unicorns – hence it would be odd if I made definitive statements about your belief or lack of belief in them.

    By the way, whose translations are you using for Table Talk? How’s about you provide a complete paragraph quote – you know, one without loads of elispses (…) and jumps and errors?

    Patiently waiting…

    Like

    • “By the way, whose translations are you using for Table Talk? How’s about you provide a complete paragraph quote – you know, one without loads of elispses (…) and jumps and errors?”

      Patiently waits for your response to the answers I provided….

      Like

      • Not that patiently. I asked for quotes backing up your ‘atheist Hitler’ claim about a week ago. By contrast your post above appeared while I was at work and I’ve only just got online since. Still no quotes from Hitler saying he doesn’t believe in God. And as expected, your quotes are all from the discredited Trevor-Roper text, the one validated by the guy who lost us reputation when he validated the fake Hitler diaries. The translation that, as already pointed out, over and again translates criticisms of people distorting Christianty as references to criticisms of Christianity itself.
        http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php

        Like

    • The claim in question was that Hitler was an atheist. That’s what I’m asking for evidence of. Offering me (disputed) quotes that you claim is Hitler criticising Christianity gets you no closer to supporting that claim, even if the quotes said what you believe them to say. We’ve been here already.

      If the argument was simply about whether Hitler was a Christian I wouldn’t have entered into it, not because he wasn’t one, but because virtually every Christian will have his Christianity disputed by another self-described Christian somewhere.

      Like

      • there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm…

        Bullshit. And it’s bullshit because the claim Hitler was an “avowed atheist” IS bullshit. That’s why neither our getic.apolo nor synapticcohesion can find any said ‘avowal’: because it’s a bullshit claim. There is lots of evidence Hitler was an avowed christian, but because this avowal doesn’t suit our ‘little angry men’ they try to pretend the not-a-true-scotsman strategy will stand.

        What a couple of intellectual midgets who don’t have the integrity to retract bullshit claims but seek, instead, to replace what’s true with what they believe is true… even when it’s shown to be bullshit. And that’s why they once again demonstrate no desire or ability to respect what is true.

        Like

  29. SC:

    You say this:

    “GA, if our examples don’t convince Andrew that Hitler was definitely not a Christian, then nothing will.”

    And then Andrew Ryan, from his departed sense of reality, comes up with this:

    “If the argument was simply about whether Hitler was a Christian I wouldn’t have entered into it, not because he wasn’t one…”

    It doesn’t get much more convoluted than this.

    Fact is SC, I had written 3 long posts dating back to about 3 days ago – well before we started presenting evidence after damning evidence that sheds light on how ridiculous Andrew Ryan’s ill-informed attempts at “Hitler-Christian” connections are – which should lend further credence to our opinion while making his sound foolish. And yet, Josh must be busy, for those 3 posts have yet to pass moderation for now. In the meantime, I’ll re-post excerpts from the 3rd post if they would help Andrew Ryan get out of his utterly confused state.

    Andrew Ryan:

    You seem really muddled about this (plus, you’ve gotta love how folks like you party away with semantics when it comes to the word “atheist”, given you have yet to produce one bit of good evidence for why atheism is the more plausible worldview, which, by your reckoning, should be a positive claim).

    Anyway, let’s take it from the top – it’s really easy: Hitler being an atheist isn’t a positive claim. In fact, all I’m saying is that we cannot link Hitler to any religion. Now that’s the claim you have to handle, champ. The positive claim would be to say that Hitler had an actual religion. Besides, isn’t this what you guys have been doing for decades, asking for evidence for the positive claim of a God, saying the burden of proof is upon us theists? =D

    It’s not up to us to go about disproving every possible religion in the world and its possible link with Hitler. In fact, given how your suggestion that Hitler was Christian flies so easily in the face of common sense and actual facts, it presents an even stronger case for Hitler’s statements about religion being false, more so that his references to atheistic ideology. That seems to make the case for his atheism even stronger.

    So I’m sorry, Andrew Ryan, but it doesn’t bode well for you. Hitler has no real faith that we can seem pin him to, that’s the claim you’re gonna have to deal with – and have failed to – as of today. And – one more time in case you need that jolt to get back to your senses – it’s really up to you to show us – with actual evidence – the religion that Hitler subscribed to. You’ve already failed with the “Hitler was Christian” bit, miserably.

    You done with your nonsense now? Do you, or do you not, have the conviction to walk the talk? How about trying again with some proper evidence? Someone? Anyone? Alright what was he now? Buddhist? Muslim, perhaps? =D

    To borrow your words, put up or shut up!

    Like

    • P.S.: A few more funny bits I just noticed:

      “I notice that apologists tend to bring up Hitler in any debate they’re starting to lose, as it pretty much shuts down whatever was originally being discussed – it’s their ‘nuclear option’”

      Too funny. So you and the rest run all over the place like schoolgirls from the Boogeyman when we ask you simple questions as to whether there is a naturalistic basis for purpose in life, and somehow, we “apologists” are the ones losing the debate?

      How’s that pigeon chess championship going? =D

      “Are we done? I’ll check back to see if anyone comes up with anything new.”

      No how about I check back to see if you or anyone comes up with anything new, by means of actual evidence of the religion that Hitler supposedly subscribed to? My bet, though, is on you guys coming back with more of the same old, awkwardly embarrasing silly (ie. “Hitler was probably Christian”). Oh well

      I’m thinking the correct answer is Jug-Of-Milkist, what say you? =D

      Like

    • GA:

      Thanks for reminding me about who actually made the claim that there’s “no doubt” that Hitler was a devout “Catholic.”

      I often fall for that “shifting the burden” trick. :P

      Like

    • …you have yet to produce one bit of good evidence for why atheism is the more plausible worldview…

      That would be a tad difficult since atheism is not a worldview.

      Hitler being an atheist isn’t a positive claim.

      Sure, it is. If I claim to be an atheist then that’s pretty positive.
      If someone claims that someone else is an atheist then that’s a positive claim too.

      It’s not up to us to go about disproving every possible religion in the world and its possible link with Hitler.

      Is anybody actually asking you to do this or are you just creating a strawman to make yourself feel better?

      .…given how your suggestion that Hitler was Christian…

      Nope. Hitler “suggested” he was a Christian. Again and again and again. Even the Catholic Church “suggested” he was a Christian.
      You have the No True Scotman conundrum.

      …it presents an even stronger case for Hitler’s statements about religion being false, more so that his references to atheistic ideology.

      Statements and references that you are strangely unable to quote directly. Source material? Hello?
      (facepalm)

      No True Scotsman

      Like

    • Cedric Katesby:

      “That would be a tad difficult since atheism is not a worldview.”

      Um actually, it seems anything is a difficulty for you. Why am I not surprised?

      Well, at least you came close with the last bit. Atheism is a worldview, just not a worldview worth taking up after serious consideration.

      “If I claim to be an atheist then that’s pretty positive.”

      Thanks for that clarification. Now care to provide that little inconvenient detail regarding evidence for your atheism? Or are you suddenly agnostic now? This is getting fun. =)

      “Nope. Hitler “suggested” he was a Christian. Again and…”

      No please, I can’t control the giggles! =D

      Lol! Seriously now, stop, before actual historians get wind of your Internet cut-and-paste nonsense and start laughing at you. In other news, do drop by when you have actual evidence linking Hitler to a religion. Right now, you’ve got nothing but daisies and dreams. Do dream on, though…

      [Psst, I’ve got insider info that Hitler was a Jug-Of-Milkist. Since you’re of the same faith, you wouldn’t happen to know anything about that, would you? =D ]

      Like

      • Atheism is a worldview.

        No, it isn’t. Look it up. It’s not that hard.
        Google is not your friend.

        Now care to provide that little inconvenient detail regarding evidence for your atheism?

        Ok. Ready?
        Here we go…
        I’m an atheist.
        If someone claims that I’m an atheist then…
        1) That’s a positive claim
        2) They’d be able to point to my statement as evidence that I’m an atheist and…
        3) They’d be right.

        In other news, do drop by when you have actual evidence linking Hitler to a religion.

        Well, there’s the fact that he was an alter boy and he went to church and he talked about god a lot. He was a leader of a religious nation in the same way that Franco and Mussolini were leaders of religious nations. Plenty of links to religion there. Then there’s the oaths that he has his SS swear. Plus his friends, laws made, books banned. etc.
        It’s basic history.
        Linking Hitler to religion (specifically Catholicism) is basic stuff.

        Like

      • Cedric Katesby:

        “No, it isn’t. Look it up. It’s not that hard.
        Google is not your friend.”

        Uh, yes it is. Turns out Google isn’t your friend, Jug-Of-Milkist. Get to know Google sometime. It’s not that hard. Here, let me help you, given you have trouble wrapping your head round it. =D

        “Well, there’s the fact…”

        Oh boy, missed your history lessons, did you? How about you stop running around with your fiction and get round to actually answering (rather than avoiding) the various facts on the matter that permeate this thread? Let’s not overwhelm your mind: For starters, search for my comments at “2012/12/06 at 6:31 AM” and try dealing with what actual historians and experts have to say on the matter rather than your own imagination.

        And while you’re at it, try staying put and not running this time, champ. =D

        Like

      • That’s SO funny! Our getic.apolo tries (and fails) to copy Cedric’s kind of help and links to Google to show a list of pages that supposedly support his claim, that atheism is a ‘worldview’. What he fails to notice in his rush to appear as capable to find out information is that his pages of links either contain nothing but the theistic claim that atheism is a worldview of pages of responses that show why such a claim is absurd! To put it in terms our getic.apolo might understand, atheism is as much a ‘worldview’ as is his his a-unicornism, which of course is different from his ‘worldview’ of a-Zeusism, which of course is different from his ‘worldview’ of a-Thorism, which of course is different from his ‘worldview’ of a-pixism, which of course is different from his ‘worldview’ of …, well maybe even he, angry as he is, might notice why the claim he makes (and those theistic pages he partially links to) is absurd (although I sincerely doubt it because he believes his claim to be true and that’s all that matters, you see, to maintain his delusion).

        Like

      • Uh, yes it is.

        No, it isn’t.
        Read the links. Look at how atheism (and worldview for that matter) are defined by people who speak English.
        Atheism is not a worldview.
        Stop being dense.

        Oh boy, missed your history lessons, did you?

        It’s really simple. You said..”In other news, do drop by when you have actual evidence linking Hitler to a religion”.

        There’s lot’s of links.
        He was born into a Catholic family.
        That’s a link.
        He was baptized a Catholic.
        That’s another link.
        He was an altar boy, for goodness sake. Yet another link.
        Any history of Hitler’s life will tell you the same.
        Why are you pretending otherwise? You are just making yourself look like a tool.

        Like

      • Cedric Katesby:

        Lol, still running from my comments (“2012/12/06 at 6:31 AM”) and links to what actual historians and facts have to offer, eh? No prob, keep running, I did mention I wouldn’t be surprised. Boy, this Internet atheist cut-and-paste comments are too easy to deal with. =D

        “He was born into a Catholic family.
        That’s a link.
        He was baptized a Catholic.
        That’s another link.
        He was an altar boy, for goodness sake. Yet another link.”

        Wow, so much substance, Cedric Katesby, good for you! And so your assertions mean Hitler definitely must not have been atheist when he did and uttered all that I mentioned at “2012/12/06 at 6:31 AM” (You know? That stuff you keep running away from?). Wow, you’re an ace, the logic is ironclad.

        Hey, do check this course out when you have the time, I heard they give discounts to Jug-Of-Milkists! =D

        Introduction to Basic Logic

        Like

      • tildeb:

        Hey angry man, while you’re taking time off being Cedric Katesby’s cheerleader, why not you put them pom poms down and actually address comments directed to you at “2012/12/08 at 10:37 AM”, pertaining the hatchet job you did with Vox Day’s comments? Then we can all see if you’re gonna retract your comments to stick to what you call “delusions”. =D

        Like

      • …and links to what actual historians and facts have to offer, eh?

        What are you talking about?

        In other news, do drop by when you have actual evidence linking Hitler to a religion.

        So I pointed out that Hitler was born in a Catholic family.
        He was raised Catholic etc.
        Those are links.

        Wow, so much substance, Cedric Katesby…

        Look, you asked me for links to religion. I provided them.
        Hard cheese if it puts your nose out of joint.
        (shrug)

        And so your assertions…

        No, they are not assertions. Hitler really was born into a Catholic family. He really was baptized. He really was an altar boy. He really did consider taking vows and entering the Church. He really did mention god all the time. It’s nothing to with me “asserting” anything.
        It’s history.
        You can read up on it yourself.

        …mean Hitler definitely must not have been atheist.

        There’s as much evidence to suggest that Hitler was an atheist as there is that he was a Bhuddist.
        Hitler had nothing nice to say about atheism.
        He never stated to friends and family that he was an atheist.
        None of his enemies branded him an atheist (not that would have meant much either way.)
        He never joined an atheist club or anything.
        On the other hand, he had a very strong religious background and so did most of the people who worked for him.
        Germany was filled with religious people at the time.

        Like

      • Cedric Katesby

        “What are you talking about?”

        Since when have you understood anything being discussed here? =D

        “So I pointed out that Hitler was born in a Catholic family.
        He was raised Catholic etc.
        Those are links.”

        Wow, again, where are you getting these silly atheist arguments? Do you always cut and paste, or just when you’re high? I could point you to countless people who were born into one faith and accepted another. Even you probably were born into a different faith before you accepted Jug-Of-Milkism. Oh boy, your logic’s so silly, it’s not even funny anymore.

        “No, they are not assertions. Hitler really was…”

        Assertions. Next.

        “There’s as much evidence to suggest that Hitler was an atheist as there is that he was a Bhuddist.”

        Liar.

        “None of his enemies branded him an atheist.”

        Liar.

        “On the other hand, he had a very strong religious background and so did most of the people who worked for him.”

        At this rate, your lie-meter must be off the scales. =D

        Like

      • Wow, again, where are you getting these silly atheist arguments?

        There’s no “atheist” argument.
        Hitler existed.
        His home life and how he was brought up is a part of history.
        He was raised a Catholic.
        He really was.
        Ad hominems will get you nowhere.

        I could point you to countless people who were born into one faith and accepted another.

        Yes you could. I would agree with you.
        Yet that’s not what you said.

        In other news, do drop by when you have actual evidence linking Hitler to a religion.

        So I linked to it. There’s multiple links to Hitler and religion.

        “There’s as much evidence to suggest that Hitler was an atheist as there is that he was a Bhuddist.”

        Liar.

        Are you now claiming that Hiter was an atheist?
        Oh goody.
        Then present evidence that Hitler was an atheist.
        Poop or get off the pot.
        Why is this so hard for you?

        “None of his enemies branded him an atheist.”

        Liar.

        This is a new one. Who? (Not that it would prove much either was as I mentioned before but, seriously, who?) Quotes? Source material?

        “On the other hand, he had a very strong religious background and so did most of the people who worked for him.”

        At this rate, your lie-meter must be off the scales. =D

        Germany was filled with religious people. Virtually all Germans at the time of WW2 were either Catholics or Protestants. The Nazi Party, the German Military, the SS etc commonly recruited Germans. Nazis, soldiers, and Germans in general went to church, got married in church, baptized their children in Church, got buried in church graveyards etc. That’s just the way it was.

        Like

      • “There’s no “atheist” argument.
        Hitler existed.
        His home life and how he was brought up is a part of history.
        He was raised a Catholic.
        He really was.
        Ad hominems will get you nowhere.”

        There’s no argument on your part, just a silly one.
        Hitler existed.
        He was raised a Catholic.
        He really was.
        And so he had to be Catholic when he made references to Darwinism and killed people in the name of his atheistic ideology, during the time when there is no evidence (and certainly none you provided) that shows he was a believer of any religion.

        See? I told you, ironclad. =D

        Silly arguments will get you nowhere, champ, sorry.

        “So I linked to it. There’s multiple links to Hitler and religion.”

        Nope, not one. No citations, no references to anything suggesting Hitler was Christian when he carried out his atheistic ideologies and justified them with Darwin’s theory. Certainly nothing the kind I carefully laid out at “2012/12/06 at 6:31 AM” (you know? Those inconvenient facts that you and the restkeep running away from?). Just lots of assertions and heavy breathing. Oh well…

        “Poop or get off the pot.
        Why is this so hard for you?”

        But Jug-Of-Milkist, your situation is worse, you’re not even pooping inside the pot. And the mess is everywhere. Clean up on aisle 66! =D

        In the meantime, do drop by when you have actual evidence to provide and have grown tired of running. The stuff at “2012/12/06 at 6:31 AM” awaits. And make no mistake, all of us are still waiting for one of you guys to show us the religion Hitler was a part of, since you guys and your Internet atheist cut-and-pastes are becoming awkwardly embarrasing fails.

        You really sure he wasn’t raised in a Jug-Of-Milkist background? =D

        Like

      • There’s no argument on your part, just a silly one.

        What are you talking about?
        I’m not making an argument.
        You said..In other news, do drop by when you have actual evidence linking Hitler to a religion.

        So I gave you links.
        That’s all there is to it.
        (shrug)

        And so he…

        No, I”m not saying that. That’s you.

        You wanted evidence that Hitler was linked to religion. I pointed out that there were lots of links to Hitler.
        His personal background and his parents and his early life are well known. It’s not something that’s obscure or debatable.
        He really was brought up a Catholic.
        Why can’t you accept this?

        Nope, not one. No citations, no references to anything suggesting Hitler was Christian when he carried out his atheistic ideologies…

        Do you need help shifting those goalposts?
        They seem rather heavy.

        Your original demand was that I show you evidence linking Hitler to religion.
        I did.
        (shrug)

        Are you claiming that Hilter was an atheist?
        Poop or get off the pot you sad, incompetent tool.

        Like

      • Cedric Katesby:

        “What are you talking about?”

        Since when have you understood anything people talk about? =D

        “Are you claiming that Hilter was an atheist?”

        Oh boyyyy… seriously now, is English your first language? It’s up to you to show us which religion he was a part of, Jug-Of-Milkist. We’re just saying there’s no religion he can be shown to subscribe to with some actual evidence. And you’re failing at that miserably. Not to mention the inconvenient material at “2012/12/06 at 6:31 AM” that you still keep running from (goodness, why so scared? It’s becoming almost awkward now seeing how you keep fleeing the evidence).

        So, as Andrew Ryan would say, put up or shut up!

        “Poop or get off the pot you sad, incompetent tool”

        Lol. Oh dear, no need for the angst just because your position has nothing. But then again, you still need to fill your posts with some texts, I guess. Um, oh well…

        Thanks for dropping by. =D

        Like

      • Cedric: “Are you claiming that Hilter was an atheist?”

        Getic: Oh boyyyy… seriously now, is English your first language? It’s up to you…”

        Ah, so you are not claiming that Hitler was an atheist?
        Hmm. Interesting. Another retreat.

        It’s up to you to to show us which religion he was a part of, Jug-Of-Milkist. We’re just saying there’s no religion he can be shown to subscribe to with some actual evidence.

        No, that’s not what you said.
        Let me quote you again…
        Read your own words.

        In other news, do drop by when you have actual evidence linking Hitler to a religion.

        So I did.
        Hitler was raised a Catholic.
        Even you now admit it. Or are you still claiming that it’s just an assertion or an atheist argument or something equally stupid?

        Like

  30. SC:

    “Calm yourself, Tilde. There’s no need for bitterness and ad hominems. No one “believes” that Hitler hated Christians and Christianity–he made that abundantly clear in his own words.”

    Well said, SC. tildeb really seems to be losing it. Not to mention the language, oh boyyyy… =/

    And goodness, tildeb, surely not again?? Are you ever going to read something you intend to pour your substance-free, religiously motivated (it seems Darwinism’s your religion) scorn upon? Your circus sideshows are really becoming tough acts to follow, man.

    Now here’s a weekend assignment for you: Go back, look through the entire Vox Day quote again, take your time and try to decipher who he’s referring to, and then, let us know – no, in fact, I challenge you to show us – where I specifically said Vox Day’s words were meant to back up “the claim Hitler was an ‘avowed atheist’ “. Go ahead, champ, show us. =D

    And then, when you finally realise you cannot ever show that because no one here linked Vox Day’s words with Hitler, and when you come to terms with what was either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance on your part, let’s see if you have to courage to man up and actually apologise for your assumptions. My bet is that you won’t, and you’ll conveniently run from retracting your statements.

    So, let’s see what you’re made of. Here’s hoping you don’t fall into what you yourself affectionately call the category of “intellectual midgets who don’t have the integrity to retract b***sh*t claims but seek, instead, to replace what’s true with what they believe is true… even when it’s shown to be b***sh*t.”

    The clock ticks. ;)

    Like

  31. Synapt: “You on the other hand made the following statement:“There is absolutely no doubt that Hitler was a catholic and that he supported catholic privilege in public matters.”

    You lie, sir. Where did I say that?

    Like

      • Great, another concession, another retreat, to add to this one:
        “This is not the equivalent of my calling Hitler an atheist–I am simply stating the obvious. His rants do sound just like the typical seething, anti-Christian rants made by many atheists.”

        They sound equally like the seething rants than one religious sect will use to slag off another religious sect. Protestants and Catholics have been calling each other heretics for centuries. So are you saying Hitler was an atheist or not? Because every time I’ve asked you to provide evidence for him being an atheist in the past week or so, you’ve answered with quotes attempting to support the notion. Now you’re seem to be retreating. How come you didn’t offer the above clarification before?

        Like

      • “Great, another concession, another retreat…”

        No…I simply made a mistake. I forgot that it was tildeb’s claim, not yours. It’s hard to keep track being that many atheists make that same “Hitler is a Christian” claim. At least I am willing to admit my mistakes.

        “So are you saying Hitler was an atheist or not? Because every time I’ve asked you to provide evidence for him being an atheist in the past week or so, you’ve answered with quotes attempting to support the notion. Now you’re seem to be retreating. How come you didn’t offer the above clarification before?”

        Who knows and who cares what Hitler did or did not believe? He appears to have shared the typical militant atheistic mindset, but who knows what he actually identified himself as? Do we really care since it is clear that he is a liar and a deceiver? The point is that he was definitely not a Christian as he only presented himself as such to gain support of the people–all the while badmouthing Christianity in private.

        If I had to make a logical deduction based on the evidence, yes–I have reason to believe that Hitler did not believe in God and was not religious, nor was he beholden to any sense of morality. Whether he actually used the word “atheist” to identify himself is irrelevant.

        Like

      • So are you saying Hitler was an atheist or not? Because every time I’ve asked you to provide evidence for him being an atheist in the past week or so, you’ve answered with quotes attempting to support the notion. Now you’re seem to be retreating. How come you didn’t offer the above clarification before?

        Well said. Poop or get off the pot.

        Like

      • Whenever I hear atheists make their arguments, I start to hear this song…

        Ah, a mental handicap.
        No wonder you are bad at responding to atheist arguments.
        See a doctor.

        Like

      • SC:

        “You’re still around? Go on! Git!”

        LOL! =D

        Oh well, according to urban myths, the creature known as the Internet atheist stalks its prey with maximum drivel and minimum substance. In fact, legend has it that if we keep still and don’t make much conversation with it, it’ll grow tired and walk away. Altogether, hush now…. =)

        Like

  32. “Stop before actual historians…”

    John Toland and Robert Michael are both ‘actual historians’ who argued that Hitler remained a committed believer. You can say there’s arguments on both sides, but it’s simply false to claim there’s consensus on Hitler’s beliefs or lack of them.

    The other side includes Hugh Trevor-Roper, who authenticated the dodgy translation Synapt keeps quoting from? This H T-R:
    “The nadir of his career came in 1983, when as a director of The Times he “authenticated” the so-called Hitler Diaries. The opinion among experts in the field was by no means unanimous; David Irving for example, initially decried them as forgeries but subsequently changed his mind and declared that they could be genuine, but then finally stated that they were, in fact, a forgery. Historian Gerhard Weinberg also authenticated the diaries. But within two weeks forensic scientist Julius Grant had demonstrated unequivocally that the diaries were a forgery.

    The embarrassing incident gave Trevor-Roper’s enemies at Peterhouse and elsewhere the opportunity to criticise him openly.
    Trevor-Roper’s initial endorsement of the alleged diaries raised questions in the public mind not only about his perspicacity as a historian but also about his integrity, because The Sunday Times, a newspaper to which he regularly contributed book reviews and of which he was an independent director, had already paid a considerable sum for the right to serialise the diaries. Trevor-Roper denied any dishonest motivation, explaining that he had been given certain assurances as to how the diaries had come into the possession of their “discoverer” and that these assurances had been wrong, prompting the satirical magazine Private Eye to nickname him Hugh Very-Ropey (Lord Lucre of Claptout).”

    Like

    • Andrew Ryan: “John Toland and Robert Michael are both ‘actual historians’ who argued that Hitler remained a committed believer. You can say there’s arguments on both sides, but it’s simply false to claim there’s consensus on Hitler’s beliefs or lack of them.”

      See, there’s a reason I asked you to be serious in trying to establish what Hitler’s religion was, because you’re digging a deeper hole for yourself with each comment you make, and it’s becoming clear that you can’t pin any religion to Hitler, but you certainly can pin Darwinism. Sure man, let’s talk about “actual historians” starting with an excerpt that, amongst other people, includes the same John Toland you mentioned:

      “The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.

      The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

      John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

      In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

      The key elements in the ideology that produced Auschwitz are moral relativism aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of human life, a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser races, that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the Jews. All but the last of these ideas may be found in Darwin’s writing.
      (‘Don’t Doubt It’ – An important historic sidebar on Hitler and Darwin- National Review, April 2008)

      More history for you? Here are some of Hitler’s actions that make it clear to anyone who’s not detached from reality that Hitler was not Christian:

      1) Murder of Erich Klausener, the German leader of Catholic Action and other Catholic leaders by the SS. (Alan Bullock, ‘ Hitler, A Study In Tyranny’, p. 305).

      2) Hitler was married to Eva Braun by a secular city official (‘Last Days of Hitler’, p. 234). He took no counsel from a clergyman before his death. (‘Last Days of Hitler’, Ch. 6-7).

      3) Under Hitler’s influence, the Nazis removed Catholic nuns from all social service jobs.

      Craving more? How about Kurt Ludecke, who paints a similar picture of Hitler (‘I knew Hitler, pp 171-2’). Ludecke had gone to visit Hitler in Munich at the end of September, and spent an entire evening in Hitler’s company at his Munich flat listening to him flatly denounce the influence of Christianity, which he later wrote about.

      If people like you are being fooled by some of Hitler’s supposed ‘religious’ public statements which are in direct contrast with actions coming from his atheistic ideology, you only need go as far as Hitler’s’ biographer Alan Bullock to check yourselves, on the fact that Hitler’s public speeches are perhaps the least trustworthy of the lot and the reason for this is clear from the Bullock’s own words: “Astuteness; the ability to lie, twist, cheat and flatter; the elimination of sentimentality or loyalty in favor of ruthlessness were the qualities which enabled men to rise; above all, strength of will. Such were the principles which Hitler drew from his years in Vienna…He learned to lie with conviction and to dissemble with candor.”

      Then Bullock has this to say about Hitler. Listen close.

      “”It was in this sense of mission that Hitler, a man who believed neither in God nor in conscience (‘a Jewish invention, a blemish like circumcision’), found both justification and absolution.”

      Prominent historian Hans Kung has this for your ears:

      “the great figures of terror in our century—Hitler, Stalin and their deputies—were programmatic anti-Christians” [Küng, p. 30]

      Ian Hershaw, another prominent historian

      “Apart from the organized sectors of the working class, the Nazis had greatest difficulty, as is well known, in penetrating the Catholic sub-culture, where the dominant image of Hitler provided by Catholic ‘opinion leaders’ was equally negative. The main attack was levelled at the anti-Christian essence of the Nazi Movement and of its leader’s philosophy. Publications sought to demonstrate that Hitler’s ideas stood in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Christian catechism. Especially in Bavaria, where Catholicism was dominant and extreme anti-Marxism widespread, he and his Movement were seen as a variant of ‘godless Bolshevism’-an association which was frequently to recur after 1933 during the ‘Church struggle’. Though Catholic anti-Nazi polemics generally concentrated on attacking the anti-religious, and especially anti-Catholic, thrust of Nazism, some publications did offer a devastating assault on the entire Nazi doctrine. Hitler’s brutality, contempt for human rights, warmongering, and elevation of force to a principle of political behaviour, were all castigated in Catholic publications of the early 1930s. One Catholic weekly above all, Der Gerade Weg, published in Munich under the editorship of Dr Fritz Gerlich-murdered in Dachau in 1934-and Fr. Ingbert Naab, kept up a relentless assault on Hitler, describing him in September 1932, at a time when, despite his open show of solidarity with five of his SA men who had been condemned to death for the brutal murder of a communist in Potempa, the Centre Party was involved in negotiations with the Nazis, as ‘the incarnation of evil’.”

      I’ve got way more than this to remind you of exactly why the assertion that Hitler was a Christian is about the silliest Internet atheist cut-and-paste around, and absolutely crumbles under the weight of massive amounts of evidence to the contrary (which includes the material I wrote at “2012/12/06 at 6:31 AM” that you, Cedric Katesby and tildeb repeatedly run away from, in spite of my insistence that you face up to it).

      That is why I keep suggesting you look properly and do advice us on the actual religion you believe Hitler subscribed to, for any attempts at making Hitler-Christian connections are ill-advised and headed for catastrophic failure, and certainly make you look silly.

      Like

    • Andrew Ryan:

      And for your info, only you and other revisionists with an agenda keep asserting that the Table Talk translations are ‘dodgy’ and reflect thoughts that “do not occur in Hitler’s other private…conversations”. Most historians do not agree with you though, for this is just false. I cite Ludecke (as stated above).

      The Table Talk documents have been extensively verified and they, together with the recent Nuremberg investigatory documentation I referred above (‘The Persecution of the Christian Churches’, one that not one of you, Cedric Katesby or tildeb have responded to), as well as various other historical facts and opinions of historians and people closest to Hitler – make clear Hitler’s clear anti-Christian agenda and his plan to subvert and destroy German Christianity. That “Hitler Diary” you talk about was a notorious forgery put up by atheists and anti-Christians that has him confess his Christianity over and over again in his diary, and was rightfully dismissed as nonsense. It doesn’t somehow negative the various opinions that have established the Table Talks as authentic. In fact, SC hit the nail right on the spot when he said we have “no reason to doubt the original translations of the experts. It is German after all, not some ancient, obscure language that is subject to interpretation. I do have reason to doubt the revised, atheist-friendly translations, though.”

      So you really are stuck with what Hitler actually said, and it doesn’t look for your case of trying to pin him to a religion. I welcome you to try though, this time with some proper evidence.

      Like

  33. “To begin with, I notice people like Andrew Ryan wax lyrical about a supposed “genuine quote from Table Talk, in 1942”, and yet, he and others are conspicuously quiet on the numerous other quotes I’ve put up from the same Table Talk and elsewhere. How about dealing with those, champ? Or should I refresh your memory?”

    Again, you keep quoting from the dodgy, disputed Trevor-Roper translation, which I’ve dealt with several times already… champ.

    Like

  34. “He appears to have shared the typical militant atheistic mindset”

    Really? To me he appears to have shared the typical crazy theist mindset. His slagging off of other religious sects sounds just like any other religious person slagging off a rival sect. Vox Day’s been quoted here. It’s not hard to find quotes from Vox Day – the self-described evangelical – that could come right out of Mein Kampf.* As for who cares, are you kidding? Look online and you’ll find thousands of Christians desperately claiming Hitler was an atheist. Getic has quoted Weikart several times. That guy seems to care a lot.

    *” “There is, quite simply, no such thing as human equality in any material sense,” citing “the latest genetic research on potential Neanderthal genes found in humans of non-African descent,” which “suggest that it is not entirely accurate to even assert that homo sapiens is not divided into various subspecies.”

    Same Vox Day on immigration and his vision for ethnically cleansing USA:
    “”If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society.”

    Like

    • “”If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society.”

      Creepy.
      Very, very creepy.

      Like

    • Andrew Ryan & Cedric Katesby:

      Oh yes, Vox Day’s opinion on deporting illegal aliens sure ranks right up there with the mass murders perpetuated under the atheistic ideologies of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the likes, that resulted in a “total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007” of “approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.”

      Ironclad logic, as usual. You guys are aces, I tell you. Aces. =)

      By the way, if you’re fans of the “very, very creepy”, you’re gonna love these gems, proudly brought to you by atheists Peter Singer, Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer.

      1) “Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes… sex across the species barrier… ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.” [Just so there is no doubt, “sex across the species barrier” is a euphemism for bestiality.]
      – Peter Singer, ‘Heavy Petting’, 2001

      2) Rape is“a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage..”

      “The males of most species – including humans – are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female’s choice.”
      – Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, ‘Why Men Rape’, 2000

      Doesn’t get much creepier than this. =/

      Like

      • Lol, you don’t know what “tu quoque” even means, do you?

        Yes, I know.
        That’s why I’m using it.

        Psst, here you go

        What is it with you and internet fail?
        The idea is to read the links that you yourself put up.
        There’s nothing there on Tu Quoque.
        Read your own link for once in your life.
        When you’ve done that, go off and find a source that can help you what a Tu Quoque argument is and the variations thereof.

        (…awkward silence..)

        Yeah, I’d better help you with that.

        Go to google.
        Now type in “Tu Quoque”
        Now click the first few links you find…
        Then read them.
        Slowly.

        Like

  35. ” The point is that he was definitely not a Christian as he only presented himself as such to gain support of the people–all the while badmouthing Christianity in private.”

    As pointed out already, the more accepted translation of Table Talk comes across far more that he’s attacking Christians who he saw as perverting the true faith, similar to Jefferson’s reference to Christiany as a ‘perverted’ religion, in the sense of being distorted by many of its followers.

    Like

    • Andrew Ryan:

      “As pointed out already, the more accepted translation of Table Talk comes across far more that he’s attacking Christians who he saw as perverting the true faith…”

      Not true. The more accepted and widely attested version shows there was no real religion he could be pinned to, that he could certainly be seen to be justifying his atheistic ideology using Darwinism, and that he was decidedly anti-Christian. The texts are clearly there for anyone to see, and we’re all stuck with what Hitler actually said.

      Like

      • “Not true. The more accepted and widely attested version shows there was no real religion he could be pinned to, that he could certainly be seen to be justifying his atheistic ideology”

        It is true. I’ve already explained why several times, as has Cedric, which you’ve failed to respond to each time. As for atheistic ideology – which ideology would that be? Because you’ve not shown that in a single quote. Not a single one. At best you’ve quoted him criticising Christian views, and that’s even accepting those translations, which I’ve shown grounds for not doing.

        Again – put up or shut up.

        Like

      • Andrew Ryan:

        Still waiting for you to put up or shut up actually, given your (and Cedric Katesby’s) attempts at linking Hitler with Christianity have been epic fails on a level well beyond intellectual comprehension, and the weight of the evidence I’ve cited from historians, documents and elsewhere (still running from good ole ““2012/12/06 at 6:31 AM”, are you? How about adding the unaddressed evidence at “2012/12/09 at 10:27 AM” to the list of dodges?) is slapping you in the face back to reality as we speak.

        Which means we’re back to square one: you’ve failed to show us with evidence the religion that Hitler subscribed to. Care to try again? Which one have you got lined up next? Hinduism?

        Take your time, champ. =D

        Like

  36. “At this rate, your lie-meter must be off the scales. =D”

    Getic, not even those who still accept the Trevor-Roper translation of Table Talk deny that Hitler was brought up a Catholic and was an altar boy. It doesn’t help your argument to simply say “liar” after someone else says something true. Note that I only did that after someone actually said something false. Likewise, linking to ‘let me google that for you’ only works when what’s in question is a simple matter of fact, and every google result demonstrates that.

    Like

    • Andrew Ryan:

      Perhaps if you read it better it would help. When did I deny specifically that Hitler was brought up a Catholic? I was after Cedric Katesby’s lie that “most of the people who worked for him.” were religious. I clearly showed (look for the quotes above) that the people who worked directly under him were mostly, if not all, against religion, and you guys have not provided anything to the contrary. So yes, Cedric Katesby did lie about that.

      And the lmgtfy link was to ensure Cedric Katesby would refrain from laziness, and to help him do a Google search and do his homework before coming here spouting nonsense that atheism is not a worldview (I believe even you consider it to be worldview).

      That’s why it’s called “Let Me Google That For You”, and not “Let Me Google A Simple Fact For You Which Shows That Every Google Result Demonstrates That.” ;)

      Like

      • Cedric: “He was raised Catholic etc.
        Those are links.”

        Getic: Wow, again, where are you getting these silly atheist arguments?

        Cedric: What are you talking about?
        I’m not making an argument.
        You said..”In other news, do drop by when you have actual evidence linking Hitler to a religion.”

        So I gave you links.
        That’s all there is to it.
        (shrug)

        (…later…)

        Getic: And so your assertions mean…

        Cedric: No, they are not assertions. Hitler really was born into a Catholic family.

        Getic: Assertions. Next.

        Which leads us too….

        Getic: When did I deny specifically that Hitler was brought up a Catholic?
        (…double facepalm. Because a single facepalm sometimes is not enough…)

        I was after Cedric Katesby’s lie that “most of the people who worked for him.” were religious.

        You don’t even mention it.

        I clearly showed (look for the quotes above) that the people who worked directly under him…

        Why “directly under him”? Hitler was the leader of a nation. You do realise that, right? The Army, the SS, the Nazi Party etc, yeah?
        Where do you think they came from, Mars?

        …before coming here spouting nonsense that atheism is not a worldview (I believe even you consider it to be worldview).

        Atheism is not a worldview. Read the links.
        Heck, read your own links.
        Find out what the word “worldview” is and then find out what “atheism” means.
        I’ll give you a hint.
        A-Unicornism is not a worldview.
        It’s a lack of belief in Unicorns.

        Like

      • And the lmgtfy led directly to many results explaining why it is NOT a worldview. Stick a fork in that fail of yours – I think it’s done.

        Like

      • Andrew Ryan:

        The only fail I see round here is yours and Cedric Katesby’s desperately short attempts at squaring Hitler with some religion, actually. I can’t help but notice you’re trying really hard, to no avail. Hitler remains a man to whom no religion has been subscribed, certainly not by your efforts. It’s really starting to look pitiful. I feel you. =D

        Like

      • The only fail I see round here is yours and Cedric Katesby’s desperately short attempts…

        Atheism? The whole “worldview” thing?
        Check out the links you found on google.
        You won’t like them.

        Like

      • Cedric Katesby:

        “Atheism? The whole “worldview” thing?
        Check out the links you found on google.
        You won’t like them.”

        Checked them. Looking perfectly fine to me. Why are you spouting nonsense again, Cedric Katesby? Do you get paid for this? =D

        Like

      • Checked them. Looking perfectly fine to me.

        No, the idea is to actually read them, you idiot.
        There’s nothing there that helps you.
        Atheism is not a worldview.
        It can’t be.
        Not believing in Bigfoot is not a worldview either.

        Like

      • Cedric Katesby:

        “……”

        Lol, way to go, Jug-Of-Milkist. You keep exercising the right to plug the posts with your substance-free, angst-filled, insult-ridden non-arguments. I simply love the way you epitomise “free” speech – I for one certainly wouldn’t pay to hear you speak! =D

        Little wonder people don’t take you seriously around here. Oh well, anyway, playtime’s over kiddo, move along now, adults are having a serious discussion here. ;)

        Like

      • Lol, way to go, Jug-Of-Milkist

        For those of you who don’t know why Getic keeps calling me this, let me enlighten you.
        It’s because of this video demonstrating that prayer doesn’t really work.
        Evidently, it got to him.

        The best optical illusion in the world!

        Like

  37. None of his enemies branded him an atheist.”

    Liar.

    So who branded him an atheist?
    It’s a new one. Who?
    (Not that it would prove much either was as I mentioned before but, seriously, who?) Quotes? Source material?

    Still waiting here.

    Like

    • Cedric Katesby:

      Still waiting for you to put up or shut up actually, given your (and Andrew Ryan’s) attempts at linking Hitler with Christianity have been epic fails on a level well beyond intellectual comprehension, and the weight of the evidence I’ve cited from historians, documents and elsewhere is slapping you in the face back to reality as we speak (speaking of which, still running from good ole ““2012/12/06 at 6:31 AM”, are you? How about adding the unaddressed evidence at “2012/12/09 at 10:27 AM” to the list of dodges? Tsk tsk…).

      Which means we’re back to square one: you’ve failed to show us with evidence the religion that Hitler apparently subscribed to, while we simply say he had none. Care to try again? Which one have you got lined up next? Jug-Of-Milkism, surely? =D

      I know gathering evidence is not your forte, so please, do take your time.

      Like

      • Still waiting for you to put up or shut up actually, given your (and Andrew Ryan’s) attempts at linking Hitler with Christianity…

        You yourself admit that he was raised a Catholic.
        Are Catholics not Christians somehow? Is that it?

        “None of his enemies branded him an atheist.”

        Liar.

        So who branded him an atheist?

        (…waits patiently…)

        Like

      • Cedric Katesby:

        “You yourself…”

        Still running away from “2012/12/06 at 6:31 AM” and “2012/12/09 at 10:27 AM”, no matter how many times it’s pointed out for the benefit of all the other observers of this and well as your selectively dysfunctional vision?

        Oh well, move along now, nothing to see here…

        Running Away – Hoobastank

        Like

      • Still running away from…

        What are you talking about?
        You yourself admit that Hitler was raised Catholic.
        I’ve given you that link and more.

        Why are you so coy about naming the enemies of Hitler that branded him an atheist?
        Are you trying to protect Hitler’s reputation somehow?
        Seriously, what have you found out?
        I’m interested.
        You didn’t just make it up and lie to people, did you?

        Like

      • “…you’ve failed to show us with evidence the religion that Hitler apparently subscribed to, while we simply say he had none.”

        GA, you should know by now that if someone is a ruthless murderer they have to be a theist by default. It’s politically incorrect to even suggest that anyone with any character flaws is atheistic. Apologize immediately.

        Like

      • “None of his enemies branded him an atheist.”

        Liar.

        Maybe SC can help out?
        Yes? No?

        Seriously, I’d like to know (not that would have meant much either way.)
        Quotes? Source material?

        Like

      • This was the second result I got on your lmgtfy:
        http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1270
        “So, let’s check the definitions of “atheism” and of “worldview” and see if one might be a species of the other.

        atheism1
        disbelief in the existence of a god or gods

        worldview
        1. a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world2
        2. a collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group3

        I do not see how atheism can be a worldview.

        I have compared atheism to a-unicornism: disbelief in the existence of unicorns. How is a-unicornism a “worldview”? It’s not. Atheism and a-unicornism are each a single belief about one thing. Neither of these positions tell you anything else about the person who holds them: their morals values, their political views, their driving purpose, their explanations for life or the universe, their beliefs about magic or ghosts or elves, their rationality or their intelligence.”

        Like

      • “GA, you should know by now that if someone is a ruthless murderer they have to be a theist by default”

        I’ve made no claims about his beliefs. Getic is the one to have made the claims. I’m not saying Hitler is anything ‘by default’. It is Getic saying to refute his claim we need to say what religion Hitler was, inferring that he is otherwise atheist by default. Burden of proof doesn’t work that way. If he rolls a dice and it goes where no-one can see it, and he says it’s a six, so he wins the game, I don’t need to prove it’s any other number to say his claim is unsupported.

        Like

      • Yep, A-Unicornism.
        (chuckle)
        One of the unwritten rules of the internet is that you’re supposed to read the links you provide.

        Checked them. Looking perfectly fine to me.

        Yeah, um, about that…
        ;)

        Like

      • Andrew Ryan:

        “This was the second result I got on your lmgtfy…”

        Oh, second result eh? I wonder what the first result was, and why you conveniently avoided in going for the atheist-friendly one. Hmm, let’s see…

        ‘Is atheism a worldview?’ by Matt Slick

        “In order to know if atheism is a worldview, we need to first define our terms. A worldview is a set of propositions, beliefs, assumptions, that a person uses when relating to and interpreting the world around him. If that definition isn’t sufficient, please consider the following definition:

        ‘The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.’ (thefreedictionary.com, answers.com/topic/worldview)

        So is atheism a worldview? Yes it is. Think about it. It is the Christian worldview to say that God exists, that he has given us our purpose, that we did not evolve, that there is right and wrong which God reveals to us in the Bible. We Christians view the world though this basic perspective. Likewise, atheism is a worldview because it deals with the same issues. It says that God does not exist, that we determine our own purpose, that we evolved, that we develop our own morals, etc. Atheism, or should we say atheists, have answers to the same questions that Christians do concerning the world, purpose, morals, etc., that are based on there not being a God and/or the denial of God’s influence in the world, morals, existence, etc. Therefore, it is a worldview.

        But some atheists might object and say that there is no book like the Bible from which they derive answers to various questions. But, they derive their beliefs and assumptions within the perspective that there is no God. This means that even though different atheists will have different answers to questions, the same as Christians can have different answers to questions, the common denominator of the denial of God, no ultimate purpose, subjective morals, are necessarily parts of an atheistic worldview.”

        Tsk tsk, Andrew Ryan, how unoriginal. Got any answers for Matt Slick over here?

        Like

  38. “you’ve failed to show us with evidence the religion that Hitler subscribed to”

    It wouldn’t matter if it was one totally unique to him with no name – as long as you believe in a deity you’re not an atheist. If you claim he’s an atheist you have the burden of proof. Not up to me to offer religions back.

    Like

  39. ““The males of most species – including humans – are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female’s choice.”

    Why is that creepy? It’s just statement of fact. Are you saying raping does NOT circumvent the woman’s choice?

    You missed the point of me quoting Vox Day anyway – Synapt said Hitler’s words sounded like the sort of thing an atheist would say. I quoted an evangelical talking about how blacks might be whites’ genetic inferior.

    Like

  40. “If you are instead doing the opposite and are claiming to believe and adhere to another religion/belief system then BY DEFINITION, you are not religious, are you?”

    No idea what you’re saying here.

    Like

  41. “Really? To me he [Hitler] appears to have shared the typical crazy theist mindset. His slagging off of other religious sects sounds just like any other religious person slagging off a rival sect.
    ….

    As pointed out already, the more accepted translation of Table Talk comes across far more that he’s attacking Christians who he saw as perverting the true faith, similar to Jefferson’s reference to Christiany as a ‘perverted’ religion, in the sense of being distorted by many of its followers.”

    You lie! You lie! You lie!

    Look again at what “I’m-a-Catholic” Hitler said:

    “Christianity is an invention of sick brains : one
    could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent
    way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A
    negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being
    who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.”

    Definition of TRANSUBSTANTIATION

    1: an act or instance of transubstantiating or being transubstantiated

    2: the miraculous change by which according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine

    “Slagging of rival sects,” eh? Never mind that Hitler was bashing the very foundations of Catholic belief. The religious sect that he supposedly identified with.

    Like

    • “Look again at what “I’m-a-Catholic” Hitler said”

      Again, you’re quoting from the disputed translation

      Like

      • “Lots of people believe in God while not being particularly religious.”

        But no one believes in God and then blasphemes their God by claiming a belief in another sect’s God and belief system.

        Like

      • “Lots of people believe in God while not being particularly religious.”

        But no one believes in God and then blasphemes their God by claiming a belief in another sect’s God and belief system.

        And you can be religious without being part of an organized religion.

        Like

      • “As for Hitler – perhaps he saw no contradiction between what he said in public and and what he (actually) said in private. End of he day, you’re talking about a megolomaniac psychopath, probably mentally ill, who was convinced he was always right. Expecting him to behave rationally or consistently is a futile exercise.”

        OK. Then will you finally put the “Hitler is a Christian/Catholic/theist” thing to rest?

        Like

      • ““OK. Then will you finally put the “Hitler is a Christian/Catholic/theist” thing to rest?”

        When did I say that? For the tenth time, I’ve made no claims about his beliefs.”

        OK….then what are we arguing about?

        Like

  42. “Let me explain this to you. If you are by definition “religious,””

    So you’re moving the goal posts now from ‘atheist’ to ‘not religious’? Lots of people believe in God while not being particularly religious.

    Like

  43. “And you can be religious without being part of an organized religion.”

    Sure and you can believe in God without bring religious or part of an organised religion.

    “No-one believes…”

    Synapt, theists are like all people – they don’t always act rationally. And theists don’t always act according to the tenets of their faith. They get abortions, they cheat, lie, murder and steal, even though they apparently believe they’re at a strong risk of hell. Peter himself denied Christ – three times! So how do we explain all that? They’re closet atheists, all of them? Unlikely, no? There are a variety of alternatives – some people convince themselves that ends justify means – and God would understand, right, because ultimately they’re still doing his work. Or they know they screwed up, but they’ve asked God for forgiveness and he’s cool with it all. Or they don’t see what they’re doing as wrong in the first place. Or they’ve got massive cognitive dissonance (a lot of it about). Or their variety of theism doesn’t have dire consequences for denying their faith.

    As for Hitler – perhaps he saw no contradiction between what he said in public and and what he (actually) said in private. End of he day, you’re talking about a megolomaniac psychopath, probably mentally ill, who was convinced he was always right. Expecting him to behave rationally or consistently is a futile exercise.

    “Disputed only by you”

    Obviously false, as Cedric and I quoted and linked to historians pointing out serious flaws in the translation.

    “Perhaps I over-estimated…”

    Is that helpful or necessary? I wasn’t sure of your meaning so I said I didn’t understand, offering you the chance to clarify, rather than guess what you meant. That’s the polite thing to do. Perhaps I’m not smart enough to get you, but I’m doing my best.

    Like

  44. “OK. Then will you finally put the “Hitler is a Christian/Catholic/theist” thing to rest?”

    When did I say that? For the tenth time, I’ve made no claims about his beliefs.

    Like

  45. “OK….then what are we arguing about?”

    People claiming he’s an atheist. No-one’s claiming that, we have no argument. Ta Ta.

    Like

  46. Andrew Ryan:

    “I’ve made no claims about his beliefs. Getic is the one to have made the claims. I’m not saying Hitler is anything ‘by default’. It is Getic saying to refute his claim we need to say what religion Hitler was, inferring that he is otherwise atheist by default.”

    Are you intellectually dim, or just dishonest? Which is it? The only thing SC and I been repeating time and again – and which you and Cedric Katesby seem to be an absolute mess about with your selective vision – is the following, and I quote myself so you can’t avoid it:

    “In fact, all I’m saying is that we cannot link Hitler to any religion. Now that’s the claim you have to handle, champ. The positive claim would be to say that Hitler had an actual religion.”

    Have you guys snapped back to reality yet? I’ll repeat it just to be sure.

    “In fact, all I’m saying is that we cannot link Hitler to any religion. Now that’s the claim you have to handle, champ. The positive claim would be to say that Hitler had an actual religion.”

    It’s disappointing, Andrew Ryan. We all know Cedric Katesby is a militant idiot who doesn’t bring much of substance to discussions, but you’re far from that, and I certainly expected better of you.

    You guys have already failed miserably with the Hitler-Christian hatchet jobs. And you failed here too at your attempt to suggest we’re claiming anything, as opposed to simply saying he had no religion we could show him to be a believer of, with evidence.

    Two epic fails don’t make an epic right. Just saying…

    Like

      • “So you’re admitting to still having no evidence that shows the religion that Hitler subscribed to? ”

        I’m not claiming to, so there’s nothing there for me to ‘admit’ to.

        Like

    • The only thing SC and I been repeating time and again – and which you and Cedric Katesby seem to be an absolute mess about with your selective vision – is the following, and I quote myself so you can’t avoid it:“In fact, all I’m saying is that we cannot link Hitler to any religion. Now that’s the claim you have to handle, champ. The positive claim would be to say that Hitler had an actual religion.”

      If that’s the only thing you’ve said then who said…”Still waiting for you to put up or shut up actually, given your (and Andrew Ryan’s) attempts at linking Hitler with Christianity”.?

      Linking Hitler to Janism is difficult.
      Linking Hiter to Catholicism is easy enough though.
      You yourself admit he was raised a Catholic.

      Like

      • “The positive claim would be to say that Hitler had an actual religion”

        Or indeed that he had none. If no-one here is making either claim then as Synapt says, “what are we arguing about?”.

        So, to clarify from Getic and Synapt: Are you claiming that Hitler was an atheist? Simple yes/no question.

        Like

      • Andrew Ryan:

        “So, to clarify from Getic and Synapt: Are you claiming that Hitler was an atheist? Simple yes/no question.”

        All we’re saying – and you’re stuck with what we actually said – is that there’s no religion we can actually say Hitler subscribed to, that can be shown with actual evidence that stands up to scrutiny. So the more relevant yes/no question would be: do you disagree? If so, what religion do you think Hitler was a part of, and where is your evidence?

        Right now, you have nothing, and it is very telling.

        Like

  47. So, it’s been more than 3 weeks of huffing and puffing by Andrew Ryan and Jug-Of-Milkist Cedric Katesby, and – apart from an absolutely messy attempt at linking Hitler with Christianity (one that I didn’t think anyone from this era was still peddling, but I guess people surprise us with their prehistoric theories all the time) – still no evidence that stands up to scrutiny and shows Hitler had an actual religion?

    Oh well, I guess that means Hitler still remains very much a mass murderer with no religion. As were Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the likes. Wonder what they call a person with no religion in most places?

    Is anyone ever gonna step up to this task and show us the religion that Hitler apparently subscribed to, with evidence? Hinduism, perhaps? =D

    Let’s wait and see, folks…

    Like

    • Andrew Ryan:

      It’s been three weeks of huffing and puffing from YOU failing to provide evidence he was an atheist.”

      But Agent Ryan, all we say is that there is no evidence that Hitler followed a particular religion when he went on his killing spree. Your mission – should you choose to accept it – is to provide actual evidence of the religion you guys apparently believe he subscribed to and seem to have trouble providing evidence for.

      Warning: this message – like most of Cedric Katesby’s arguments – will self-destruct in 5 seconds. ;)

      Like

      • Oops, duplicate comments. Pardon me fellas…. Josh, perhaps you could help me remove the one above when you’re free yeah? Thanks brother! =)

        Like

      • “all we say is that there is no evidence that Hitler followed a particular religion when he went on his killing spree”

        Fine, go ahead and say that. I don’t agree with you, but go ahead. Hitler certainly CLAIMED to follow a particular religion, but you’re welcome to say you think he was lying. You could well be right. But that’s not the same as saying he was an atheist. Plenty of theists ‘follow no particular religion’.

        Like

    • …apart from an absolutely messy attempt at linking Hitler with Christianity…

      Even you admit that he was raised a Catholic. That’s a link.

      HITLER: THE ATHEIST (Quiz Show)

      Like

    • Andrew Ryan:

      “It’s been three weeks of huffing and puffing from YOU failing to provide evidence he was an atheist.”

      But Agent Ryan, all we say is that there is no evidence that Hitler followed a particular religion when he went on his killing spree. Your mission – should you choose to accept it – is to provide actual evidence of the religion you guys apparently believe he subscribed to and seem to have trouble providing evidence for.

      Warning: this message – like most of Cedric Katesby’s arguments – will self-destruct in 5 seconds. ;)

      Like

      • “But Agent Ryan, all we say is that there is no evidence that Hitler followed a particular religion when he went on his killing spree”

        Nope. Burden of proof is on you if you want to claim he’s an atheist. You claim that it’s a worldview in and of itself. Therefore to say someone subscribes to it is a positive claim.

        Look, occasionally in the UK, some evangelical types will kick up a fuss when some trendy liberal vicar says he doesn’t believe in a literal virgin birth (or rejects some other idea like a young earth or whatever). The evangelicals will say that vicar isn’t a proper Christian. The vicar says he is. I don’t particularly care either way – these are man-made labels. But if you conclude he’s a Christian, that doesn’t mean we then have to call him a Sikh or a Hindu in order to counter the notion that he’s an atheist. As long as he still believes in a deity, regardless of whether he’s departing from what you hold to be a central essential tenet of Christianity or Catholicism or Protestantism or whatever, he’s still not an atheist. Likewise for New Agers who like to say all religions have some element of truth, and they pick and mix what they like from all of them. One couldn’t come up with an official name for their religion, but it would be nonsensical to call them atheists.

        Hitler calling himself a Catholic while rejecting transubstantiation might make him awfully confused, it might make him a rubbish Catholic, it might rule him out from BEING a Catholic. But it doesn’t make him an atheist, especially when what seemed to enrage him about many religious ideas was their apparent blasphemy to what he seemed to think of as the REAL religion.

        What’s your explanation for his obsession his pursuit of divine items (Raiders was based on a real aspect of Hitler)? Why would an atheist be so interested in supernatural objects?

        “Wonder what they call a person with no religion in most places?”

        Could be a non-demoninational theist, but the intellectually honest thing to do when you don’t know what someone’s religion is, is to say you don’t know.

        Like

  48. “Oh, second result eh? I wonder what the first result was”

    If you have a specific link you thought explained your position well, why not just provide Matt Slick’s link straight off? Different people get different results on Google, as has been pointed out here before by Josh. That’s why people tend to give people lmgtfy links when it’s over a matter of obvious fact, where all the results will give the same answer. It’s generally offered in response to someone who has actually requested a piece of information, rather than to counter someone saying something you disagree with. For example, someone asks what the capital of France is, or who directed Jaws. Then the obvious response is “why not just google that rather than waste time asking us?”. It’s saying the other person has been lazy. Someone disagreeing with you doesn’t necessarily mean they’re too lazy to look up the ‘real’ answer – they might have given the matter great thought and simply come to a different conclusion (even if it’s wrong).

    Doing a lmgtfy for a philosophical argument like ‘is atheism a worldview’ doesn’t work. For a start, as demonstrated, the results come up with a variety of contradictory answers. For a second, the person who disagrees with you might as well tell you to google why YOU are wrong. Slick assumes that because everything HE believes is seen through the prism of his theism, an atheist must equally see everything through the prism or not believing in God. I don’t. My atheism is a result of my scepticism, it’s isn’t a starting point. But I’m that interested in a back and forth on that subject.

    Can’t believe I’ve just wasted so much time explaining such a simple gag as lmgtfy, which obviously went over your head.

    Like

    • Andrew Ryan:

      Who died and made you the authoritative word on how lmgtfy links should or shouldn’t be used? =D

      You’re wasting your own time here. Focus on the arguments at hand, will you?

      Like

  49. Likewise, atheism is a worldview because it deals with the same issues. It says that God does not exist…

    Nope.
    That would mean that other religious types who do not accept Slick’s brand name god ( such as Hindus) are atheists. Yet they are not.
    A-Unicornists do not say that Unicorns don’t exist. Maybe they do. There’s just no evidence to justify believing in their existence.

    “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.”
    (Wikipedia)

    …that we determine our own purpose…

    Nope. An atheist does not need to believe that we determine our own purpose.

    …that we evolved…

    No they don’t. You don’t need to know anything about evolution at all to be an atheist.

    …that we develop our own morals…

    Again, no. I have no idea what some other atheist may or may not think about issues of morality or their origins.

    ..atheists, have answers to the same questions that Christians do concerning the world, purpose, morals, etc.

    No. Even if an atheist had not even considered these questions at all it does not mean that they are not an atheist.
    There’s no worldview.
    There’s nothing to work with to build one.
    Not believing in Bigfoot is not a worldview either.

    Like

  50. ” That “Hitler Diary” you talk about was a notorious forgery put up by atheists and anti-Christians that has him confess his Christianity over and over again in his diary, and was rightfully dismissed as nonsense. ”

    Except it wasn’t dismissed as nonsense by Trevor-Roper, the very guy who vouched for the authenticity of the translation of Table Talk you keep on citing! That’s the whole point of me mentioning the Hitler Diary, and it seems to have gone completely over your head, just like the point I was making by quoting Vox Day’s revolting racial superiority. On both occasions you assume I was mentioning them for completely different reasons, despite me clearly explaining the reasons. I wasn’t citing the HItler Diaries as proof of his religiosity, I cited how Trevor-Roper destroyed his reputation by authenticating what EVEN YOU admit is nonsense. That’s Trevor-Roper, the same person who put his name to the Table Talk translation you keep quoting from, the version known as the ‘Trevor-Roper version’.

    “In fact, SC hit the nail right on the spot when he said we have “no reason to doubt the original translations of the experts”

    I’ve several times linked to very good reasons to doubt the translation that you link to, as has Cedric, showing that even calling them ‘original translations’ is inaccurate as they’re translations to English of the French translations. We showed how the Trevor-Roper version changed the meanings of the originals quite significantly. You’ve not responded once to those quotes or links.

    It’s a pretty important part of translating that you take it from the original language. If you get someone to translate a document into a second language, then a second person to translate THAT into a THIRD language, you’re far less likely to get something close to the original.

    Like

  51. Synapt: “Never mind that Hitler was bashing the very foundations of Catholic belief [by denying transubstantiation].”

    Interesting you say that. Polls have shown that Hitler’s view is not uncommon among self-described Catholics in America. The poll quoted here was only from 519 Catholics, but it still seems significant those who believed in the Real Presence were actually in the MINORITY:

    “In January 1992, the St. Augustine Center Association sponsored a second
    Gallup poll, called “A Gallup Survey of Catholics regarding Holy Communion.”
    This poll, which included telephone interviews of 519 U.S. Catholics during the
    period of December 10, 1991, to January 19, 1992, revealed that

    ONLY 30% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS BELIEVE THE DE-FIDE DOGMA ABOUT THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST”

    http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/polls.txt

    Now, there have been other polls where it’s more like 82% or 70% saying they ACCEPT a literal transubstantiation. But that still leaves a sizeable number taking the same tack as Hitler (18-30%). My conclusion is that Hitler’s denial of the Real Presence is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is, unless you’re willing to cast possibly tens of millions of US self-described Catholics into the same boat.

    Like

    • “ONLY 30% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS BELIEVE THE DE-FIDE DOGMA ABOUT THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST”

      Desperation, thy name is Andrew.

      Hitler died in 1945. Pope Paul VI introduced The Novus Ordo in 1969. Most Catholic churches still observe the traditional mass.

      Here listen to your theme song again:

      Like

      • “Hitler died in 1945. Pope Paul VI introduced The Novus Ordo in 1969. Most Catholic churches still observe the traditional mass.”

        Sorry, what’s that got to do with the poll I quoted about Catholics saying they don’t accept a literal Real Presence?

        Like

      • Can you tell me what lie I’m supposed to have told? Are the figures I linked to made up? I quoted directly. I’m a bit baffled. The only person caught out lying here was you, saying I said stuff that I never actually said.

        Like

      • Er, again – what lie am I supposed to have told? I quoted a Gallop poll commissioned by Catholics. You call me a liar, and post a Rollins video. I ask you what lie I’ve told, you respond with more videos. Synapt, posting videos calling someone a liar is not a valid debate tool. It’s not a valid critique. Just saying “you lose” doesn’t cut it, even if you employ the help of Willy Wonka himself.

        So again, what lie am I supposed to have told in my post of 1:36pm yesterday. Try to answer using words, facts, cites etc rather than blanket assertions and pop culture references. Or I could just post the pic of the giraffe humping a donkey and the caption ‘giraffe boinks donkey therefore your argument is invalid’.

        Like

      • When you misrepresent, it’s as good as lying. Hitler died decades after this new order option of Catholicism–something that’s been rejected by most Catholics to this day. And back when Hitler uttered those words, there was only traditional Catholicism–which, as with Christianity in general, Hitler clearly loathed.

        Just accept the fact that you are wrong. There no conspiracy–the interpretations are valid, recognized translations. It’s not all an “anti-atheist plot” to make atheists and atheism look bad. Blame these brutal dictators if you want to point fingers and cast blame; don’t attack the messengers.

        Like

      • “So… what exactly was this ‘supreme force’ that Hitler refers to, do you think? Not just supreme, but ‘creative’ – and its existence is ‘a fact’, such that it would be folly to deny it?”

        I’ve heard many atheist new agers refer to a “creative force” before. Many even claim that God is “inside all of us.” It certainly doesn’t make them theists–and it makes them blasphemers in the eyes of most people of faith.

        And why are you quoting Irving to me? I never referred to him, so let’s stay focused.

        Like

      • Star Wars even speaks of “The Force.” It’s certainly not in reference to a “deity.” But it does sound like the same “force/source/power/higher energy” that Hitler and many New Agers refer to.

        Like

      • SC:

        “Just accept the fact that you are wrong. There no conspiracy–the interpretations are valid, recognized translations. It’s not all an “anti-atheist plot” to make atheists and atheism look bad. Blame these brutal dictators if you want to point fingers and cast blame; don’t attack the messengers.”

        Yes, I don’t get it too. After all, no one is saying that any atheist right now finds the actions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the likes acceptable. But that doesn’t mean the motivating ideologies of these mass murderers are any less obvious.

        And given there is no naturalistic basis for “purpose” in life or “value” to life, apart from what we decide upon ourselves (as admitted by Andrew Ryan himself, who said it’s possible different people could come up with different “purposes” in life), these things… happen. I guess. =/

        Like

  52. Andrew Ryan:

    “Except it wasn’t dismissed as nonsense by Trevor-Roper, the very guy who vouched for the authenticity of the translation of Table Talk you keep on citing! That’s the whole point of me mentioning the Hitler Diary, and it seems to have gone completely over your head…”

    I think much more is going completely over your head, champ. Like SC and I have reiterated, the Hitler Diary episode was a relatively small event that is only heavily dramatized in militant atheist circles in a desperate attempt to somehow find an excuse to dismiss the Table Talk documents and their unmistakably anti-Christian sentiment. Except, there was nothing overtly dramatic about it. Life went on, because people knew the reputation of Trevor-Roper – a distinguished British historian with numerous credentials to his name – didn’t hinge on that single document. Even your beloved Wiki, for all its atheistic bias, admits, “Despite the shadow that this incident cast over his later career, he continued writing (producing ‘Catholics, Anglicans, and Puritans’ in 1987) and his work continued to be well received” And that’s something that is well attested to if you do a simple Google search, I literally found thousands of articles citing his views and referring to his being a reputed historian. Here’s something from Emory University’s defence transcript from the Lipstadt trial:

    Trevor-Roper, originally a specialist in seventeenth-century English history, had worked in British Intelligence during the war and had been charged with heading an official mission to find out the true facts about the death of Hitler. The result of his researches, published in 1947 asThe Last Days of Hitler, immediately established him as a leading authority on Nazi Germany

    Trevor-Roper, appointed Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford in 1956, continued to write on Hitler and Nazism, and his view that the German dictator was not, as was often supposed, merely interested in power for its own sake, but was driven by strong ideological convictions, has stood the test of time.”

    By almost all accounts, Trevor-Roper is a distinguished historian, and I trust his judgment on the authenticity of the records, more than an atheist on the Internet who wants to peddle the silly, out-of-fashion, untenable argument that Hitler was a Christian.

    Besides, Hitler’s Table Talk, and all known versions, were validated as being authentic by almost all the leading historians of the time, not just Trevor-Roper, and that too with Hitler’s strong anti-Christian sentiment intact within the document. So your conclusion that just because the Hitler Diaries were fake, Hitler’s Table Talk might be, is a ridiculously weak defence. Here’s what one of the world’s leading historians on the Third Reich, David Irving, has to say about Hitler’s Table Talk:

    “Hitler’s Table Talk is the product of his lunch- and supper-time conversations in his private circle from 1941 to 1944. The transcripts are genuine..

    The table talk notes were originally taken by Heinrich Heim, the adjutant of Martin Bormann, who attended these meals at an adjacent table and took notes. (Later Henry Picker took over the job). Afterwards Heim immediately typed up these records, which Bormann signed as accurate.

    François Genoud purchased the files of transcripts from Bormann’s widow just after the war, along with the handwritten letters which she and the Reichsleiter had exchanged.

    For forty thousand pounds — paid half to Genoud and half to Hitler’s sister Paula — George Weidenfeld, an Austrian Jewish publisher who had emigrated to London, bought the rights and issued an English translation in about 1949.

    For forty years or more no German original was published, as Genoud told me that he feared losing the copyright control that he exercised on them. I have seen the original pages, and they are signed by Bormann.

    They were expertly, and literately, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, though with a few (a very few) odd interpolations of short sentences which don’t exist in the original — the translator evidently felt justified in such insertions, to make the context plain.

    Translation is a difficult chore: I have translated four books, including Nikki Lauda’s memoirs — one can either produce a clinical, wooden, illiterate version, like Richard “Skunky” Evans’ courtroom translations of Third Reich documents, or one can produce a readable, publishable text which properly conveys the sense and language of the original.

    The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.”

    And so, we have a document that is thought of by most historians as being authentic, as well as carrying strong anti-Christian sentiment as expressed by Hitler himself, across all the different translations. What’s your explanation for that, Andrew Ryan? Or are you just hoping to wish it away? In fact, you would actually struggle to name two bona fide historians who either claimed the Table Talk documents were not authentic, or that Hitler didn’t express anti-Christian sentiment. Go ahead, accept the challenge.

    And so, SC remains spot on in saying “I have no reason to doubt the original translations of the experts. It is German after all, not some ancient, obscure language that is subject to interpretation. I do have reason to doubt the revised, atheist-friendly translations, though.

    If I were you, I’d focus on establishing the actual religion that you seem to think Hitler was a part of, rather than peddle this outdated, untenable argument (one that I have presented tons of unaddressed evidence against, and to think I even needed to do it in this day and age, goodness), for the more you waste time with this, the more it becomes clear to onlookers of this thread that these are desperate attempts at distracting from what was originally stated and remains unaddressed: that Hitler must have been a man without religion, for that would certainly explain the great struggles you’re facing in establishing that religion.

    No surprises there in any case, after all, Hitler’s mass murders carry numerous parallels to those of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the likes, who carried out their atrocities under strictly atheistic regimes. Of course, that doesn’t mean you agree with their actions, not at all. It just means they did what they did. True story.

    Like

    • “Here’s what one of the world’s leading historians on the Third Reich, David Irving, has to say about Hitler’s Table Talk”

      That would be disgraced HOLLOCAUST DENIER David Irving, would it?

      “Irving’s reputation as an historian was widely discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books. The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist, who “associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism”, and that he had “for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence””

      He’s your man, here, right? I’m guessing you didn’t follow the trial at the time, as I did, and simply copy and pasted his words above without knowing much about him.

      I had considered quoting the below a while back, but thought better of it precisely because I don’t think Irving can be trusted, but here it is now anyway, given that you’re quoting the man:

      ” In interviews with me, Hitler’s adjutants, especially Karl-Jesko von Puttkamer (on left of picture) disputed their authenticity. Eventually Genoud, meeting me in Paris, came clean and told me he had either written, or enlarged on, the originals himself, in his own handwriting — in French. On two different occasions he said to me, apologetically, “That is surely what Hitler would have said.””

      So according to Irving, even the translator admitted making up bits that he figured sounded like the kind of things he THOUGHT Hitler would have said.

      That aside, a Court of Law found Irving: “”for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”

      Trevor Roper himself said: “But I don’t regard him as an historian. I don’t think he has any historical sense. He is a propagandist who uses efficiently collected and arranged material to support a propagandist line.”

      And you’re reduced to trumpeting this man’s expertise? The man described as “the most skillful preacher of Holocaust denial in the world today”? How low can you sink?

      Like

  53. And so, almost four weeks now, and, apart from wasting our time with silly, Internet atheist, “ooh-Hitler-was-Christian-cos’-we-say-so” arguments that collapse at the slightest scrutiny (see the points raised at “2012/12/06 at 6:31 AM” and “2012/12/09 at 10:27 AM”, almost all of which remain unanswered, also look at the more recent “2012/12/12 at 3:19 AM”), neither Andrew Ryan nor Jug-Of-Milkist Cedric Katesby has gotten down to the serious task of showing us, with actual evidence, the religion that they believe Hitler subscribed to when we carried out his mass murders.

    Shall we give them a bit more time, lest we come to the conclusion that Hitler was a man with no religion when he did what the likes of atheists Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did, namely, end the lives of millions?

    I’m sure many are looking forward to hear what actual arguments Andrew Ryan and Jug-Of-Milkist Cedric Katesby have to offer. Here’s hoping they fare better next time out. Watch this space… =)

    Like

    • It’s been four weeks without you finding a single scrap of evidence that Hitler was an atheist.

      ” Hitler died decades after this new order option of Catholicism”

      So what? You said it was impossible for a Catholic to reject transubstantiation, yet the facts show that many Catholics do in fact not accept a literal Real Presence. You’re so bereft of actual arguments in response to this, you’re reduced to simply posting pop videos! (Sung by aprominent atheist, I might point out, just to add to the fail).

      Similarly, your evidence that Hitler was atheist rests on ideas like when one guy translated a sentence supposedly said by Hitker into another language, then a second guy translated that sentence into another language, the result included the word Godhead, which you claim only atheists use, despite the fact that it takes seconds online to find countless theists using that very word.

      Like

  54. Meanwhile we have the opinions of those who are NOT discredited hollocaust deniers:
    http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

    “In other words, there are no originals and the copies were filtered and edited by Bormann. The table talk cannot be considered a first-hand recording of Hitler’s words. On this fact alone, I cannot with integrity or certainty use them as a source for Hitler’s voice, especially in regards to religion which could very well reflect the anti-Catholic biased Bormann.” Jim Walker, historian. Was going to quote a load more, but something else just came up.

    Like

  55. Here’s a direct quote from Synapt’s ‘complete Table Talk’ link:

    “The Russians were entitled to attack their priests, but they
    had no right to assail the idea of a supreme force. It’s a fact
    that we’re feeble creatures, and that a creative force exists.
    To seek to deny it is folly. In that case, it’s better to believe
    something false than not to believe anything at all.”

    So… what exactly was this ‘supreme force’ that Hitler refers to, do you think? Not just supreme, but ‘creative’ – and its existence is ‘a fact’, such that it would be folly to deny it? I guess if you were reaching you might claim that biologists might refer to evolution as a ‘creative force’, but never a ‘supreme’ one (they are quite to explain its limitations). And at any rate, here the context is that it’s a clear rejoinder not to extend the idea of attacking priests into attacking the very idea of a supreme force. The sentence makes no sense unless it’s a reference to a deity. And the alternative is ‘not to believe anything at all’, which Hitler sees as the worst of all options.

    How can one square the above quote with the idea that Hitler believed in no deity?

    More on Irving’s support of Table Talk. This from the defence documents for the libel trial that got him sent to prison:

    http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/430diiB

    “Irving uses both the German original, and the flawed translation, depending on which of the two documents serves his purpose of showing Hitler in a favourable light. Whether or not the Weidenfeld translation is accurate in any given case is of no interest at all to him; all that he is interested in is whether or not it supports his argument. Because he is familiar with the German original and must know that he is using a flawed translation, his version of the Hitler table talk in this instance amounts to manipulation of the source-material even if the actual translation is not his own.”

    So not exactly reliable in his endorsement then.

    Like

  56. “I’ve heard many atheist new agers refer to a “creative force” before. Many even claim that God is “inside all of us.””

    How do you figure these people are atheists then? This isn’t no true Scotsman – if someone believes God is inside them, they’re not an atheist. If they’re a new ager referring to a ‘supreme creative force’, sounds like they’re not an atheist. Can you quote me some of these people? Who are they?

    “And why are you quoting Irving to me? I never referred to him, so let’s stay focused.”

    You might want to ‘focus’ and read Getic’s post of 2012/12/12 at 3:19 AM, you know – the post directly above the ones I talk about Irving in.

    Like

  57. “Star Wars even speaks of “The Force.”

    You’re reduced to quoting fiction now? Not only is this pretty desperate, the Star Wars series has virgin births and people returning as ghosts – the religious allusions are hardly subtle. It’s not for nothing that people refer to Jedi-ism as a religion – it basically functions as one in the story, with its own virtual priests too.

    Go back to the quote – he says:
    “The Russians were entitled to attack their priests, but they had no right to assail the idea of a supreme force.”

    What do you think he was referring to? Give me a paraphrase of the sentence above that makes some sense that is NOT referring to a deity. So perhaps: “The Russians were entitled to attack a specific group of people who claim to represent the God, but they had no right to assail the idea of ….”

    What would you put in the ellipses there that follows naturally on from the first half of the sentence? Try putting in anything that an atheist might believe in that might be conceivably called ‘a supreme force’, and have the sentence not be a non sequitur.

    Perhaps that dead horse you think I’m flogging is your argument, and the reason I’m still flogging it is that you keep denying it is deader than John Cleese’s parrot.

    Like

  58. Oh, and I’m not going to scroll up the page any more to read your posts – if you’ve got any more points to make, stick em at the bottom, unless you’re responding to a post of mine quite near the bottom. But try to make them decent. Posting a video of an actor saying ‘You’re wrong’ doesn’t cut it as a serious debate tactic, and comes across as risible from people accusing the other side of not being adult.

    Like

  59. ““I’ve heard many atheist new agers refer to a “creative force” before. Many even claim that God is “inside all of us.””

    How do you figure these people are atheists then?”

    Because an “energy force” is not God/a god. Many believe in this obscure, “creative energy force,” but I know they are in fact atheists because they bash others for believing in “God beings.” Why would they bash people for believing in “God beings” as they call it if you’re asserting that their belief in creative ENERGY is the equivalent of being a theist?

    Give it up already. Hitler was a wacko.

    Like

    • “Give it up already. Hitler was a wacko.”

      When did I say he wasn’t a wacko? You’re the one saying he couldn’t be Catholic because otherwise he’d be blaspheming or being inconsistent – as if he was a rational consistent person.

      “Why would they bash people…”

      I’ve got no idea who you’re talking about or what they’ve actually said, so I can’t possibly speculate on their motives or actual beliefs.

      I’ll ask one more time:
      What do you think Hitler was referring to? Give me a paraphrase of the sentence above that makes some sense that is NOT referring to a deity. So perhaps: “The Russians were entitled to attack a specific group of people who claim to represent the God, but they had no right to assail the idea of ….”

      What would you put in the ellipses there that follows naturally on from the first half of the sentence? Try putting in anything that an atheist might believe in that might be conceivably called ‘a supreme force, a creative force’, and have the sentence not be a non sequitur.

      Like

      • As I said, I’ve heard many atheists (even militant ones) speaking of a “force” or “energy.” I suppose it’s the same energy that could create everything from nothing.

        Assuming you quote is accurate, Hitler said creative/supreme “force,” not “being.” The sun is a source of energy. It is a “force” that has an effect on our environment. People who acknowledge this do not have to see the sun as a god or a deity.

        Give up already.

        Like

  60. The “creative energy force” is probably what enbled Dawkins’ “magic molecule” to permutate into all life on earth. Yes it sounds crazy, but Dawkins did call it a “magic” molecule.

    Like

  61. “As I said, I’ve heard many atheists (even militant ones) speaking of a “force” or “energy.” I suppose it’s the same energy that could create everything from nothing.”

    And as I pointed out two or thee times, that interpretation makes no sense in the quote sentence.

    “Assuming you quote is accurate” (sic)

    You need assume nothing – it’s from your own link. Go there and check if you don’t believe me.

    And sure – give up trying to have a conversation with you, as you have no integrity. If we were talking a founding father quote – the exact same words – there’s no way you would peg the author of that line as an atheist. And I’d not claim him as one either, even if the person who said it was a total hero.

    Like

  62. “Force (Star Wars)
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search

    The Force is a binding, metaphysical, and ubiquitous power in the fictional universe of the Star Wars galaxy created by George Lucas.”

    This may be “fiction,” but coincidentally many who reject God believe in this concept. I’m not saying that all atheists believe in this–I’m sure many do not. But there are many who ridicule a belief in a “god being” yet believe in a metaphysical energy/power.

    http://synapticcohesion.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/religious-ron-and-atheist-andy-17/

    Like

    • Yeah, I know about the Force.

      ” Discussing the development of the idea of the Force, Lucas said: “The Force evolved out of various developments of character and plot. I wanted a concept of religion based on the premise that there is a God and there is good and evil. I began to distill the essence of all religions into what I thought was a basic idea common to all religions and common to primitive thinking. I wanted to develop something that was nondenominational but still had a kind of religious reality. I believe in God and I believe in right and wrong.”

      Like

      • “New Agers/occult healers teach that it is in Life Force energy that we live, and move and have our (well) being:

        Ki is the life force. It is also called the vital life force or the universal life force. This is the nonphysical energy that animates all living things. As long as something is alive, it has life force circulating through it and surrounding it; when it dies, the life force departs.

        (Quote source: http://www.reiki.org/reikiind/icrt/icrt/page3.html (Bold emphasis added)”

        As much as you want to pretend they’re one in the same, they’re not.

        Like

    • And again, none of this makes sense in the sentence in question relating to Russians attacking priests. Sure, the sun is a force, but no-one refers to it as a ‘Supreme’ force or a ‘creative’ one. And Hitler was hardly attacking people who refuse to see the sun as a force. “I can understand Russians attacking priests, but it’s idiotic to deny the sun is a force” – that makes no sense.

      In the same paragraph Hitler denigrated the people who don’t ‘believe in anything’ – you’re certain there that he means who don’t believe in Chi, or The Force, or The Sun, or some ‘New Age’ idea? Even though in your own link he had already stated that the Russians are an atheistic people, and never mentioned their lacking a belief in any of those other things?

      “Hitler said creative/supreme “force,” not “being.”

      For a start, I’ve lost track of the times theists have picked at biologists referring to ‘creative evolution’ and saying something can only be creative if it is an actual ‘being’. You disagree with those theists then? Sure, there may be other supernatural entities one can believe in while not being a theist – but a SUPREME force has a certain meaning, no? Again, I’ve had theists many times say “Well why not just call THAT God, then?” in response to people referring to abstract ideas like the laws of logic as being supreme.

      That aside, Hitler DOES make plenty of references to God in the link you provided:

      “If to-day you do harm to the Russians, it is so as to avoid
      giving them the opportunity of doing harm to us. God does not act differently. He suddenly hurls the masses of humanity on to the earth, and he leaves it to each one to work out his own salvation.”

      You can check that quote yourself in your own link to the Trevor-Roper version of Table Talk. Was he just meaning metaphorically there? Because theists seem awfully keen to claim Einstein as a theist because of his “God doesn’t play dice” quote.

      Here’s another:

      “When one says that God provokes the lightning, that’s true in
      a sense; but what is certain is that God does not direct the
      thunderbolt, as the Church claims.”

      So he’s distancing himself from a directly interventionist God, but I don’t see how you can interpret that sentence through an atheist perspective. How can it be ‘true in a sense’ to a person who doesn’t believe in a God?

      Like

  63. “You can check that quote yourself in your own link to the Trevor-Roper version of Table Talk. Was he just meaning metaphorically there? Because theists seem awfully keen to claim Einstein as a theist because of his “God doesn’t play dice” quote.”

    So first the translation is not credible and is “disputed,” but now it’s reliable. *sigh*

    Like

    • “So first the translation is not credible and is “disputed,” but now it’s reliable. *sigh*”

      The point is that even if YOU insist it is reliable, it still works against your own position. The document was your major piece of evidence that Hitler was an atheist and yet it has many quotes that make no sense coming from a man who does not believe in a deity, as I point out above. Either it’s reliable, in which case you have some very problematic passages for your position, or it isn’t, and you’ve lost your only source.

      So you lose either way: Sigh indeed; Flogging a dead horse indeed; Good day sir indeed.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s