Hiler as an Atheist... (img heavy)

[theyounghistorian77]

It [ meaning the "Trevor-roper edition"] is full of Mistranslations, see the "German Studies Review, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Oct., 2003), pp. 561-576." for more details

That's the source for the "Debunking" [as you put it] of the Trevor-roper edition of the table talks, and it comes from the peer-reviewed journals. If anyone want's the article, drop me a PM and i'll happily give it to you

Sorry, I had asked that before I read your response. I was going to edit but realised I was late for my 5 year old's soccer game and trophy award.

That's ok

 

[Laurens]

Whatever Hitler's actual religious beliefs were is irrelevant. The foundations of Nazism are just as dogmatic and irrational as religious belief systems. Hitler didn't have 6,000,000 Jews killed because of his supposed atheism, it was because of an all too religious and dogmatic adherence to the Nazi ideology he created.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Whatever Hitler's actual religious beliefs were is irrelevant. The foundations of Nazism are just as dogmatic and irrational as religious belief systems. Hitler didn't have 6,000,000 Jews killed because of his supposed atheism, it was because of an all too religious and dogmatic adherence to the Nazi ideology he created.

I can see where you're coming from, It's just a pity that there are plenty of morons going aroung claiming Hitler did kill in the name of atheism. So to a limited extent, his religious beliefs do matter.

 

[Laurens]

Whatever Hitler's actual religious beliefs were is irrelevant. The foundations of Nazism are just as dogmatic and irrational as religious belief systems. Hitler didn't have 6,000,000 Jews killed because of his supposed atheism, it was because of an all too religious and dogmatic adherence to the Nazi ideology he created.

I can see where you're coming from, It's just a pity that there are plenty of morons going aroung claiming Hitler did kill in the name of atheism. So to a limited extent, his religious beliefs do matter.

To be honest that argument doesn't hold any water with me even if Hitler did kill directly because of atheism, that doesn't weigh on my conscience, just like the inquisition rightly doesn't weigh on the conscience of Christians despite it being done directly because of Christianity.

We all know the shock value that bringing up Hitler in an argument has, and drawing comparisons between him and the opponent, and to be honest I'd rather not give any credence to that devious tactic, other than to point out it's utter irrelevance to my atheism.

 

[Francis]

how can you deny Hitlers obvious atheism?

 

[kenandkids]

[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP_iNCGH9kY[/Youtube]

how can you deny Hitlers obvious atheism?

Only use the part after = for posting video. In this case: YP_iNCGH9kY

 

[borrofburi]

[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP_iNCGH9kY[/Youtube]

how can you deny Hitlers obvious atheism?

Only use the part after = for posting video. In this case: YP_iNCGH9kY

Aha. Mod powers win (though I guess you technically beat me by a little bit). Probably still useful for him to see though.

 

[kenandkids]

Aha. Mod powers win (though I guess you technically beat me by a little bit). Probably still useful for him to see though.

You and a couple of others fixed mine when I started but I didn't "get it" until someone said what I did almost verbatim. just tryin' to help =-)

 

[Francis]

thanks

 

[Kevin R Brown]

...You know why morons like Bill O'Reilly, Dinesh D'Souza, Glenn Beck, Ben Stein, Ken Ham, etc, constantly drop Hitler & Stalin's names when referring to any sort of despotism (rather than, say, Enver Hoxha, who implicitly stated that he was going to create 'the world's first atheist state' before sending out the goons to round-up and torture the devout of Albania)?

It's because they have shit for brains and can't name anyone other than Hitler or Stalin. They last time they opened a history book was probably in 9th grade.

The following are quotes from the man himself, but in response to the above uses of the cross and god, there is no easier way to unite and control a people than religion, and any religion that would have continued under Hitler would have been worshiping him. However, even if Hitler was an Atheist (which I doubt) he did not do anything because of his Atheism, whereas religious wars and murders have been religiously motivated.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"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....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

10th October, 1941, midday

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

14th October, 1941, midday

"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 <is> the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."

19th October, 1941, night

"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."

21st October, 1941, midday

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea."

13th December, 1941, midnight

"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.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>....
"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."

14th December, 1941, midday

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics."

9th April, 1942, dinner

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity."

27th February, 1942, midday

"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 in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>."

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. Those were NOT direct quotes from Hitler - what you have here are poorly translated and thoroughly edited notes written by Hugh Trevor-Roper, published as 'Hitler's Table Talk'. This document is a mess; for starters, it was translated from a french translation of the original notes written by Henry Picker, not from the original Picker documents. Secondly, they are not written first-hand by Adolf Hitler. The German notes were taken down by Martin Bormann, Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker, and reflect only these individuals interpretations of what 'the essence' of Hitler's words were. They were published only after the war, without any input from Hitler, edited into the original manuscript 6 years after they were first put to paper.

Albert Speer confirmed the authenticity of Picker's notes, but went on to call them "authentically Bormann"; in otherwords, they far more reflected (at least in Speer's opinion) Bormann's views than Hitlers.


And of course this document is now cruising the Internet at high speed, and being misrepresented nearly everywhere as as authentic, first-hand, personal set of notations penned by Hitler.

Potholer54's Law strikes once more.

Sigh.

 

[DukeTwicep]

To be honest that argument doesn't hold any water with me even if Hitler did kill directly because of atheism, that doesn't weigh on my conscience, just like the inquisition rightly doesn't weigh on the conscience of Christians despite it being done directly because of Christianity.

We all know the shock value that bringing up Hitler in an argument has, and drawing comparisons between him and the opponent, and to be honest I'd rather not give any credence to that devious tactic, other than to point out it's utter irrelevance to my atheism.

Actually there's quite a difference between the influences of religion and non-religion to people's actions. Are you saying that the inquisitions would have happened if those responsible were atheists? Or to take the crusades. Are you saying those would have happened if those responsible were atheists?

Looking at what Hitler has written in Mein Kampf and what he said, it is clear that he had a huge religious influence, that is, if what he writes really does come from his heart. And maybe, if what he wrote in Mein Kampf was true, Christianity was the trigger for his plan to eradicate the Jews. If he were an atheist I doubt he would have come to the same conclusion. Perhaps he would focus on the deconstruction of the church instead of killing Jews, had he been an atheist.
It's like atheists use to argue about atheism and its impact on morals and ethics, and other important stuff: atheism is not having belief in deities. Having influence from that is like sitting on a sofa, watching TV, and get influenced by the lack of music coming from your neighbours.

If we write off religiosity as a bad influence, there's not really much of a reason to rebel against religion.

The inquisition and the crusades doesn't weigh heavily on Christians consciences because They are in a state of extreme denial. It doesn't weigh heavily on Them because they are too deluded to see it. Because they are technically mentally ill. They Should feel responsible, for it is the organisation that they support that enabled many of the worst atrocities committed, if not most (if not All of the worst...).

 

[Thomas Doubting]

I was really surprised to hear that so often, that Hitler is supposed to have been an atheist.. i lived in Germany for ~9 years and i never heard that.. ever.. i mean his religious belief, well actually his religious motiv was presented as a fact there.

The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934

"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."

Service oath for public servants

"I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to the leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfil my official duties, so help me God!"

I doubt an atheist would demand such oaths from his people.. the soldiers had "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belts and acted in the name of God under their Fà¼hrer

But if he did anyway, that just proves how easily you can abuse the religious brain to follow blindly if you claim to act in the name of God.. what was shown many times throughout history.
However, there are many Hitler quotes about God but. not a single one saying that he was an atheist, what he was opposing was the candy land version of Christianity like "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor" and so on :roll:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?"

"Thank the Lord, Germanic democracy means just this: that any old climber or moral slacker cannot rise by devious paths to govern his national comrades, but that, by the very greatness of the responsibility to be assumed, incompetents and weaklings are frightened of."

"Heaven will smile on us again."

"...we must pray to the Almighty not to refuse His blessing to this change and not to abandon our people in the times to come."


etc etc

And i will gladly repeat this over and over again.. a person doing something because he doesn't believe in God basically has "nothing" as reason to do it.. while religious people had/have religious authorities and their scriptures practically demanding atrocities done in the name of their imaginary friends.. in that regard i think i am safe to say that you can't compare crimes committed by atheists for whatever reason with crimes committed by religious people because of the religious belief.. and WW2 is definitely part of it.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

To be honest that argument doesn't hold any water with me even if Hitler did kill directly because of atheism, that doesn't weigh on my conscience, just like the inquisition rightly doesn't weigh on the conscience of Christians despite it being done directly because of Christianity.

We all know the shock value that bringing up Hitler in an argument has, and drawing comparisons between him and the opponent, and to be honest I'd rather not give any credence to that devious tactic, other than to point out it's utter irrelevance to my atheism.

Actually there's quite a difference between the influences of religion and non-religion to people's actions. Are you saying that the inquisitions would have happened if those responsible were atheists? Or to take the crusades. Are you saying those would have happened if those responsible were atheists?

Looking at what Hitler has written in Mein Kampf and what he said, it is clear that he had a huge religious influence, that is, if what he writes really does come from his heart. And maybe, if what he wrote in Mein Kampf was true, Christianity was the trigger for his plan to eradicate the Jews. If he were an atheist I doubt he would have come to the same conclusion. Perhaps he would focus on the deconstruction of the church instead of killing Jews, had he been an atheist.
It's like atheists use to argue about atheism and its impact on morals and ethics, and other important stuff: atheism is not having belief in deities. Having influence from that is like sitting on a sofa, watching TV, and get influenced by the lack of music coming from your neighbours.

If we write off religiosity as a bad influence, there's not really much of a reason to rebel against religion.

The inquisition and the crusades doesn't weigh heavily on Christians consciences because They are in a state of extreme denial. It doesn't weigh heavily on Them because they are too deluded to see it. Because they are technically mentally ill. They Should feel responsible, for it is the organisation that they support that enabled many of the worst atrocities committed, if not most (if not All of the worst...).

I disagree with one of your points: when you claim that Christians should feel responsible for the actions of people who shared their beliefs. It IS true that the examples you gave were the fault of Christianity, but that shouldn't really make Christians feel responsible. Instead, I think that the Inquisition and the Crusades ought make Christians REALIZE that their belief can have dangerous consequences.

In other words, don't make them feel responsible for acts of the past. Make them feel responsibility for future consequences of their bullshit - by explaining what their beliefs caused in the past.

 

[DukeTwicep]

I disagree with one of your points: when you claim that Christians should feel responsible for the actions of people who shared their beliefs. It IS true that the examples you gave were the fault of Christianity, but that shouldn't really make Christians feel responsible. Instead, I think that the Inquisition and the Crusades ought make Christians REALIZE that their belief can have dangerous consequences.

In other words, don't make them feel responsible for acts of the past. Make them feel responsibility for future consequences of their bullshit - by explaining what their beliefs caused in the past.

Why shouldn't it make them feel responsible? If I would join a nazi party today and give them money, then I would feel pretty bad for aiding a group that has such a violent and immoral past. But if I did like Christians do, and say that no True Nazis would have ever done such things, then I wouldn't feel bad about it. Perhaps I chose the wrong word, "responsible" isn't the right word as you can't be responsible for something that has already happened that you had no influence on, my bad.
But I Do think they should feel bad for aiding such an immoral enterprise, just as I think the Nazis should be for keeping Nazism alive.
And I don't know if Christians would respond to the claim that they can make such stuff happen again (other bad stuff is happening all the time because of Christianity, like brainwashing and giving unreasonable feelings of guilt to people), I think they would say that that was in the past and they've made progress since then.

The Christians would of course defend themselves with projection and say that I'm forcing guilt upon them. By that they would of course mean that I'm not respecting them. And to that I would say that I respect them but I don't respect their immoral and illogical beliefs that has caused so much harm and is still causing it.

Still it feels somewhat conflicting to "force" this guilt on them. It's quite contrary to my personality and my morals. Perhaps that's because they look so harmless on the surface and most of them don't act immoral in obvious ways.

 

[DukeTwicep]

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. Those were NOT direct quotes from Hitler - what you have here are poorly translated and thoroughly edited notes written by Hugh Trevor-Roper, published as 'Hitler's Table Talk'. This document is a mess; for starters, it was translated from a french translation of the original notes written by Henry Picker, not from the original Picker documents. Secondly, they are not written first-hand by Adolf Hitler. The German notes were taken down by Martin Bormann, Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker, and reflect only these individuals interpretations of what 'the essence' of Hitler's words were. They were published only after the war, without any input from Hitler, edited into the original manuscript 6 years after they were first put to paper.

Albert Speer confirmed the authenticity of Picker's notes, but went on to call them "authentically Bormann"; in otherwords, they far more reflected (at least in Speer's opinion) Bormann's views than Hitlers.


And of course this document is now cruising the Internet at high speed, and being misrepresented nearly everywhere as as authentic, first-hand, personal set of notations penned by Hitler.

Potholer54's Law strikes once more.

Sigh.

Do we have any specific sources that says that these were poorly translated and thoroughly edited, apart from ourselves translating the German texts into English? Anything that I could use to link to I mean. I'm not familiar with the German language, so finding out for myself if the German version corresponds to the English is somewhat out of the question.

I also have some thoughts on the quotes where Hitler is supposedly saying bad stuff about Christianity, and that apologetics use these quotes to "prove" that Hitler was an Atheist.

I'm having a discussion with an apologetic that, as usual, is saying that religion doesn't seem particularly bad if you look at the wars caused by religious people versus Atheistic people. And so he goes on saying, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.
I tell him that Hitler was a Catholic and he was actually very inspired by the Bible in his quest to exterminate the Jews. I look up Hitler's religious views on Wikipedia to strengthen my position. And I find some even more interesting information than that people posted here. In the section named "Positive Christianity" it says this:

Drawing on higher criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler for a time advocated for German Christians a Positive Christianity, traditional Christianity purged of everything that he found objectionable and with certain, particularly racist, additions. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself, but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews. In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross." By 1940, however, it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned advocating for Germans even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianity.

It would seem to me that Hitler's faith was genuine and that these quotes, if they are real, cannot actually be used to say he was an Atheist, they instead point out that he was opposed to the Current form of Christianity that was formed after Jesus. A Christianity that he believed was a perversion of Jesus' teachings.
This completely wrecks the "Hitler was an Atheist" argument in my opinion, as these quotes only tell that he was opposed to the corrupt form of Christianity that has survived until today.


Any comment on this would be appreciated. Is my conclusion valid?

 

[theyounghistorian77]

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. Those were NOT direct quotes from Hitler - what you have here are poorly translated and thoroughly edited notes written by Hugh Trevor-Roper, published as 'Hitler's Table Talk'. This document is a mess; for starters, it was translated from a french translation of the original notes written by Henry Picker, not from the original Picker documents. Secondly, they are not written first-hand by Adolf Hitler. The German notes were taken down by Martin Bormann, Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker, and reflect only these individuals interpretations of what 'the essence' of Hitler's words were. They were published only after the war, without any input from Hitler, edited into the original manuscript 6 years after they were first put to paper.

Albert Speer confirmed the authenticity of Picker's notes, but went on to call them "authentically Bormann"; in otherwords, they far more reflected (at least in Speer's opinion) Bormann's views than Hitlers.


And of course this document is now cruising the Internet at high speed, and being misrepresented nearly everywhere as as authentic, first-hand, personal set of notations penned by Hitler.

Potholer54's Law strikes once more.

Sigh.

Do we have any specific sources that says that these were poorly translated and thoroughly edited, apart from ourselves translating the German texts into English? Anything that I could use to link to I mean. I'm not familiar with the German language, so finding out for myself if the German version corresponds to the English is somewhat out of the question.

I also have some thoughts on the quotes where Hitler is supposedly saying bad stuff about Christianity, and that apologetics use these quotes to "prove" that Hitler was an Atheist.

I'm having a discussion with an apologetic that, as usual, is saying that religion doesn't seem particularly bad if you look at the wars caused by religious people versus Atheistic people. And so he goes on saying, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.
I tell him that Hitler was a Catholic and he was actually very inspired by the Bible in his quest to exterminate the Jews. I look up Hitler's religious views on Wikipedia to strengthen my position. And I find some even more interesting information than that people posted here. In the section named "Positive Christianity" it says this:

Drawing on higher criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler for a time advocated for German Christians a Positive Christianity, traditional Christianity purged of everything that he found objectionable and with certain, particularly racist, additions. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself, but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews. In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross." By 1940, however, it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned advocating for Germans even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianity.

It would seem to me that Hitler's faith was genuine and that these quotes, if they are real, cannot actually be used to say he was an Atheist, they instead point out that he was opposed to the Current form of Christianity that was formed after Jesus. A Christianity that he believed was a perversion of Jesus' teachings.
This completely wrecks the "Hitler was an Atheist" argument in my opinion, as these quotes only tell that he was opposed to the corrupt form of Christianity that has survived until today.


Any comment on this would be appreciated. Is my conclusion valid?

Perhaps if you could provide a link to your debate, i might be able to intervene if you want me to.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Thanks DukeTwicep for the link in private. For the rest of you, the debate in which i intervened in can be located in the comments here. I think i may have the potential to send him into an extreme rage :lol:

 

[DukeTwicep]

Thanks DukeTwicep for the link in private. For the rest of you, the debate in which i intervened in can be located in the comments here. I think i may have the potential to send him into an extreme rage :lol:

Oh my god, now 100 atheists will go and look for errors in my comments. The horror! On second thought that's probably just good for me, PM me if you think I made some serious mistakes then. I'm always up for changing my views if they need be revised.
And, thanks again for aiding in a somewhat petty debate (petty in that the theist won't change his mind and the comments will be buried in a mountain of other comments).

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Thanks DukeTwicep for the link in private. For the rest of you, the debate in which i intervened in can be located in the comments here. I think i may have the potential to send him into an extreme rage :lol:

Oh my god, now 100 atheists will go and look for errors in my comments. The horror! On second thought that's probably just good for me, PM me if you think I made some serious mistakes then. I'm always up for changing my views if they need be revised.
And, thanks again for aiding in a somewhat petty debate (petty in that the theist won't change his mind and the comments will be buried in a mountain of other comments).

I'll bet he strawmans me in his response assuming he does. he'll probably say something along the lines of "you believe all of that was down to religion?" dissaprovingly. But of course as you can see what i'm really doing is employing a "reductio ad absurdum", showing how absurd his counting methods are. And if he does respond, well the person who will be "burying him in a mountain of other comments" will be me. As anyone in these forums who know how i conduct youtube debates will tell you.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Just thought i'd bring to attention to you all this interesting looking document which i've just stumbled upon

http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2434&context=utk_chanhonoproj