There is no evidence for abcense

231 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
@Jo: RE: "One could look at

@Jo: RE: "One could look at nature and conclude their must be some mind behind it. Some purpose echoing through our lives and the universe."

NO! One could not look at nature and CONCLUDE their MUST be some MIND behind it without being completely delusional. One might look at nature and IMAGINE their MIGHT be some MIND behind it all assuming they were not intelligent enough to realize the actual intricacy and complexity of the entire cosmos. This person might assume and then ascribe purpose and pretend it was all made for humanity but they they would certainly qualify as delusional.

Unfortunately for your world view; Hitler had a great life as he moved from rags to riches. His death was probably about as painless as a death could be. Fully accepting the fact that he had serious mental issues, his life was one of respect, luxury and over indulgence. And then it ended. That is about all you get to say about HITLER.

Something to keep in mind. Hitler was a Christian. The motto of the 3ed Reich was not "God With Us" for nothing. Hitler followed the teachings of Martin Luther and had significant contacts with the Catholic Church. By eliminating the Jews, he was doing God's work. You really need to know a bit more about your history.
Hitler is still living in the lap of luxury by the feet of Jesus.

Delaware's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

The "intricacy and complexity of the entire cosmos" should make one pause and wonder.
Wonder if it is nothing more than matter, energy, space and time.

Why isn't the "delusional" belief in God in the DSM?

"Something to keep in mind. Hitler was a Christian. The motto of the 3ed Reich was not "God With Us" for nothing. Hitler followed the teachings of Martin Luther and had significant contacts with the Catholic Church. By eliminating the Jews, he was doing God's work. You really need to know a bit more about your history."

Hitler may have called himself a Christian but by no objective standard was he.
Antisemitism and Christianity are mutually elusive even if the largest Church fostered it.
If Jesus had shown up at the Burgof he would have been put in the cattle cars with the other Jews.
The "Christ" in Christian was not a blond haired blue eyed German, he was a Jew.
Does not the Bible say there is no Jew or Gentile. Not at all the same as what the Nazi's believed.

The Nazi claiming to be Christians is a statement of culture or race, not of faith.
We are Christians, that is, not Jews, is what they meant.
We are not atheistic communist, is what they meant.
Not that they followed a Jew, or the Bible.

The Nazi were also men of European ancestry. Does that convict all white males?

What did the Nazi's do with "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"?

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: RE: "The "intricacy and

@Jo: RE: "The "intricacy and complexity of the entire cosmos" should make one pause and wonder."

Wonder all you want. What you have is mass, energy and space time. The only people doing the wondering are the people that do not assume they have all the answers. Asserting that there is a mind behind it all and closing the book is fucking ignorant.

2. Why isn't the "delusional" belief in God in the DSM?
IT IS - In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows:

Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

This conflicts with the law of least restrictive environment. You are allowed to be delusional as long as you can support yourself, function in the culture, and survive.

Delaware's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

I have not closed any book. In fact I am still reading.

Do I have this right?
According to the DSM-IV Jo's belief in God is not delusional?

Is there "incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary" to my belief in God?

Sheldon's picture
Jo "Hitler may have called

Jo "Hitler may have called himself a Christian but by no objective standard was he."

That's called the no true Scotsman fallacy Jo, and Germany was a country of tens of millions of christians lets not forget. What's more only christians were allowed to join the German SS, so by any objective standard you're talking complete nonsense. I expect you will ignore your use of this fallacy as you do all the others, then whine when people suggest you're being dishonest.

"The Nazi were also men of European ancestry. Does that convict all white males?"

Hitler and the Nazis didn't invent antisemitism, virulent hatred and persecution of Jews had been a defining characteristic of European christianity for centuries. I am not aware of any dogma based on being white that teaches antisemitism.

Cognostic's picture
@Sheldon: Saved me a page of

@Sheldon: Saved me a page of writing.

Why Christians hate Jews.
"A. Roy Eckardt, a pioneer in the field of Jewish-Christian relations,[1] asserted that the foundation of antisemitism and responsibility for the Holocaust lies ultimately in the New Testament."

According to Rabbi Michael J. Cook, Professor of Intertestamental and Early Christian Literature at the Hebrew Union College, there are ten themes in the New Testament that have been a source of anti-Judaism and antisemitism:[19]

The Jews are culpable for crucifying Jesus - as such they are guilty of deicide.
The tribulations of the Jewish people throughout history constitute God's punishment of them for killing Jesus.
Jesus originally came to preach only to the Jews, but when they rejected him, he abandoned them for gentiles instead.
The Children of Israel were God's original chosen people by virtue of an ancient covenant, but by rejecting Jesus they forfeited their chosenness - and now, by virtue of a New Covenant (or "testament"), Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people, the Church having become the "People of God."
The Jewish Bible ("Old" Testament) repeatedly portrays the opaqueness and stubbornness of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.
The Jewish Bible contains many predictions of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah (or "Christ"), yet the Jews are blind to the meaning of their own Bible.
By the time of Jesus' ministry, Judaism had ceased to be a living faith.
Judaism's essence is a restrictive and burdensome legalism.
Christianity emphasizes love, while Judaism stands for justice and a God of wrath.
Judaism's oppressiveness reflects the disposition of Jesus' opponents called "Pharisees" (predecessors of the "rabbis"), who in their teachings and behavior were hypocrites (see Woes of the Pharisees).

Delaware's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Please give the reference for "only christians were allowed to join the German SS."

I am not committing a "no true Scotsman fallacy.
I am not changing the definition of a christian to exclude Nazi's.
He did pander to Christians, but he was a wolf in sheep clothing.

Hitler was a follower of a Jew?
Did he follow the precepts and commands in the Bible?
Did he beleive all humans are of one blood and all created in the image of God?
What do historians and close acquaintances of him say about his "Christianity"?

It is more accurate to say he was an Atheist than a Christian.
"the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic. In light of evidence such as his fierce criticism and vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity,numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition"
"Ernst Hanfstaengl, a friend from his early days in politics, says Hitler "was to all intents and purposes an atheist by the time I got to know him"
"British historian Richard Overy, biographer of Hitler, sees Hitler as having been neither a practising Christian, nor a thorough atheist, but also notes the sentiment that Nazism and religion could not co-exist long term"
"Hitler, like Stalin took a very modern view of the incompatibility of religious and scientific explanation."

Here is some more information on the subject.
"Hitler's Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, saw an "insoluble opposition" between the Christian and Nazi world views. The Fuehrer angered the churches by appointing Alfred Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan, as official Nazi ideologist in 1934. Heinrich Himmler saw the main task of his Schutzstaffel (SS) organization to be that of acting as the vanguard in overcoming Christianity and restoring a "Germanic" way of living. Hitler's chosen deputy, Martin Bormann, advised Nazi officials in 1941 that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable."
"Many historians believed that Hitler and the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after winning victory in the war."

Sheldon's picture
Jo "I am not committing a "no

Jo "I am not committing a "no true Scotsman fallacy.
I am not changing the definition of a christian to exclude Nazi's"

That IS precisely what you did, and it was the very definition of a No True Scotsman fallacy, Jo. You can't start by pointing out someone is "bad" even citing your subjective interpretation of Christian doctrine and dogma, then when its pointed out they were a Christian claim being "bad" precludes them being a Christian. Hitler was antagonistic to established religions for political reasons, because he was a dictator, but he was a lifelong catholic. There seems to be a concerted effort by theists to deny this fact, but antisemitism and homophobia are both longstanding bigotries of christianity.

Atheism has no dogma or doctrine thus citing someone's atheism as causal for their behaviour makes no rational sense.

Hitler was a Catholic, he was baptised, and an alter boy, he claimed this throughout his life, even at the very end where all political mileage in the claim was lost. The catholic church formed a concordat with the Nazis, and Hitlers birthday was celebrated at a special mass in churches all over Germany, every year until his death. Try claiming they were not christians.

In Mein Kampf Hitler outlined his hatred for and plans to eradicate European Jews, and he claimed to be "doing God's work."

I am well aware that Christian historians have tried to distort the truth, only a biased moron would really try to deny these facts. Hitler distrusted the christian church, and he would undoubtedly have neutered their power over the populace, he was a dictator after all, but a christian dictator nonetheless.

Jo "
Did he follow the precepts and commands in the Bible?

Do you Jo? Ever eat shell fish Jo, do you wear blended fabrics Jo, do you have any tattoos, ever had a blood transfusion, do you take unruly children to the edge of town and stone them, do you follow the bibles strict rules on buying owning and beating your slaves Jo?

You're using a No True Scotsman fallacy Jo. Fucking look it up please as I'm sick of you ignoring these basic tenets of rational debate and rehashing them again and again.

All SS soldiers were required to swear an oath to Hitler before God. Which fucking deity do you think that god was Jo? The fucking Jewish deity it would be a strange coincidence in a country that was shown to be over 94% christian in a 1939 census, and where other religious demographics were systematically murdered, if that deity wasn't the fucking christian deity, wouldn't it? Himmler was a pagan, but not an atheist, and Hitler secretly mocked his beliefs, but none of the Nazis leaders were atheists Jo.

Try Stalin, your bigotry towards atheists will find a richer ground for your selection bias.

You should always read all the articles you link Jo.

"In Hitler's early political statements, he attempted to express himself to the German public as a Christian.[9] In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches prior to and in the early years of his rule, he described himself as a Christian.[10][11]Hitler and the Nazi party promoted "Positive Christianity",[12] a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament.[13][14] In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against "the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees"[15] and Jewish materialism"

"historians such as Richard Weikart and Alan Bullock doubt the assessment that he was a true atheist, suggesting that despite his dislike of Christianity he still clung to a form of spiritual belief."

"Reichskonkordat on July 20, 1933 in Rome."

Now tell me Jo was the Catholic church christian at this time? Or are you going to use the No True Scotsman fallacy there as well?

"The Reichskonkordat ("Concordatbetween the Holy See and the German Reich"[1]) is a treaty negotiated between the Vatican and the emergent Nazi Germany. It was signed on 20 July 1933 by Cardinal Secretary of StateEugenio Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII, on behalf of Pope Pius XI "

"the broader membership of the Nazi Party after 1933 came to include many Catholics"

Hostility to established religion was part of the totalitarian nature of Nazism. The fact remains that the death camps were run by the SS every single one of whom was required to swear an oath before God. An odd enough thing for an atheist to do, but a truly bizarre thing for an atheist to request?

Just as Stalin replaced the idea of the Tsars divine right to rule with his own persona as semi divine, this is the nature of totalitarian regimes. However once he'd established his power he reestablished the christian churches who were only too happy to collude with his plans, in order to better manipulate the patriotism of the people during WW II. Everyone conveniently forgets Stalin trained at a seminary as a priest, and modelled his secret police on the catholic order of the Jesuits, whom he professed to admire.

"A census in May 1939, six years into the Nazi era and after the annexation of mostly Catholic Austria and mostly Catholic Czechoslovakia intoGermany, indicates that 54% considered themselves Protestant, 40% Catholic, "

Now remind us Jo, how did secular communists and other religious demographics like Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses fare under Nazis Germany's tenure?

"Some Nazis, such as Hans Kerrl, who served as Hitler's Minister for Church Affairs, pushed for "Positive Christianity", a uniquely Nazi form which rejected its Jewish origins and the Old Testament, and portrayed "true" Christianity as a fight against Jews, with Jesus depicted as an Aryan."

"Nazism wanted to transform the subjective consciousness of the German people—their attitudes, values and mentalities—into a single-minded, obedient "national community". The Nazis believed they would therefore have to replace class, religious and regional allegiances.[10] Under the Gleichschaltung (Nazification) process, Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches"

Hmm, why bother one wonders?

"Long-buried Vatican files reveal a new and shocking indictment of World War II’s Pope Pius XII: that in pursuit of absolute power he helped Adolf Hitler destroy German Catholic political opposition, betrayed the Jews of Europe, and sealed a deeply cynical pact with a 20th-century devil."

Hmm. Now was the Pope a Christian Jo?

These facile attempts by modern Christian's to falsely label all evil dictators as atheists is risible nonsense and of course utterly transparent propaganda. So fucking what if an atheist is evil, what has that to do with atheism?

How many atheists on here have murdered anyone? What doctrinal teachings or dogma does atheism contain to encourage or endorse any evil acts exactly?

As opposed to ubiquitous endorsements of things like genocide, ethnic cleansing, rapine, murder and slavery in the bible, to name just a few.

Delaware's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

You previously said "only christians were allowed to join the German SS."
Now you say "All SS soldiers were required to swear an oath to Hitler before God."
I know what you would say if I had done that.

Can someone be an Atheist and beleive in God?
Would they be a true Atheist?

Do you realize how bizarre it is to claim Nazi were followers of a Jew?

"Do you Jo? Ever eat shell fish Jo, do you wear blended fabrics Jo, do you have any tattoos, ever had a blood transfusion, do you take unruly children to the edge of town and stone them, do you follow the bibles strict rules on buying owning and beating your slaves Jo?"
"As opposed to ubiquitous endorsements of things like genocide, ethnic cleansing, rapine, murder and slavery in the bible, to name just a few."
Your apologetics are not objective.

"if an atheist is evil, what has that to do with atheism?"
If a theist is evil, what has that to do with theism?
If a Christian is evil, what has that to do with Christianity?

Calilasseia's picture
Oh dear, someone has

Oh dear, someone has swallowed the lies and bullshit peddled by Richart Wekart of the Duplicity Institute.

Arclight time ...

Let's start with some basic facts. Wiekart spreads the garbage he does, as part of the more duplicitous well-poisoning on the part of the Duplicity Institute and its professional liars for doctrine, all performed as part of the creationist war on valid evolutionary science, a war that has been fought from the beginning with lies and bullshit on their part. Weikart's central theme consists of trying to place the blame for the Holocaust on Darwin and the theory of evolution, a piece of bullshit polemical gymnastics that no one with functioning neurons regards as anything other than a blatant exercise in lying for creationist doctrine.

Except, of course, that the holes in his fabrications are large enough to drive an entire tank battalion through. Let's start with some elementary facts. To start with, let's see if Darwin is mentioned anywhere in Mein Kampf, shall we? Along with some other key words? Here's the result of the experiment on my searchable electronic copy of Mein Kampf (Unexpurgated edition, original translation into English by James Murphy, available online at the Gutenberg Project website):

Number of occurrences of "Darwin" : ZERO

Number of occurrences of "God" : 37

Number of occurrences of "Almighty" : 6

Number of occurrences of "Creator" : 8

So already, Weikart's mendacious polemics are starting to look a little shaky, to put it mildly. But it gets better. Because Mein Kampf, and indeed several of Hitler's other outpourings, rather make a mockery of his tacky little attempt to poison the well here. Let's take a look at several appropriate passages from Mein Kampf in detail shall we? First, here's one of his monotonous anti-Jewish jibes:

Do the Schwabing [artistic quarter] decadents look upon Germany's lot to-day as 'aesthetic'? Of course, one doesn't discuss such a question with the Jews, because they are the modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God's image in His creation.

Next, a succinct and fairly chilling encapsulation of observational psychology that, despite its source (whom most people would not consider to be of reliable provenance) is actually fairly astute, and part of which describes Pharisaic religiosity to a tee:

There are many ways of becoming resigned to this unpleasant and terrible fact. Many people go about seeing nothing or, to be more correct, not wanting to see anything. This is by far the simplest and cheapest attitude to adopt. Others cover themselves in the sacred mantle of prudery, as ridiculous as it is false. They describe the whole condition of affairs as sinful and are profoundly indignant when brought face to face with a victim. They close their eyes in reverend abhorrence to this godless scourge and pray to the Almighty that He - if possible after their own death - may rain down fire and brimstone as on Sodom and Gomorrah and so once again make an out standing example of this shameless section of humanity. Finally, there are those who are well aware of the terrible results which this scourge will and must bring about, but they merely shrug their shoulders, fully convinced of their inability to undertake anything against this peril. Hence matters are allowed to take their own course.

Next, a remark following his exhortation to strive to combat syphilis (which, needless to say, he laid at the door of "Jewish controlled" prostitution - some historians have one or two interesting theses about the connection between Hitler and syphilis by the way):

But if for reasons of indolence or cowardice this fight is not fought to a finish we may imagine what conditions will be like 500 years hence. Little of God's image will be left in human nature, except to mock the Creator.

Mind you, the real killer passage is this one:

The religious teaching of the Jews is principally a collection of instructions for maintaining the Jewish blood pure and for regulating intercourse between Jews and the rest of the world: that is to say, their relation with non-Jews. But the Jewish religious teaching is not concerned with moral problems. It is rather concerned with economic problems, and very petty ones at that. In regard to the moral value of the religious teaching of the Jews there exist and always have existed quite exhaustive studies (not from the Jewish side; for whatever the Jews have written on this question has naturally always been of a tendentious character) which show up the kind of religion that the Jews have in a light that makes it look very uncanny to the Aryan mind. The Jew himself is the best example of the kind of product which this religious training evolves. His life is of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as his character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousand years ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.

Let's see some more examples shall we? Later on, when waxing lyrical about the Volk, we have this:

To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its founders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of human existence. Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.

Here is Hitler's version of 'charity begins at home' which provides us with some more insights:

How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporary system! The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that image, is quite in keeping with their present activities. They talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level. Then they look on with amazement when they realize how small is the influence of the Christian Faith in their own country and how depraved and ungodly is this riff-raff which is physically degenerate and therefore morally degenerate also. To balance this state of affairs they try to convert the Hottentots and the Zulus and the Kaffirs and to bestow on them the blessings of the Church. While our European people, God be praised and thanked, are left to become the victims of moral depravity, the pious missionary goes out to Central Africa and establishes missionary stations for negroes. Finally, sound and healthy - though primitive and backward - people will be transformed, under the name of our 'higher civilization', into a motley of lazy and brutalized mongrels.

An insight into the old maxim (courtesy of Seneca the Younger) that religion is considered true by the simple, false by the wise, and useful by the leaders, is also thoughtfully provided:

Here the Catholic Church presents an instructive example. Clerical celibacy forces the Church to recruit its priests not from their own ranks but progressively from the masses of the people. Yet there are not many who recognize the significance of celibacy in this relation. But therein lies the cause of the inexhaustible vigour which characterizes that ancient institution. For by thus unceasingly recruiting the ecclesiastical dignitaries from the lower classes of the people, the Church is enabled not only to maintain the contact of instinctive understanding with the masses of the population but also to assure itself of always being able to draw upon that fund of energy which is present in this form only among the popular masses. Hence the surprising youthfulness of that gigantic organism, its mental flexibility and its iron will-power.

Once again, the vision of destiny rears its head again (along with the usual lament about Mammon, which of course Hitler identifies with nauseating predictability as being "Jewish" in origin):

It may be that money has become the one power that governs life to-day. Yet a time will come when men will again bow to higher gods. Much that we have to-day owes its existence to the desire for money and property; but there is very little among all this which would leave the world poorer by its lack.

On the subject of conflict with left-wing opponents:

In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. It just had to be taken because it was good for one: but it certainly tasted unpleasant. If it were possible to tie ropes round the German people and forcibly drag them to these bourgeois meetings, keeping them there behind barred doors and allowing nobody to escape until the meeting closed, then this procedure might prove successful in the course of a few hundred years. For my own part, I must frankly admit that, under such circumstances, I could not find life worth living; and indeed I should no longer wish to be a German. But, thank God, all this is impossible. And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoilt masses shun these 'bourgeois mass meetings' as the devil shuns holy water.

Then, we have this, in which a crude diatribe on the crude and familiar Hitlerian theme of sexual corruption of young Aryan girls by 'inferior races' is followed by language that seems straight out of the apologetics playbook:

Look at the ravages from which our people are suffering daily as a result of being contaminated with Jewish blood. Bear in mind the fact that this poisonous contamination can be eliminated from the national body only after centuries, or perhaps never. Think further of how the process of racial decomposition is debasing and in some cases even destroying the fundamental Aryan qualities of our German people, so that our cultural creativeness as a nation is gradually becoming impotent and we are running the danger, at least in our great cities, of falling to the level where Southern Italy is to-day. This pestilential adulteration of the blood, of which hundreds of thousands of our people take no account, is being systematically practised by the Jew to-day. Systematically these negroid parasites in our national body corrupt our innocent fair-haired girls and thus destroy something which can no longer be replaced in this world.

The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at the profanation and destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given to the world as a gift of God's grace. For the future of the world, however, it does not matter which of the two triumphs over the other, the Catholic or the Protestant. But it does matter whether Aryan humanity survives or perishes. And yet the two Christian denominations are not contending against the destroyer of Aryan humanity but are trying to destroy one another. Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow God's handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.

More rhetoric in the same vein (on the subject of asserting a powerful German nationhood and a call to arms against the Versailles Treaty):

Then, from the child's story-book to the last newspaper in the country, and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and every free space on the hoardings should be utilized in the service of this one great mission, until the faint-hearted cry, "Lord, deliver us," which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven to-day would be transformed into an ardent prayer: "Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. Be just, as Thou hast always been just. Judge now if we deserve our freedom. Lord, bless our struggle."

This little discourse on Lebensraum is also illuminating:

Against all this we, National Socialists, must stick firmly to the aim that we have set for our foreign policy; namely, that the German people must be assured the territorial area which is necessary for it to exist on this earth. And only for such action as is undertaken to secure those ends can it be lawful in the eyes of God and our German posterity to allow the blood of our people to be shed once again. Before God, because we are sent into this world with the commission to struggle for our daily bread, as creatures to whom nothing is donated and who must be able to win and hold their position as lords of the earth only through their own intelligence and courage.

So already, we're looking at a work that is replete with religious, and specifically Christian, references, of a sort that simply would not appear in any genuine 'atheist polemic'. But the wholly sleazy attempt to present Hitler as an 'atheist' dies a particularly painful death, when one realises that the Nazis signed a Concordat with the Catholic Church in 1933. However, the ties between Nazism and the Catholic Church run deeper - in Germany at that time, there existed a specifically Catholic political party, known as the Centre Party, which was the second-largest political party in Germany at that time, and which gave support to the Enabling Act of 1933, the act that provided Hitler with the dictatorial powers he needed to pursue the Nazi Party programme. Indeed, one of Hitler's principal lieutenants in the early days of the Nazi movement, namely Franz von Papen, came from a Centre Party background. Only after von Papen (a figure with a very colourful history, incidentally - Airey Neave devotes considerable space to this in his chapter on von Papen in his book on the Nuremberg Trials) was installed as Chancellor of Germany in 1932, and the Centre Party refused to support him in that office, did von Papen leave the Centre Party and begin his move toward full-blown association with Nazism. Meanwhile, Heinrich Brüning, the leader of the Centre Party, engaged in negotiations with Gregor Strasser, a then prominent Nazi politician, in an attempt to maintain some degree of Catholic influence over the ascendant Nazi Party. However, what none of the relevant figures could have known, was that Hitler had no intention of being a conventional politician once he obtained power.

Now the diligent will know that I've cited elsewhere, that Hitler was an arch-cynic, and he was certainly a reprobate of the most thoroughgoing order. But, he most certainly believed in a god of some sort, most certainly culled much of the fuel for that belief from contemporary christian culture, and made frequent use of christian imagery in his political and polemical utterances. As I have stated in previous posts elsewhere, his own particular species of theism was a peculiar one (though by no means unique) in that he considered that he was, in some sense, the next divinely ordained saviour. Again, a delusion that is not unique to him, but what of course was unique was the single-minded ruthlessness with which he pursued that vision.

However, possibly the killer thrusts against the assertions that [1]Hitler was an atheist, and [2] extracted his ideological vision from anything arising from Darwin, centre upon three well-documented facts. First, the documented output of his public speeches. Samples thereof including an extract from one delivered on March 5th, 1922, at the Reichstag:

While the regime is determined to carry through the political and moral purging of our public life, it is creating and ensuring the prerequisites for a really deep inner religiosity. Benefits of a personal nature, which might arise from compromise with atheistic organisations, could outweigh the results which become apparent through the destruction of general basic religious-ethical values. The national regime seeks in both Christian confessions the factors most important for the maintenance of our folkdom.... The national regime will concede and safeguard to the Christian confessions the influence due them, in school and education. It is concerned with the sincere cooperation of church and state. The struggle against a materialistic philosophy for the creation of a true folk community serves the interests of the German nation as well as our Christian belief.

On 26th February, 1925, he uttered this:

It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.

On 27th october, 1928, in Passau, he uttered this:

We are a people of different religions, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.

On 15th February,1933, in Stuttgart, he uttered this:

And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.

On 26th April, 1933, during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican concordat:

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.

On 24th October, 1933, in Berlin, he uttered this:

We were convinced that the people needs and requires 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.

On 6th September, 1938, in Nuremberg, we have this:

National Socialism is not a cult-movement—a movement for worship; it is exclusively a 'volkic' political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship.... We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else—in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will—not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord... Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.

Second, we have the rules contained in Die Bücherei, the list of banned books circulated across Nazi Germany, instructing Party officials to remove from, and destroy, copies of various works in libraries, etc, which is documented in more detail here.

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).

This translates as:

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

Oops. Bit difficult to claim Nazism was a product of evolutionary theory, when the Nazis ordered the works of Darwin to be burned ...

Third, we have this exquisite passage from Mein Kampf, covering Hitler's limited understanding of biology, which, far from being an exposition of any evolutionary understanding, is in fact far closer to the creationist "kinds" nonsense peddled by various creationists in more recent times, viz:

Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law - one may call it an iron law of Nature - which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.

A little later, this is followed by:

Deviations from this law take place only in exceptional circumstances. This happens especially under the compulsion of captivity, or when some other obstacle makes procreative intercourse impossible between individuals of the same species. But then Nature abhors such intercourse with all her might; and her protest is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the hybrid is either sterile or the fecundity of its descendants is limited. In most cases hybrids and their progeny are denied the ordinary powers of resistance to disease or the natural means of defence against outer attack.

I'll leave aside for one moment that the scientific literature destroys this naive view wholesale, documenting not only that hybridisation in the wild is a naturally occurring phenomenon (indeed, I'm aware of half a dozen naturally occurring hybrids amongst Centropyge dwarf angelfishes alone), but that hybridisation followed by assortative mating is a documented means of generating new species, a means that has furthermore been replicated in the laboratory, and demonstrated thereby to WORK. (Oh wait, I provided a detailed exposition of a paper devoted to this very topic here!). Instead, I'll note that once again, we have a large body of observational data refuting the "Hitler was an atheist" assertion, along with Weikart's lies about Nazism purportedly being a product of "Darwinism".

However, if you want a particularly worrying insight into the underpinnings of Nazism, then we have to turn to the real underpinnings of Hitler's racial theories, which lie in a most interesting and highly entertaining source. Namely one Lanz von Liebenfels, who, in 1905, launched a periodical known as The Ostara, a luridly, floridly, efflorescently turgid and slimy publication whose essential view was racist and anti-Semitic, but which included some of the warped "theories" of Lanz von Liebenfels as described in much greater detail in his earlier work. That work rejoices in the wonderfully Pythonesque title of:

Theozoology, Or The Account Of The Sodomite Apelings And The Divine Electron

It's worth looking at this work in more detail, courtesy of this web page, which also provides those who can stomach this weird gibberish with a freely available downloadable copy of said work. Here's how this work is described:

Lanz von Liebenfels, the famous German racial-occult theorist and publisher of "Ostara" wrote this pamphlet in 1904 and this English translation appeared in 2004, published by a group called Europa House. When one looks it up in Nicholas Goodrick-Clarkes The Occult Roots of Nazism, a seminal work on the subject, we find the work discussed in detail on p. 94 - 98 where Clarke provided his own translations of passages from the text. Cognates of these two passages can be found, albeit in different translation, in the present pamphlet. So I think we can surmise that this is an authentic translation of the German original.

Briefly, Theozoology is a work of biblical exegesis, in keeping with Lanzs background as a Cistercian monk (defrocked in 1899). Lanz displays an impressive familiarity with a range of Biblical and apocryphal texts, as well as the Talmud, the Church Fathers, Koran, and even medieval Arthurian romances, to advance his thesis that many Hebrew and Greek words translated as "wood, water, stones, wind, etc." are actually euphemisms for various, what one might call cryptozoological creatures, "sodomite" apelings, mer-people and birdmen. He postulates that these creatures are the second Adamites, who God created from dust in Genesis 2, and are distinct from the true humans who God created in his own image in Genesis 1. The latter have the "Gotter-Elecktron" or Divine Electron and are pure Aryans; the only reason that "lower" or "dark" races came into being is through acts of bestiality with the non-human creatures created in Genesis 2. Pictures of these creatures in their true form (including dinosaurs) are displayed as an appendix at the end of the text.

The dramatic high point of the book comes with Lanzs radical re-interpretation of the Crucifixion. In Lanz's narrative Christ was held down and brutally raped by hordes of these creatures in revenge from spreading the gospel of the Aryans divine origins.

The program for action at the end makes heady reading. Lanz informs us that the last pure bred monster died out in the 900s and the only trace of them is in the non-Aryan half-breeds known as colored races. He proposes physical separation of the divine and cthonic races and the death penalty for anyone who would make the ultimate sin of mixing Holy Blood with that of the subhumans; the purity of which is supposedly the central tenet of the original teachings of Christ. He notes that women are more prone to do this than men. He also advocates a vigorous sterilization, eugenical and, in some case, euthanasia program for the upliftment of the Aryan race.

Now Lanz von Liebenfels was writing this in 1904, and he took his cues with respect to metaphysics not from Darwin, but from Theosophists such as Madame Blavatsky. Indeed, it was Blavatsky's writings on "root races" that were incorporated in modified form into The Ostara. Moreover, Lanz von Liebenfels entertained some seriously insane ideas in his Theozoology, including the idea that the "Aryan" races were descended from "electric supermen" and that their destiny was to return to this state. I don't recall Darwin making much mention of "electric supermen" in The Origin Of Species.

Oh, by the way, here's a little something that was dropped into my lap fairly recently. Hitler's artistic dabblings have also been documented at length, but one part thereof that was unknown to me until fiarly recently, was this painting by Hitler. The work in question? The above work is none other than Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ, oil on canvas, 1913. That's right - Hitler painted at least one piece of Catholic iconography.

Meanwhile, it is also apposite to introduce one Julius Streicher here, who was one of the most hard-core proponents of the "Master Race" theory after Hitler himself, and whose sordid career is discussed at length in Nuremberg by Airey Neave (Hodder & Stoughton, ISBN 0 340 18128 1) and deals with Streicher's pseudo-scientific utterances on the subject, which were repeated in less crude form elsewhere by other Nazi propagandists. Neave personally served the indictment of the International Military Tribunal upon Goering, Hess and the other top Nazis, and was an integral part of the British prosecution team at Nuremberg, gathering evidence upon such matters as the involvement of Krupps in slave labour, the concentration camp programme, and indicted criminal organisations such as the Gestapo. Here is what Neave has to say about Streicher on pages 93-94 of Nuremberg:

In 1945, Streicher seemed less horrible than the shaven Gauleiter marching with his Brownshirts over the tramlines of Nuremberg. Before his fall, the citizens did not show their disapproval of his character in public. They stood obediently at the Nazi salute. in 1945 he looked older, less sadistic. It was not till he looked up at me, and his little eyes caught mine that I realised the heartless savagery of this man. No amount of pleas for compassion, no logic, no reason would have swayed him. I again thought of a mediaeval torturer bared to the waist, pitiless and enjoying the smell of burning flesh.

For years before 1940 he had been in some disgrace. He was not deterred. He continued his cunning appeal to the illiterate and superstitious. He opposed progress in medical science and aroused suspicion and hatred against Jewish doctors. In 1934 he founded a new periodical. This was Deutsche Volksgesundheit aus Blut und Boden (German National Health from Blood and Earth). It lasted twenty months.

Streicher wrote articles attacking Koch, Ehrlich and Wasserman. He accused Wasserman of inventing the test for syphilis by a blood reaction. The Jews needed the blood of Christians for their rituals! The most fantastic article appeared in the New Year of 1935. This was called 'alien albumen':

It is established for all eternity: alien albumen is the sperm of a man of alien race. One single cohabitation of a Jew with an Aryan woman is sufficient to poison her blood forever. Never will she be able to bear purely Aryan children even when married to an Aryan ... Now we know why the Jew uses every artifice of seduction in order to ravish German girls at as early an age as possible, while the Jewish doctor rapes his patients under an anaesthetic. He wants the German girl and the German woman to absorb the alien sperm of a Jew.

He then attacked vaccination, claiming that the products of 'sick animals' were introduced into the bloodstream of unsuspecting Aryans. The Nazi medical authorities while supporting him in 'his fight against the cross-breeding of races and racial degeneration' did not approve of 'all race-political and race-hygienic conceptions and theories advanced by Party Member Streicher'.

No more was heard of Streicher's anti-vaccination movement but as late as 1939, he addressed university professors at Nuremberg about a special divining rod to determine whether a person was Jew or Aryan. All purely Aryan blood belonged 'to the gold-platinum group, all Jewish blood to the tin-lead group'.

There were no doubt many Germans who doubted Streicher's sanity after reading this rubbish, with its evil humour, its appeal to the lowest.

Not one mention of Darwin occurs in all of this. How bizarre ... or not, if one is paying attention to reality instead of propagandising for a doctrine.

Oh, and finally, just to ram this message home once and for all, I'll also quote for you the words of PZ Myers, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who wrote this op-ed piece in his blog with respect to this nasty and venomous little canard:

I have to make this really, really simple for the "Hitler was an evolutionist" dimwits.

There is a central, incredibly obvious fact in Darwin's insight.

If members of a population die or are killed off, they will leave no descendants for subsequent generations.

It isn't razzle-dazzle genius. Any idiot can figure that one out — and many idiots have. Farmers have known it for millennia, when they set aside particularly fruitful seed stock or especially robust farm animals for breeding, and eat the rest. Nazis used this elementary logic when they decided to exterminate Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Eugenicists used it when they wanted to argue for shifting the distribution of certain properties in a population.

It ain't "Darwinism". It's self-evident, obvious, selbstverständlich, apparent, évidente, transparent. The KKK knows it, farmers know it, dog and horse breeders know it, the Nazis knew it, they didn't need Darwin to spell it out for them. Blaming that on Darwin is awesomely stupid.

Darwin's real contribution, the one that had everyone smacking themselves in the forehead and wondering why they didn't think of it first, was the realization that the natural environment does the killing — that natural selection shapes heredity. The idea of culling populations is not only so easy that a hate-mongering cretin can think of it, but that weather, bacteria, viruses, parasites, predators, etc. have been doing it for eons, with no intelligence required, and that mindless microorganisms have been far greater agents of hereditary change than the worst the Nazis ever accomplished; does Charles Darwin also get the blame for that? Darwin realized that the environment has consequences and can shape the generation-by-generation passage of hereditary traits in populations, and that examination of the natural world reveals that it has been doing exactly that. He realized that ubiquitous forces that are so simple we take them for granted have been quietly and slowly sculpting our heredity since the beginning of life on earth.

When clueless creationists argue that Darwin led to Hitler, or worse, throw away buckets of money making elaborate propaganda films arguing such nonsense, it's worse than inane. It's as if they have completely missed the point of the idea they are damning.

And with that final nail in the coffin, I think it's time to bring this Arclight outing to an end ...

David Killens's picture
Shakespeare devoted an entire

Shakespeare devoted an entire play to this issue, in "The Merchant of Venice".

David Killens's picture


"Just because I cannot provide evidence of what is on the other side of the door doesn't mean I am wrong.
No more than you not being able to provide evidence for what you say is not on the other side of the door."

You are still inventing woo woo, and not able to support any of your assertions. Your first question was what happened on death. I based my response on the available evidence, nothing invented. But now you have taken this even further, and invented a "door"

Please provide proof or evidence on this "door".

Once you have provided a proof of this "door", then we can have a rational discussion based on reality.

Fact: nothing appears to survive the human body after death.

Delaware's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

The door is death. It is an analogy. I am ready for the discussion.

"Fact: nothing appears to survive the human body after death."
This is a faith claim and not a fact.
Can you provide testable, objective evidence for your claim?

David Killens's picture


"The door is death. It is an analogy. I am ready for the discussion."

If it is "death" you intend, then please do not use other language. Death is death, and it is not a door. Shall we use code words?

The business is on. I am trying to raise the balance for the Gummy Bear so he can submit all the needed Fizzy Cola Bottle Jelly Beans to the Creme Egg for the peanut M&M's process to start.

"nothing appears to survive the human body after death"

That is an observation. Of course, many refer to MacDougall's famous 21 grams conclusion later shredded by the scientific community for being very flawed. Attempts have been made to photograph, weigh, and use any other method to define or separate a "soul" from a person. All with zero success. I base my conclusion on observing that many attempts have been made over the years with zero results.

Delaware's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

I thought a one way door was a good analogy of death. Maybe not.

A soul, spirit, or mind would be able to be photographed and would be able to be weighed?
Of course they came up with nothing.
Neither could they detect the heat or light from the soul, but what does that prove?

What would a valid test for a soul look like?
How would you perform this test without running the risk of getting a false negative?
If tests are made that cannot actually detect the subject, how are those test evidence?

David Killens's picture
I am operating from the

I am operating from the position that a "soul" is a product of an over-active imagination, just like Bigfoot and pixies.

For the same reason I am 99.99% certain neither Bigfoot and pixies do not exist, the same applies to a soul.

I am a retired electrician/construction worker. I kept myself alive every day by believing in real things instead of imaginary.

Delaware's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

Bigfoot is said to be animal.
It could be tracked, trapped, and targeted.
We could use Cognostics bear cave technique. :-)

How could you do anything like that for a soul?

David Killens's picture


"I thought a one way door was a good analogy of death. Maybe not."

Analogies can be a good thing, but i shun replacing one word with another, and that replacement word just makes things more confusing.

"What would a valid test for a soul look like?"

Let us follow the evidence. We begin by defining "soul". For example, some people describe near-death experiences as the soul leaving the body. OK, now we have something to latch onto. But all near-death tests have resulted in zero proof. So let us rule out near-death linked to the soul.

Some describe a nice person as a "gentle soul". But our present knowledge of psychology and raising the young strongly indicates that the person acquired those positive personal attributes from their environment. So we rule that out.

Another application of the word "soul" as in reincarnation. But there has NEVER been one example of reincarnation proven. My neighbor may claim to be the reincarnation of a Persian princess, but she cannot offer any details on daily life from that era. I asked her what kind of toilets they had, and she could not offer a response.

What I am doing is identifying characteristics of a 'soul" and where to look.

Jo, if you can add other definitions and characteristics of a "soul", then we can examine those qualities.

Sheldon's picture
Oh really, care to

Jo "Fact: nothing appears to survive the human body after death."
This is a faith claim and not a fact."

Oh really, care to demonstrate some objective evidence for one single example of human consciousness surviving the death of the human brain? Your dishonesty is tedious Jo.

Delaware's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

As for my "dishonesty".
Please deference your post #282 on the forum "A question for theist" on 8/26/19.

Sheldon's picture


You seem to have dishonestly ignored my question regarding your dishonest claim that human consciousness can survive the physical death of their brain, Jo, so how's that for it is again then...since you're dishonestly playing the man, not the ball.

"Oh really, care to demonstrate some objective evidence for one single example of human consciousness surviving the death of the human brain? Your dishonesty is tedious Jo. "

I think we can all see that the reason for your dishonest evasion of my question isn't much of a head scratcher. Yet again you e been caught making up a lie, and have no answer.

Delaware's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

It is time for an intervention.

Your "questions" are pregnant with presuppositions.
They are more of a claim then a question.
They seem designed to entrap.
You seem to want a "gotcha moment" instead of a discussion or debate.

I have now asked four times for you to address when you misquoting me.
Please reference your post #282 on the forum "A question for theist" on 8/26/19.
You have never responded.
Yet you seem obsessed with inserting some form of "liar" into you every paragraph to me.

I wanted to have a reasonable and civil discourse with you.
You seem interested in something very different.
You seem much more interested in the attack than in the argument.
I don't know if you are insecure in yourself, or your arguments
Maybe you are angry, or want to feel morally or intellectually superior.
Maybe it is some sort of competition to you.

Whatever the reason.
Until you want something other than distorted discourse.
I will no longer be enabling you.

Sheldon's picture


In all your excitement you ignored my question yet again.

"Oh really, care to demonstrate some objective evidence for one single example of human consciousness surviving the death of the human brain? Your dishonesty is tedious Jo. "

I am long past caring what you think you're getting, or what you think you want from these exchanges. It was never a debate as you're incapable of that. The reason dishonesty is in every post is because you make dishonest claims in almost every post Jo. Again when you show some integrity I'll stop pointing out the lack of integrity in your claims.

Sheldon's picture
Tue, 08/27/2019 - 04:59

Tue, 08/27/2019 - 04:59 (Reply to #32)#33

Grinseed "After death the same thing happens to good and bad atheists as well as to good and bad theists. We cease to be."

Jo Can you provide objective and falsifiable evidence that can be tested for this claim? Is it a belief?"

No, it's a scientific fact, did you not know that one day your organs including your brain will cease to function, and your consciousness will dissappear, and you will decompose? The empirical objective evidence is in every single human death, there has never been any objective evidence demonstrated even once to show a case where this does not happen.

Delaware's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

I agree with all your scientific facts.
Is there scientific facts for your consciousness ceasing to live on outside the body after death?

Sheldon's picture
Jo "I agree with all your

Jo "I agree with all your scientific facts.

Well that's not true for a start, we have all seen you deny known scientific facts on here.

Jo "Is there scientific facts for your consciousness ceasing to live on outside the body after death?"

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy yet again Jo, no one needs to disprove your claim that human consciousness survives the physical death of the human brain. It is for you to demonstrate some objective that human consciousness can exist without a functioning physical brain? We know the brain exists, and with it human consciousness, in every single example we have of human death, not once has human consciousness been evidenced to survive that physical death.

Do stop with these tedious appeal to ignorance fallacies Jo.

xenoview's picture

What evidence do you have that there is a god? What evidence do you have for an afterlife?

Possibly's picture
Xenoview, have you ever heard

Xenoview, have you ever heard of 'derailing the thread' because that's what you do. That seems to me to be pretty much all that you do. The question of the this thread is the opposite of what you're asking so if you still want to talk about it after all the talking about it you've already done, go make a new thread dedicated to the one topic you're interested in.

xenoview's picture

You accuse me of derailing the thread, because you can't proved any evidence your god is real and there is no afterlife.

Possibly's picture
No. I accuse you because you

No. I accuse you because you ask the same question every time you open your mouth and it's never in the right thread.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.