As I understand it Foxy referred to Hitler as an atheist.

David F claimed Hitler was a Christian and claimed that Christians are trying to conceal that:

“Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:
________________________________________

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 only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them...etc.”

I expressed the view that:

“My understanding is that he gained support initially by giving lip service to Christian ideals and Jesus. However as soon as he got into power he turned on all religious (except Islamic perhaps but that could have been for purely pragmatic purposes). I have already said how I interpret that but acknowledge the other opinions.”

Foxy concurred:

“Hitler expressed virulently anti-Christian views,
as recorded by his secretary and given by
Richard Dawkins in his book, "The God Delusion,"

The following all date from 1941:

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity
was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism
is Christianity's illegitimate child...

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...”

David F described Hitler’s atheism as a pure myth and likened it to denying Christian responsibility for slavery. I picked up on his attributing it to Christian apologists and said that it was the first time Dawkins had been described in that way.

David F then gave an expansive answer. I will start a new post with it.

David F,

“One can be anticlerical, oppose the churches as institutions and still be a believing Christian."

Of course if you were a believing Christian it is hard to believe that you would liken Christianity to a pox so that is probably why you went in the direction you did after that.

"One may reject Christianity but still not be an atheist."

I'll get to that in the next post.

True. Most Muslims etc. would probably do that.

"To the best of my knowledge Hitler at no time expressed the idea that there was no God..."

"His public pronouncements certainly paint him as a Christian. However, one changes through life, and Hitler, like other humans, also did."

Talk about a quick change.

"I have read that Hitler as a youth considered being a Catholic priest. Generally that desire is confined to believing Catholics so Hitler was at one time a believing Catholic."

Generally but of course not always so I don't accept your "so". Some paedophiles have been known to hunt there. Only recently a priest very publically hostile toward the Catholic Church who said he didn't believe in God or life after death was in the news in Brisbane. Some people see the priesthood as a means to an end.

"According to Dawkins (“The God Delusion”) p. 276 “Hitler was always adamant that Jesus was not a Jew.” If Hitler had rejected Christianity why would he care whether Jesus was a Jew?"

Perhaps he might have rejected Jews early but in a predominantly Christian country might have tried to stay on side with Christians. Since the founder of the Christian Church was a Jew it would be necessary to do something like that.

CONT

“Even when he was railing against Christianity, Hitler never ceased using the language of Providence: ...‘I believe it was God's will...'”

"Hitler opposed the institutional church, may possibly have remained a believing Christian and almost certainly believed in a supernatural power. There is no reason to think he was an atheist..”

There are issues with taking his public speeches at face value given his audience. Nevertheless the apparently open question of his atheism remains.

I believe his privately expressed attitudes are more helpful on that question. According to Traudl Junge his personal secretary:

"Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps its going too far to call them discussions, because he would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. 'Science isn't yet clear about the origins of humanity,' he once said. 'We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.'
Until the final hour p 108.

Junge's claims about Hitler's privately expressed beliefs do seem very compatible with his actions.

Dear mjpb,

Whether Hitler was a Christian or not he was appealing to the bigotry that centuries of Christian hate had encouraged. Hitler could do nothing by himself. Millions of believing Christians apparently found nothing in those beliefs that would prevent fulfilling his aims.

Hitler's actions were apparently quite compatible with the millions of Christians who followed him. The German armed forces had Christian chaplains. German soldiers wore "Gott mit uns" ("God is with us") on their belt buckles.

Hitler used Christian language in public. That we agree on. Apparently most German Christians found nothing in their religion to prevent them from following Hitler.

You maintain that privately Hitler was not a Christian. Were all the Christians who followed him really not Christians also?

OK since there i noone willing to apply to their own view, religious or irreligious, the definition of a fundamentalist as "someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable." then i'll give it a go, in particular to atheist.

A fundamentalist atheist would be one who says, quite rightly, "the burden of proof for the existance of God is on those who make the claim". However their non-negotiable position would be: "There is no evidence"

A fundamentalist is not interested in evidence. Perhaps we could say they are more interested in promoting a political agenda rather than seeking an understanding. I recently read an Guardian article by Madeleine Bunting entitled "The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it" which made this point about the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens.

Her comments on Sam Harris are also of interest because they tie in with the distinction between vilification and advocacy of violence

<<But it [Harris' argument] tips over into something much more sinister in Harris's latest book. He suggests that Islamic states may be politically unreformable because so many Muslims are "utterly deranged by their religious faith". In another passage Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them". This sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition. As one New York commentator put it, we're familiar with religious intolerance, now we have to recognise irreligious intolerance.>>
ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/07/comment.religion
cont..1/2

cont..2/2
Earlier remarks on this thread that the majority of Muslims are child abusers are more than just nasty remarks: there can be no other intention but to incite hatred against Muslims and the discrimination and violence that invariably follows. For while there is no explicit corollary to the effect saying "therefore attacking Muslims is justified", as in the case of Harris, we all know that these words will raise the level of violence and discrimination against anyone to whom these accusations are leveled. The intention is obviously not to promote an informed discussion but to push a political agenda.

As another example, the French legislation against the niqab (and similar legislation proposed by Fred Nile) sends the message that someone wearing a niqab is threat to public order (see Guardian editorial: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/15/france-niqab-veil-ban-law). Again, we all know that this will increase the likelihood of Muslim women coming under attack. At least the effect is to increase their insecurity and cause husband and wife to decide the risks of wearing the niqab are too great, particularly when Mum is with the children. The legislation will achieve its aim not through the threat of fines, but through the real threat of violence that this sort of legislation promotes. I would describe this as the result of the fundamentalism arising out of French secularism and Fred Nile's brand of Christianity.