It was just meant to be a light-hearted jab. To be honest, your jab back doesn't seem light-hearted in the least.
So goes the internet.
It's not my job to separate them, but yours to inextricably link them, particularly in the direction of God being reliant on the existence of religion. God either exists or not, religion comes after the (non)fact. God could exist without any recognition from people at all.
Now in the direction of religion being reliant on a god: logically that's a bit different. I think it's close enough to being absolute enough to make a sweeping statement there.
I've already addressed that before, for your point to be valid it assumes that a god actually exists (for which their is no evidence), given the evidence that we do have they are both artificial constructs utterly reliant on each other.
By the way, you horribly misquote me in the quote of yourself above - "You stated (as a fact) that no one has ever killed anyone because of a belief in a god". The devil/god is in detail, and I'd be an complete idiot to believe that statement to be true.
No I have not, you said (and I quote directly):
My comment was in jest really, but since you took it seriously: It has never, ever, ever happened.... ever. Acting on a doctrine, yes, but not having a belief in God.
Which quite clearly states that killing in the name of a god "has never, ever, ever happened.... ever.". I'd say that's rather clear and most certainly not misquoting you at all.
The whole point is that it's the action that does the killing. And incidentally, a belief in murder is not synonymous with actual murder either.
The first point is irrelevant (motive and the action are not one and the same) and the second point makes no sense.
The
Secular article you linked is very peculiar... the "folkish-minded man" quote doesn't go in the least to Hitler being a religious man, it goes to his fairly scathing view of common volk.
The second quote, taken from Mein Kampf, is also presented in a very narrow context... Hitler (still a young-ish man and still very much mentally damaged by the war) was arguing against the Jews as arbiters of religion as another of his many reasons (as we ultimately gather) for removing them from society/life.
We know factually from the
actual book what Hitler said and how he presented his views. We know from his speeches that he curried favour with all kinds of parties, particularly the Catholic Church who were rich, strong and politically powerful. He also used religious propaganda and imagery from all kinds of cultures, not just Christianity.
Most importantly we know from records of private discussions that talk of religion
was all just show.
Examiner article is a user submission without citations that seems to concentrate much more on Hitler being born into a Catholic family (although never Confirmed) and the ceremonial wording that would have been delivered to any Austro-Hungarian baby at that time. It misrepresents the same Mein Kampf quote as the Secular article and, despite claiming to use "History" shows no evidence of having done so and certainly doesn't present any in support of its argument.
I disagree, which he certainly did use religion as a tool (which is also a point I have made - bending the church to his own aims) that doesn't make him either an atheist nor does it remove the possibility of him being a theist.
That doesn't add anything though, it just re-establishes your apparent position that Hitler was a Christian. In my own opinion his writings, the records of his speeches and all the accounts we have of his life throw very significant doubt onto that at the very least.
In your opinion. Mine differs.
He may have used religion as a tool, just as many, many, many people with a total beief in a god or gods do, and as such it doesn't preclude him from being a believer at all.
Again, the above factual citations from people who knew him well, worked with him and documented his thoughts disagree with the user submission on the Secular page.
And is own words can automatically be dismissed by the use of the accounts of others? Sorry its not quite that simple. Particularly if you are referring to the work 'Hitler Speaks', which is widely cited in this way and also of
rather dubious origin, in no small part given that it was written by a man who wanted to remove Hitler from power.
I'm well aware of the claim that his 'theism' was all show and quite frankly I don't agree. He had more than enough power and control during his time to subjugate the church utterly and yet he didn't. He may well have taken symbols from other religions and incorporated them, that however was hardly new (take a look at how commonly used the swastika was both in Europe and the US before 1939). The one religion that was well tolerated, worked with and attended by him was Christianity and specifically Catholicism.
See the Table Talk linked earlier, I don't think history doubts that Hitler included pro-audience propaganda in many of his speeches. That doesn't make him "practicing", as you call it.
It also doesn't make him an atheist or preclude him from being a practising Catholic and/or Christian. You also assume that Table Talk is universally accepted in that regard as well, which it
certainly is not or that its considered proof that he was not religious, which again it doesn't. To my view (and I'm not alone on this, it would indicate shift away from the orthodox clergy and a desire to have a form of Nazi Christianity (as I have already suggested in past posts) rather than a break or a falsification of Christianity as a whole.
Its rather an odd claim your making instead, that a man with almost total control over a population only included god in his speeches (throughout his time), to a huge degree in his most famous published work, permitted an organisation that may potentially challenge him (and yet brutally suppressed every other one), formed agreements with them and openly associated with them, yet it was all for show?
To be blunt I find that rather unlikely (and the entire Hitler is trying to destroy the bible and church may well have origins in allied propaganda).
And, literal translation aside, also referred to a
particular political atheistic movement who Hitler considered to be enemies. That places it in context for you.
Many thanks the info is handy, but hardly paints the picture of him as a non-theist or atheist.
I believe I've shown otherwise, I certainly don't believe that the opposing view is, as you put it, "clearly nonsense".
I disagree, I've not seen anything that indicates its not nonsense to suggest that he was an atheist.
