Tags
anti-Semitism, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Communism, Defend the modern world, Germany, Hitler atheist, Hitler Christian, Hitler Islam, Hitler's table talk, Multiculturalism, Nazis, Nazis Islam, richard dawkins, Sam Harris, Stalin, Stalin Christianity
By far the most obnoxious trait in the movement described (somewhat grandly) as the ‘New Atheism’ is the denial of well-established historical facts. In a flagrantly dishonest campaign, the propagandists of unbelief have sought to depict a cartoon version of history; one in which religion was the source of all malady and science the soft-spoken voice of moderation and progress.
This is anti-history, plain and simple. It is as abusive to the truth as anything attempted by the religious or political.
The Russian communists were, despite what the New Atheists say, a viciously anti-religious gang of crooks who took immense delight in arresting and killing those still committed to immaterial beliefs. Such actions are thus directly attributable to their atheism. There is no other way of justifying (if that is even possible) the burning of Russian churches.
Likewise, Adolf Hitler, despite what the New Atheists say, was a very committed – distinctly German – unbeliever, who saw Semitic faiths as foreign and harmful to the natural instincts of the Aryan folk.
Being a canny politician in a still religious nation, Hitler inevitably made friendly gestures to the Church in public (and these are the statements shamelessly cited by the New Atheists, who are surely aware of their context). But in private, Hitler was – as we all are in private – more honest in describing the vibrations of his heart.
“Christianity” he said in the presence of Martin Bormann “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.”
In another conversation, the meth-head Fuhrer let loose the following rant: “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. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.”
This is not even worth arguing about, of course. It is so obvious to the reasonable that debate can only have a recreational value. It is nevertheless infuriating to hear New Atheist claims made without repudiation on a regular basis. Hitler was not a Christian. He was a pure-blooded atheist, and his actions were only allowed for by a non-Christian system of ethics.
D, LDN.
I don’t think so!
Granted, Hitler had a contempt for Christianity for its non-European Jewish origin, for its ‘ flabbiness’, for its message of peace and loving one’s enemies.
However, he believed in something called ‘Providence’ a higher power which entrusted the fate of the German people in his hands. He attributed his surviving numerous assassination attempts and near misses during WW1 to this higher power. His absolute confidence in his mission and destiny guided by this higher power was partly the reason for his magnetic appeal.
All of this is totally contrary to what the ‘New Atheists’ believe.
They do not believe in any higher power for there is no evidence of such a power.
The New Atheists stand for rational skepticism and for not believing in something without firm evidence.
Nazism and Communism are political religions. They have certain dogmas like Aryan-Nordic-German superiority or Class-Struggle, which are political theories with no evidence to back them up.
A ‘New Atheist’ living in such societies would also be probably murdered for daring to question the prevailing ideologies as they have no evidence to back them up.
For the New Atheists are rationalists for whom evidence and logical reasoning are paramount.
As it stands, they provide some of the most intellectual ammunition against Islamism. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, two of the most prominent members of the New Atheists have been pilloried by the left-wing liberal media for their stand against Islam.
They are our allies in the counter-Jihad movement , not foes!
Hitler did not belong to any organised current of religion, and was – in regard to all conventional religions – an atheist. Thomas Paine, a Deist, I would also call an atheist on account of his criticism of religion and philosophical attitude.
There is nothing wrong with atheism if it does not make claims that are false. Dawkins has repeatedly claimed that Hitler was a believing Catholic. That is absurd and flies in the face of the all the evidence.
It’s true that atheist critiques of Islam are useful, but I would argue that the wholesale rejection of Christianity is dangerous at this point in history. We cannot fight something with nothing.
Hitler was an atheist behind closed doors?
In terms of pandering to the religious conservatives, this is hardly news now, considering that many politicians still claim public faith in order to bolster their support bases.
Are you suggesting that if we are living in the west we pretend to be Christian? That we tick that box on the census form because our forefathers did? That that will help in discrediting those who follow Mohammed?
I hear your concern about having an alternative to Islam, but to go head to head with it with Christianity is reminiscent of rejecting Judaeism because it’s different to Christianity.
While organised Atheists are an oxymoron, they offer intellectualised concepts that challenge the status quo and let people think freely.
Rejection of faith does not need a membership card. Yes, it is wrong for “new atheists” to claim Hitler was a practicing Catholic, you are suggesting just that for the rest of us in your final comment. I’m confused.
I’m not religious, but I don’t think it is wise to destroy established faiths in the West. Quite apart from Islam, the social consequences alone would be dire.
Yes, I believe Hitler was an atheist in private. Many more quotes to support this can be found in ‘Hitler’s Table Talk’ – a record of his private conversations compiled by Martin Bormann.
To be clear, I’m not at all recommending we convert or re-convert to Christianity. But we have to take care of Islam before turning on an institution that can be a solid ally in that cause.
Thank you for your clarifications there, and again in today’s post.
No problem.