Andy, I don't think the historical evidence supports that Hitler was an atheist.
Andy, could you and others do a scholarly article on Hitler's Table Talk. The Wikipedia article cites the atheist historian Richard Carrier and I think it is probably a mistake to cite Carrier (I don't think he is a good historian). HERE is Wikipedia's article.
Historiography principles to keep in mind:
"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."
Fischer's 7 habits of sound historiography:
Fischer's 7 rules for historians taken from Josh McDowell's book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:
(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.
(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.
(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."
(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, Fischer is saying that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.
(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."
(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."
Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)
Fischer's 6 principles of question framing for historical investigations:
I think Conservapedia should strive to have the best material on Hitler's views based on sound historical analysis. Conservative 22:35, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
- Wouldn't Hitler have called himself an atheist today? He was not religious.--Andy Schlafly 23:12, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
- Andy, A few points:
- 1. Nominal Protestants/Catholics/Muslims aren't religious either. However, they are all theists.
- In addition, agnostics are not atheists, but agnostics are often not religious. And agnostics are not atheists.
- See David Hackett Fischer's rules #2 and #7 above which state "Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question." and "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."
- 2. Most of the Nones are theists.
- 3. Historical investigations are based on sound data and not speculations about hypothetical present events.
- 4. The burden of proof for historical claims is on the claimant and you are unconditionally, without reservation, declaring Adolf Hitler was an atheist without providing evidence of for this claim. See Fischer's rule #6 above which declares: "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."
- 5. Conservapedia commandment #1 says "Everything you post must be true and verifiable".
- How do we verify what Adolf Hitler would call himself today? He's dead. I am not being sarcastic/flippant here, but merely pointing out that Fischer rightly says, "The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from." See Fischer's rule #5 above. This point reflects that many so-called atheists today are really agnostics at best because many so-called atheists attempt to dilute the term atheism. See: Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism
- And more importantly, you should be able to provide clear and compelling evidence using sound principles that Hitler was an atheist if you claim that he was (see David Hackettt Fischer's rules of historiography above).
- 6. Nazi General Gerhard Engel declared that in 1941 Hitler said, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." Source: John Toland (1992). Adolf Hitler. New York: Anchor Publishing, p. 507.
- Hitler was not a practicing Catholic. He may have been a nominal, cafeteria Catholic who wanted to inject ideas that he liked into Catholicism and remove Catholic doctrines that he not like from Catholicism.
- He was also appeared to possibly be a evolutionist syncretist when it comes to religion who thought religion should "evolve". Hitler reportedly said (if Hitler's Table Talk is authentic), "When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn't know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians ... the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry ... and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier. The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul ... Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely." (Trevor-Roper, Hugh, ed. (2000). Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944. Trans. Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. New York: Engima Books, p. 76).
- 7. On the other hand, Michael Burleigh said regarding Hitler's worldview: "a mixture of materialist biology, a faux-Nietzschean contempt for core, as distinct from secondary, Christian values, and a visceral anti-clericalism." Source: (Burleigh, Michael (2001). The Third Reich - A New History. London: Pan Books. pp. 716–717.).
- Hitler appears to have been fond of the atheist Friedrich Nietzsche.
- Perhaps Adolf Hitler was an atheist, but I am leaning towards Hitler being a syncretist monotheist who mixed evolutionism into to his worldview. He clearly was an evolutionist though which can be seen by multiple pieces of clear evidence (Mein Kampf, etc.).
- 8. My concluding point is that the evidence is not clear what Hitler's exact worldview was when it comes to religion/irreligion. Conservative 06:46, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
- Andy, you think that "Hitler's views towards the end of his life fit that category", you think that ἰδού can be translated as "at that moment", you think that E=mc^2 is "liberal claptrap", you think that "the primary meaning of primary meaning is λόγος is logic". For all these thoughts, you never present any verification, you are not giving an argument, but you are only repeating your statements. The passage from the Conservapedia:Commandments which User:Conservative quoted above, read "Everything you post must be true and verifiable".!
- Just repeating a claim until the opposition is tired (or blocked) doesn't make it true - you should present evidence! --AugustO 16:33, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
- I would lean toward Adolf as an atheist. Hitler targeted innocent children for death is not only inhumane and a war crime, it shows that there is no fear of God. Godless actions, a fascist state constructed were there could only be one supreme ruler and it wasn't God. His belief in evolution is focused on perverted science, claiming God doesn't play a role in the world. How many priests were killed? Many. I would say this is a good indication of a person that considers religion, God, an enemy.--Jpatt 21:35, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
Bad behavior is not a definitive acid test of someone being an atheist. John Wayne Gacy was a sociopath and one of America's worst serial killers. Gacy was a theist. Gacy was not an atheist. In historical investigations, like many areas, one has to weigh several factors when forming a conclusion.
As I demonstrated above via showing conflicting pieces of evidence concerning Hitler's religious views, there is a significant lack of certainty regarding Adolf Hitler's religious views. History can be cloudy sometimes due to fragmentary/conflicting pieces of evidence. Such is the case of Adolf Hitler's religious views. In such cases, one should resist imposing one's wishes on history and/or allowing confirmation bias to skew one's judgment.
There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know" or "there is uncertainty regarding...." when it is appropriate to say so. And in cases of fragmentary/conflicting data, it is the most accurate thing to say.
One should go where the evidence leads and not make a premature decision (due to various assumptions, inordinately weighting one variable too heavily, etc.) and then look for evidence to support that conclusion. Conservative 03:04, 21 June 2015 (EDT)