The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
PARADIGM_L0ST
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Hitler was NOT an Atheist and Favored Christian Ideolgy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 18 votes the winner is...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,673 times Debate No: 12576
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (56)
Votes (18)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that Hitler was not and atheist and favored Christian ideologies. This debate stems from a discussion in the forums where Fatihah has made several claims that Hitler was an atheist, such as:

>> "Hitler, who's ideology is identical to yours, atheism, brought massive homicides to the people."

>> "Even many atheists agree that Hitler was an atheist."

>> "Hitler was an atheist. Deal with it."

>> "You present the words of Hitler himself and claim it to be proof thar Hitler is a christian. That's ridiculous. You suggest that a man who lied and manipulated people to get into power, then once in power, commences to bring one of the worst genocides in human history is a truthful person."

>> "The fool is the one who suggests that a mass murderer is a truthteller. The fool is the one who says that a man who lied and manipulated the people to get into power is a truthteller. Your logic is foolish and any reasonable person can see that."

(http://www.debate.org...)
(http://www.debate.org...)

However, despite numerous challenges to defend his claim, Fatihah's cowardice got the better of him.

I now open this debate to anyone who wishes to defend his lunacy. Perhaps his testicles will finally drop and he will develop the gumption to address his statements himself.

*******************************************

Some quotes from Hitler:

Hitler - 23 March, 1933 :

"The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people."

Hitler - 1 Feb, 1933 :

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

Hitler - 1941 :

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

Hitler - 22 April, 1922 :

"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 and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."

Hitler - 15 Feb 1933 :

"Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany's fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. "

Hitler - 24 Oct, 1933 :

"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."

Hitler - 26 Aug, 1934 :

" National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity."

Hitler - 12 April, 1922 :

"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 and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders."

Hitler - 27 October, 1928 :

"We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian."

Hitler - 23 November, 1939 :

"[I] never lost my belief, in the midst of setbacks which were not spared me during my period of struggle. Providence has had the last word and brought me success."

Hitler - 24 February, 1939 :

"If positive Christianity means love of one's neighbour, i.e. the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians."

http://www.hitler.org...
http://www.nobeliefs.com...

As one can clearly see, Hitler was a Christian and believed the Nazi movement to be a Christian movement, spreading the ideals of Christianity through Europe as the drove the competing Jews from their land.

*******************************************

Readers, please note that this debate has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Hitler was acting MORALLY or whether or not he was appropriately PRACTICING his beliefs. This debate is about what beliefs he held.

I would like the readers to consider that any transcriptions we have of Hitler's speeches are in English, not German, so they are automatically one step removed from the original. That said, there is a plethora of evidence that these speeches took place, most notably the fact that you can buy them on VHS here (http://www.amazon.com...).

AFFIRMED
PARADIGM_L0ST

Con

I would like to begin my retort by thanking my opponent for the opportunity to debate such a provocative topic.

==== CLARIFICATIONS ====

My main objective is not to argue whether or not Hitler was an atheist. To the contrary, I hereby declare that my main objective is to create reasonable doubt that Hitler favored Christian ideology. I will set out to prove that Hitler was a fair-weather Christian, and that his main purpose was utilizing ANY argument that advanced his own ideologies -- to include various forms of religion.

==== THESIS ===

Much debate over Hitler's theological beliefs have been discussed numerous times in the course of recent history. The inescapable conclusion, based on my own research, denotes an inconsistency on the part of Hitler. For instance, my opponent quotes Hitler on several occasions where he champions Christianity. I do not challenge the historicity, authenticity, or the veracity of the quotes used by my opponent. Rather, I believe that my opponent neglects the other countless quotes where Hitler, in fact, often contradicts himself.

=== HISTORICAL CONTEXT ===

Adolf Hitler was raised in a Catholic household, as were many contemporaneous Germans and Austrians. According to reputable sources, though, Hitler often challenged his own religion and had grown very skeptical of its truth claims. He begrudgingly attended mass, not willingly. As a young man, his theological attention was drawn to Germanic paganism that was later supplanted by Christianity.

From an early age, Hitler describes his true motivation for championing his outward religion. He was taught that the Jew was the assassin of God. Hitler found, and indeed sought, reasons to hate the Jews. That the Pharisees and Scribes offered up Jesus to be executed was just one more reason to despise Jews. Playing off the religious majority in Germany, Christianity, Hitler used this religion to stir Germans to his favor, not because he was at all deeply devout man.

In fact, allow the contradictions to begin:

"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created. Political parties are inclined to compromises; philosophies never. Political parties even reckon with opponents; philosophies proclaim their infallibility." -- Mein Kampf, vol. 2, chapter 5 [1]

Indeed, Hitler looked upon the Christian value system as weak. His notions of the Aryan master race were one of strength. The notion of "turning the other cheek" reviled him, and he spoke about this conflict in a personal memoir to Joseph Goebbels.

"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" -- Inside the Third Reich Memoirs, pg. 143 [2]

"Hitler's evident ability to simulate, even to potentially critical Church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity was crucial to the mediation of such an image to the church-going public by influential members of both major denominations. It was the reason why church-going Christians, so often encouraged by their 'opinion-leaders' in the Church hierarchies, were frequently able to exclude Hitler from their condemnation of the anti-Christian Party radicals, continuing to see in him the last hope of protecting Christianity from Bolshevism." -- The ‘Hitler Myth': Image and Reality in the Third Reich [4]

=== CONCLUSION ===

In summary, Hitler only payed lip-service to Christianity. He was not in any sense of the word Christian, and what he spoke in public speeches cannot nearly be trusted when juxtaposed by his personal memoirs, which detail his true feelings. Merely stating that you are a Christian in speeches is about as effectual as stating that you're an Asian woman, when really you're a black man.

I await my opponents reply.

=== SOURCES ====

1. http://www.mondopolitico.com...
2. http://books.google.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for an engaging and thorough response. I will take his opening sentence as a concession of the first portion of the resolution so that we may focus on the second - the issue of whether or not Hitler favored Christian Ideology.

I should point out that my opponent has intended to "prove that Hitler was a fair-weather Christian, and that his main purpose was utilizing ANY argument that advanced his own ideologies -- to include various forms of religion" but has brought forth evidence for only the first of his three claims. I take them to be as follows:

1) Hitler was a fair weather Christian.
2) Hitler was indiscriminate in his use of argumentation for his ideologies.
3) Hitler used multiple forms of religious argumentation as per #2.

I will briefly address numbers 2 and 3 -Whether or not Hitler was indiscriminate in his use of argumentation is beside the point. Christian ideology in Germany during the early 1900's was so rampant that it would hardly do to make the case that Hitler did NOT favor Christian ideologies as argumentative tools. Christianity was something the people understood and resounded with. Christian references are so widely sown in his speeches that I do not believe a serious case can be made for the position that he did not favor Christianity publicly. As for the third point above, there was one quote concerning the religions of the Japanese and the Muslims that would seem to support this point, but the context of the quote (by it's own admission) is counterfactual, which dismisses it as evidence in support of a claim that Hitler used any other religious argumentation to support his ideologies. In short, I do not believe there is a cogent case to be made on either of these two points, so I shall focus where my opponent did - on the first.

**************************************************************************

I do concur that Hitler was raised in a Catholic household. However, the rest of my opponent's claims are undocumented, and somewhat suspicious. For example:

>> "Hitler often challenged his own religion and had grown very skeptical of its truth claims."

I was aware that his FATHER was somewhat of a skeptic, religiously. However, Hitler himself did not seem to delve into skepticism until his teens, which is perfectly normal.

>> "He begrudgingly attended mass, not willingly."

Among Catholics, this is hardly a surprise. A semester in a Catholic school will show you that a great number of Catholic teenagers attend mass only begrudgingly.

>> "As a young man, his theological attention was drawn to Germanic paganism that was later supplanted by Christianity."

Yes... let's see just HOW supplanted it became. We know that Hitler was baptized and confirmed as a Roman Catholic. But for someone who supposedly was only a fair-weather Christian, he sure did a lot of things involving Christianity, even in his private life. Let's take a look at how this fair-weather Christian was involved with the Church.

Hitler prays in public - http://www.flyingchariotministries.com...
Hitler goes to church - http://www.alamoministries.com...
Priests salute Hitler - http://www.flyingchariotministries.com...
More priests salute Hitler - http://www.flyingchariotministries.com...

Hitler invites the Papal Nuncio Orsenigo to his BIRTHDAY PARTY? Yes, it's hard to find and somewhat grainy (http://3.bp.blogspot.com...) but from a different angle and camera (http://www.reformation.org...) the picture is quite clear. Happy birthday fair-weather Adolf. Love, the Catholic Church.

While this certainly could be seen as the Church's involvement with Hitler, and not the other way around, let's consider some other facts... While dictating his memoirs in Mein Kampf, yes, Hitler rails against Christianity. But he also fondly recalls his experience:

"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal." Mein Kampf, Vol. 1. Ch. 1.

Though they never met, Hitler's inflammatory remarks are reminiscent of another German - Frederich Nietzsche - who Hitler obviously adored (See this loving gaze?? http://www.historycooperative.org...) The point is that Hitler's criticisms of Christianity read much more like a student of Nietzsche than of a lapsed Catholic. Consider:

>> "...first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world..."

The turning point of culture and the glorification of an ancestral deity...

>> "...the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion..."

Sounds like the contrast between slave and noble moralities to me...

>> "...and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror..."

And now we have rudimentary asceticism... These passages may as well have come from "On the Genealogy of Morals."

*******************************************************************

Let us turn lastly and briefly to the symbolism used by the Nazi party. For being "weak and flabby," Christianity played a vital role. Let's take a look.

The Nazi SS Trooper belt buckle - http://newsjunkiepost.com...
And the flag of the Luftwaffe - http://www.pzg.biz...

Both bear the phrase "Gott Mit Uns" - God is with us.

Pardon the poor representation in Paint, but I couldn't find a clear picture of these pictograms AND their combination, so I had to make one - http://students.millikin.edu... - the Nazi symbol is literally a representation of God.

*************************************************************

What conclusions can we draw from this? We could, as my opponent argues, conclude that Hitler was a fair-weather Christian who privately thought the religion "weak and flabby." However, I contend that Hitler's upbringing and rise to political power had much more to do with his political charisma and the fact that he brought Germany from the depths of terrible depression to a major world power in the span of twenty years (6 years really, from when he became Chancellor).

Here is something else to think about... while gaining political power and making his grandiose speeches that I quoted in the first round above, Hitler's approval ratings were through the roof. The people loved him and his (or more appropriately his party's) economic policies that were restoring the Fatherland to its former glory. Why would Hitler have had a reason between 1933 (when he became Chancellor) and 1939 (when WWII began) to falsely profess to be Christian? Religion was not the issue in politics - it was economics and poverty.

Furthermore, many of these speeches were given before or at the very beginning of his election - at a time when it would have served no political purpose to falsely profess to be Christian, and if found out, would ruin him politically. Take note that the quotes my opponent presents were delivered AFTER the beginning of the war.

Readers, the main point of consideration is thus:

Should we take Hitler at his word that he was a Christian, despite his expressed reservations about this particular belief system, and in light of his and his party's obvious Christian affiliations.... or should we denounce Hitler as lying through his teeth at every chance he got?

Genocide, Racism, and Militant Nationalism do no a liar make.

AFFIRMED.
PARADIGM_L0ST

Con

In the second round debate, PRO uses portions of my clarification/abstract as his point of reference. He, however, neglects to address the most important part of my initial clarification. As CON in this debate, my objective is to create reasonable doubt -- that is, could one reasonably assume that Hitler was a Christian or not? If there is room to doubt, then CON wins. Since CON (myself) can and, indeed, already has proven that Hitler gave conflicting views about Christianity, the debate, for all intents and purposes, is already over. It is merely academic at this point, as I have convincingly and resoundingly met my objective.

==== THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT ====

Throughout this portion of the debate, I intend to further demonstrate that Hitler's own words contradict previous sentiments, which make it far more plausible to conclude that his outward affections for Christianity were either contrived, for the sake of an audience, or he himself was cherry picking what parts of the religion he loved and despised. In any case, his inconsistent and conflicting claims make it evident that the man was, if nothing else, a walking contradiction. This corresponds precisely with what historians also allege.

"Christianity was persecuted less systematically and violently in Germany because Hitler expected 'the end of the disease of Christianity' to come about by itself once it's falsehoods were self-evident." -- R.J. Overy; The dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia [1]

One thing Hitler was fairly consistent on were his views of atheism. It should also be noted that I agree with PRO that the first proposition, that "Hitler was NOT an atheist," is not in dispute. I agree that Hitler could not be construed as an atheist. This is not a source of contention.

Atheism and Christianity for Hitler, however, were interchangeably the very embodiment of communism/Bolshevism. His hatred for atheists were merely an extension of his detest for communists. That Germany and Austria were predominantly Christian means that Hitler could not ignore that fact if wanted the trust and support of his own people. His fight against atheism itself becomes the perfect pretext for why he uses Christianity to bolster support from the thronging masses. But again, his more private thoughts reflect a man who loathes Christianity for he same reason he loathes Bolshevism. Indeed, he clearly compares the two in the quotes below. [2]

"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 pagan 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. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul" -- Adolf Hitler, (July 11, 1941)

As shown in the quotes above and below, Hitler's obsessions with Jews, Bolshevik's, and Christianity often overlapped:

"Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine. Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer... The decisive falsification of the Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, f@ggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." -- Adolf Hitler (October 21, 1941)

==== SPECIFIC REBUTTALS ====

PRO seems to think that photographs of Hitler praying in public, or him looking at a bust of Nietzsche, or of belt buckles constitutes proof that he was therefore a Christian. This simply highlights and demonstrates the weakness and apparent futility of PRO's position. In fact, all throughout PRO's rebuttal, he relies merely on anecdote, hypotheticals', and conjecture to make a point.

PRO even claims that there is no evidence that Hitler left the Church, but let Hitler himself tell you that he did! (Perhaps the most damning piece of literary evidence to refute PRO)

"Christianity promulgates its inconsistent dogmas and imposes them by force. Such religion carries within it intolerance and persecution. It is the bloodiest conceivable. Since my fourteenth year, I have felt liberated from the superstition that the priests used to teach... Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. Man must be put in a position to develop freely the talents that God has given him." [3]

==== CLOSING ====

In closing, it is Hitler who has made the case against himself. I am merely demonstrated that the only thing we can truly conclude is that Hitler gave conflicting reports about his theological beliefs. In one instance he praises Christianity, in the next he demonizes it.

I have therefore established reasonable doubt and met my objective.

For this reason, sensible people vote CON.

==== SOURCES====

1. http://books.google.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://hitlersdiaries.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

I once again thank my opponent for such a challenging response. I will focus on his historical argument, drawing mainly from his own source titled, " The Mind & God & "Wisdom" & Philosophy of Adolf Hitler." My opponent quotes from Chapter 1 - "Christianity, Religion & Divine Providence," the text of which can be found here (http://hitlersdiaries.com...).

I would first like to snatch a few passages from my opponent's argument:

>> "...or he himself was cherry picking what parts of the religion he loved and despised"

This would seem as though Hitler did indeed favor Christian ideology; if he was cherry-picking from religions, why then did he not cherry-pick from the religion of Japan and from Islam? The fact that Hitler may have been a "cafeteria Catholic," as they are known, cannot be used as a salient point to demonstrate that Hitler did NOT favor Christian ideology, because it rests on the premise that Hitler did indeed favor SOME Christian ideology, but not ALL of it. I submit that the plausible conclusion that he cherry picked is actually evidence of his favor, rather than disfavor of Christian ideologies.

>> "Atheism and Christianity for Hitler, however, were interchangeably the very embodiment of communism/Bolshevism."

Yes and no. I concur that atheism for Hitler was detestable because it was the form of religious expression that was used as a state religion by communist governments. That said, however, I think we are speaking of two different kinds of Christianity (and I will elaborate on this below). Remember that Hitler said, "National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity." But also "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."

The two statements would seem to be incompatible, but I submit that Hitler is using Christianity in two different senses. The distinction evident from these quotes is his stance that National Socialism stands on "REAL Christianity." This distinction is quite possibly lost in translation upon us English speakers. The passage in English is ambiguous as to whether the "real" refers to a real basis in Christianity, or a real form of Christianity. The German, however (eines wirklichen Christentums) leaves no doubt. The operand word here is wirklichen - from wirklich, which can indeed be translated as "real," but is better translated as "true, genuine, or actual" (http://dictionaries.travlang.com...).

So reading the quotes again, Hitler means the National Socialist movement stands on true, genuine, actual Christianity, while the Christianity practiced by the Bolshevists is an "illegitimate child" - a fraudulent form of Christianity. Of course, the readers and my opponent will hesitate to adopt this interpretation, believing it to be a stretch. However, let's look at some more from my opponent's source...

"I am astonished at all that has been made of the teachings of these divinely inspired men, especially Jesus Christ, which are so clear and unique, heightened and religiosity [sic]." [I assume the latter part means heightened IN THEIR religiosity or something similar.] They [early disciples] were the ones who created this new worldview which we now call socialism, they established it, they taught it and they lived it! Or if they did, they denied Christ and betrayed him! For they transformed the holy idea of Christian socialism into its opposite! It is in this that the monstrous crime of these enemies of Christian socialism lies! With the basest hypocrisy they carry before them a cross, the instrument of that murder which, in their thoughts, they commit over and over as a new divine sign of Christian awareness, and allow mankind to kneel to it. They even pretend to be preaching the teachings of Christ. But their lives and deeds are a constant blow against these teachings and their Creator and a defamation of God!"

Here, Hitler clearly rails against what he believes to be a warping of Christian ideals as laid down by Jesus. We know from the beginning of the passage that Hitler does not consider Jesus a Jew ("Jesus was most certainly not a Jew."), but rather the first Christian. The latter part of this passage refers to the "enemies of Christian socialism" - the Bolshevists - who he considers hypocrites and false teachers. Let's read more.

Hitler states that Christ had a "deep understanding of the necessity of a socialist community of men and nations." And then gives the mission:

"We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers!"

If this is not a direct statement of solidarity with Christ's message and NOT with Christianity writ large, I don't know what would be. Hitler loosely references the fundamental commandments of Jesus (Matt 22:36-39). He then warns us yet again:

"These [Greedy, egotistical, false Christians] are the Christians whom it is important to unmask"

The direct support for this interpretation of Hitler's different views between "actual" and "false" Christianity can be found here:

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different."

************************************************************************

A couple specific rebuttals:

>> "PRO even claims that there is no evidence that Hitler left the Church..."

Not really sure where I made that claim... Especially considering Hitler is reported to have said "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," in 1941.

>> "Since my fourteenth year, I have felt liberated from the superstition that the priests used to teach."

Yes - but why? "I believe that Providence gives the victory to the man who knows how to use the brains nature has given him... He knows, too, thanks to the view in depth that history enables him to take, that the Christian religion interests only those living in a tiny period of the life of mankind." When Hitler began to think about it, he considered true Christianity - the "wirklichen Christentums" - to have existed for only a short period of time. Hitler believed that Christianity as we see it now is merely a shadow of what it once was, even if only for a moment in history when Christ was alive.

************************************************************************

Conclusion:

It is evident from Hitler's writings that what he considers to be "true" Christianity is something quite different than what most people mean when they say "Christianity." This point is virtually incontestable.

CON says that "the only thing we can truly conclude is that Hitler gave conflicting reports about his theological beliefs." I submit that Hitler was perfectly clear on his religious beliefs. He openly rejected modern Christianity as a tool of greed and power, but personally accepted the fundamental teachings of the first Christian. While he may have cherry-picked some modern tenets he found favor with, for him, Christian ideologies were the historical teachings of Christ.

And there is no doubt he favored those.

AFFIRMED.
PARADIGM_L0ST

Con

In my final rebuttal I would like to begin by, again, thanking PRO for setting up this interesting debate. I hope the audience will enjoy reading it as much as I'm sure both he and I enjoyed debating it.

PRO begins his final rebuttal by questioning,

"if he [Hitler] was was cherry-picking from religions, why then did he not cherry-pick from the religion of Japan and from Islam?"

p1. As I have already shown in my First Argument, I provided a sourced quote where Hitler praised both Islam and Japanese nationalism, citing these religions would be much more compatible with his ideologies and the Reich. He even expressed jealousy for "having the wrong religion."

PRO postulates, "I submit that the plausible conclusion that he cherry picked is actually evidence of his favor, rather than disfavor of Christian ideologies."

p2. As I have already stated, context is very important. Hitler had to play off the crowd, and like it or not, the German people identified with Christianity. Instead of openly demonizing Christianity, instead he manipulates Christianity to align with his political, philosophical, and ideological beliefs. This way it keeps Hitler free from openly criticizing Christianity, while still marching towards his goals of eradicating his two most identifiable enemies -- Jews and Communists. He USES Christianity as the pretext.

PRO asserts, "The two statements would seem to be incompatible, but I submit that Hitler is using Christianity in two different senses. The distinction evident from these quotes is his stance that National Socialism stands on "REAL Christianity."

p3. PRO gives me the argument by conceding to me what I've been saying since the opening debate, that Hitler expressed contradictory views about Christianity. As I stated from the beginning, I in no way challenge the historicity, legitimacy, or veracity of his quotes that praise Christianity. HOWEVER, in light of the numerous quotes I have provided showing Hitler's detest for Christianity only punctuates that Hitler's private quotes trump his public declarations. Who seriously would disagree that politicking is more credible than private beliefs?

PRO states that, "It is evident from Hitler's writings that what he considers to be "true" Christianity is something quite different than what most people mean when they say "Christianity." This point is virtually incontestable."

p4. PRO's entire argument at this point hinges on a No True Scotsman fallacy, no doubt in lieu of all the evidence I have provided to contradict his sentiments.

"No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of assertion to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it. The truth or falsehood of the new claim does not follow from the presence or absence of this fallacy." [1]

In other words, sensing the futility of the debate, PRO shifts the goals to now attack a straw man instead of legitimizing his initial claim. His debate now hinges upon the notion of "true" Christianity (a completely subjective and vacuous sentiment) versus his original claim that Hitler favored Christian ideology. This is how PRO attempts to convolute the debate. He's attempting to muddy the waters, and hope's you aren't paying attention.

==== RE-CLARIFICATION ====

From my opening statement I have consistently asserted that what I must do as CON is establish reasonable doubt. Because of the law of non-contradiction, people cannot hold two opposing views simultaneously and still maintain a cogent and coherent proposition. It has now unassailably been proven that Hitler gave conflicting, contradictory, an inconsistent claims regarding Christianity. [2]

==== NAZISM ====

One thing is for certain, given the insurmountable evidence. Hitler's favored religion was Nazism. The impetus for Hitler's beliefs were not from Christianity, but the other way around. [3] Rather, the impetus for his beliefs stem from his ideologies, and he utilized variants of Christianity to instigate his propositions -- such as Jesus was an Aryan executed by the wiles of the Jewish horde. What grew around his beliefs was a cult-like following, making the National Socialist religion, Nazism, a fringe religion still followed today with cult-like ardor. In essence, Hitler simply borrowed or stole portions of religions or belief to form for himself a Mr. Potato Head religion -- a chimera, a bastardized version of what he referred to on many occasions as, simply, "Providence." [4]

==== TEXTUAL EVIDENCE ====

All the quotes below are from Hitler in one consolidated source. I've saved the most condemning passages for this final debate [5]:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"None of the religions of antiquity, no Negroid idolatry, not even the most primitive sects of the Mohammedan, Indian, or Chinese religions has created so many gods and auxiliary deities as the Roman Church. And yet, their choirs join in singing from the Book of Moses: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. But let's drop it; it's too stupid."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity. A man possessed of a minimum of intelligence who takes the trouble to ponder over these questions has no difficulty in realizing how nonsensical these doctrines of the Church are. For how, he must ask himself, can a man possibly be put on a spit, be roasted and tortured in a hundred other ways when, in the nature of things, his body has no part in the resurrection? And what nonsense it is to aspire to a Heaven to which, according to the Church's own teaching, only those have entry who have made a complete failure of life on earth!"
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"When one examines the Catholic religion closely, one cannot fail to realize that it is an almost incredibly cunning mixture of hypocrisy and business acumen, which trades with consummate skill on the deeply ingrained affection of mankind for the beliefs and superstitions he holds. The pity is that people who reason in this manner appear to forget that the Church does not strive to propagate its teaching by reason and gentle persuasion, but by force and threat."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

==== CONCLUSION ===

Given the evidence presented, I have met all of my objectives with overkill, and I have created reasonable doubt. For this reason you must vote CON!

==== SOURCES ====

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.adherents.com...
4. http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org...
5. http://hitlersdiaries.com...
Debate Round No. 3
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
Dude! Hitler called Christianity "A mental illness"
Posted by jbow1221 2 years ago
jbow1221
Hitler would be considered religiously to be a devout Christian however spiritually I would have to say otherwise but that is another argument Adolf Hitler was staunchly Catholic even to the point that many American POW's were converted to Catholicism during their captivity and returned to the U.S. as Catholics I agree with a previous comment and think this debate is pointless because Hitler devoutly followed Catholicism
Posted by GodSands 3 years ago
GodSands
Devout Christian! That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard. Hitler to be considered a devout Christian is like considering Richard Dawkins as a Muslim. Atheists mention Scripture in their book they write, means nothing of the person. It is what they use Scripture for that defines them. Hitler (if he at all used it) used it to excuse himself as doing something good and right. Since Biblical text is generalised and being a good authority.
Posted by LukeSchreiner 3 years ago
LukeSchreiner
This is one of the stupidest debate topics i've ever seen. If you look at some of Adolf's speeches, he constantly mentions scripture, and one can tell that he is a very devout Christian.
Posted by brokenboy 3 years ago
brokenboy
you know why hitler was so pissed off at the world its beacuse he only had one testicle

taken from wiki

"is interesting in that hitler has the one ball (in fact, he had lost one of his testicles during the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923)"
Posted by Jurn77 4 years ago
Jurn77
Hitler was neither an Atheist nor a "Satanist" like the comment below me states. He was a Roman Catholic, and prior to what many believe - Him being a Jew is just an Urban Legend.
Posted by the-good-teacher 4 years ago
the-good-teacher
Hitler was not an atheist, he was a Satanist in the shape of a 33RD degree Freemason, he claimed to be a Catholic, (Which I believe) and as Catholicism goes it is also Satanic, pagan sun worship !

Even their communion is in the shape of the sun, the obelisk in the square is another object of pagan sun worship

They even introduced pagan signs of fertility into their Satanic brand of Christianity, the bunny and the egg taken from a pagan festival !
Posted by left_wing_mormon 4 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Surely Hitler did not practice the true tenants of Christs words, however he did "favor" them as a christian.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
A fine debate, I learned things from both sides.

The debate seems to me to hinge on what it means to "favor Christian ideology." On this site we are accustomed to people proclaiming themselves to be Christians while declaring that most other Christians have gotten the ideology all wrong. Do those people who declare themselves as Christians count as being Christians, whether or not 51% of their ideological beliefs match others who declare themselves Christians? I think that self-declaration counts for a lot, and that attending church and performing other aspects of the religion is a positive sign of self-designation. So while Hitler was certainly not a good Christian or a conventional Christian, he fits within "favoring Christian ideology" as he understood it. No convicing evidence was offered that Hitler claimed to be an atheist or had announced rejection of Christianity.

Both sides debated impressively. Con, however, made the mistake of introducing new evidence in the final round. That's poor form in a debate, because the opponent has no opportunity to rebut the evidence. I think it is appropriate to discount the new evidence, but the debate practice is too much a fine point to be a conduct violation on DDO. The final round is for summarizing the arguments and evidence, and especially for pointing out the points the opposition did not counter.
Posted by lovelife 4 years ago
lovelife
"Wasn't Hitler under the impression he was the Messiah?"

D*mn those Jews! They don't believe in me, and they f*cking killed me?!

Their going down!
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by thisoneguy 4 years ago
thisoneguy
JustCallMeTarzanPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 4 years ago
Shestakov
JustCallMeTarzanPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
JustCallMeTarzanPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by vbaculum 4 years ago
vbaculum
JustCallMeTarzanPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 4 years ago
left_wing_mormon
JustCallMeTarzanPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
JustCallMeTarzanPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by drjstrangepork 4 years ago
drjstrangepork
JustCallMeTarzanPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Grape 4 years ago
Grape
JustCallMeTarzanPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
JustCallMeTarzanPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by wesswll 4 years ago
wesswll
JustCallMeTarzanPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03