It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hitler Was NOT an Atheist and Humanism Does NOT Equal Communism

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


We've been quoting Reader in Marxist Philosophy: From the Writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin By Howard Selsam, Harry Martel and academics like Historian Paul Johnson and Dr. Adrian H. Krieg on the connections to humanism communism and the NWO...

Big deal you quote about.com Austine Cline. He's just a weeny atheist apologist


Austin Cline has been actively involved in educating people about atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism on the Internet for over 10 years.

Experience:
Austin Cline is a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance. Austin has also lectured on religion, religious violence, science, and skepticism.

Education:
Austin Cline holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania and a Master of Arts from Princeton University. He also studied for one year each at the University of Zurich and the Ludwig-Maximillian University in Munich, Germany. In America, Germany, and Switzerland, Austin has studied both religion and philosophy.

From Austin Cline:
Both atheism and agnosticism are neglected in popular culture, despite the popularity of recent books by atheists. When was the last time you saw an openly atheist politician, an article on atheism in a major periodical, or anyone discussing secular humanism as a serious alternative to religion?


I might as well start quoting preachers...



[edit on 6/8/2008 by Bigwhammy]




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
German history is actually something I'm a bit of an expert at, and I teach it at a very recognizable American university. It is quite clear that Hitler was not an aethist. Indeed he seemed to have enjoyed what one might call a "personal relationship with God" in which he percieved the divine's hands in his daily life and viewed himself as undertaking a divine mission. Throughout his life he attributed his survival and successes directly to God. When he survived a gas attack in WWI he claimed to have had a divine vision and always attributed his life to this moment. After von Stauffenberg's assisination attempt, he clearly felt that providence had once again saved his life. And he attributed the unlikely success of his party directly to the divine hand.

Moreover he was not an aethist in that he perceived mystical forces at work in the world that were quite apart from rational, materialistic explanations. He certainly had a fascination for relics such as the "Holy Lance." Moreover, he seems to have believed in prophecy such as that of Nostradamus and most importantly his personal clairvoyant, Erik Jan Hanussen. Partially his interest in the occult derived from the Viennese mileau in which he was born. Stage magic, hyptnotism, astrology, and the like were the vogue and he always maintained a fascination in them. He would have most certainly not considered himself a materialist nor an aethist.

And yet, he despised the Christian God. In his mind the Jewish pascifistic God enslaved the Germanic tribes by attaching them to values and mythologies antithetical to what God had intended for them. In his view, the German tribes had a special connection with God through their blood and the land they inhabited. (See Mosse's _Crisis of German Ideology_ for an extended treatment of this point) And Christianity had forced them to move away from this connection. As a result they no longer had the warriors, priests, and mothers that connected them to God.

As a result he intended to bring about a new religion based on older forms of spirituality. He wanted to reform the calander, getting rid of Christian holidays and replacing them with Germanic "pagan" holidays. He (and those in the SS) had ceremonies elevating blood (particularly German blood shed for the people) to spiritual value. Think of the so-called blood flag (Blutfahne) which was elevated to spiritual qualities, or the many, many, many mystical ceremonies of the SS.

Very clearly Hitler did intend to bring about a religious transformation, and it was because he was sincere in his beliefs that he was willing to take politically unpopular stances that ran opposite of the Christian Churches (euthanasia probably the most notable). He was very much religious, believed in God, believed in a divine destiny, believed in mystical forces that lay outside of the material world, and was a fervent follower of the occult



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Hitler never believed himself to be a god, that's just plain out nonsense.


Hitler was indeed Christian, Catholic to be more specific. Look at the NSDAP '25 points' program, what does point 24 say?

Hitler never wanted to create a 'god race', he wanted his race, the European race, to be pure. He wanted the culture of Europe, to continue.

I'm no Nazi, Neo-Nazi or whatever you'd like to say. (Ask my ex-fiance...)


But to lie about history is doing a big disservice to everyone.

Hitler was Christian, Hitler wanted Europe to STAY European. He did it the wrong way. (Don't know if there is a 'right way'...)

Peace,
FK



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
For sources (only really the classics in the field), see:

George Mosse _Crisis of German Ideology_
Fritz Stern _Politics of Cultural Dispair_
Uriel Tal _Christians and Jews in Germany_
Hannah Arendt _Origins of Totalitarianism_
David Schoenbaum _Hitler's Social Revolution_



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


You MUST be religious, as your ability to pick and choose what you want to believe is amazing.

Firstly, read the thread again, because you seem to be forgetting much of what's already been discussed.

Secondly, when you say 'NWO' it discredits you.

Third, I wouldn't be the one calling out sources if I were you.

Fourth, the articles I posted for you helps you to see the common misconceptions you've been making, yet you are apparently too lazy to bother reading them, yet you'll read some BS propaganda theory site about the NWO.

Fifth, I've appropriately addressed the stuff you claim to be credible.

Sixth, you are blaming Humanism for stuff which was caused by several other factors. It's much more complicated than you would like to think it is, which is part of the reason I posted what I did.

Once again, read the damn thread again. You are being forgetful. Also, it is apparent that you will not challenge yourself to challenge your beliefs (typical among religious folk, they choose to stay ignorant and believe what feels good), which is sad. I've already shared the differences, and you are choosing to ignore them.

I posted some articles which I thought might help you better see, but I can see it was too much for you.



Humanism 101: Humanism and Communism
by Fred Edwords

When I was just starting elementary school the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance-the better to distinguish Americans from "godless communists." In the years that followed I was nurtured to become a rabid Cold Warrior by propaganda films at school and Republican politics at home. But then came the 1960s, which forced me to rethink everything, and I graduated from high school as a progressive and a deist. Nearly a decade later I would fully identify with Humanism.

In this social milieu (as we referred to the culture back then) I occasionally had to fend off the charge that my nontheistic outlook made me communistic. Only later would I learn that "top cop" J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI until he was interred, had investigated the American Humanist Association, concluding that the organization wasn't communist and posed no threat to national security. This means that Humanism received a clean bill of health from the most virulent anti-communist of the twentieth century (though he didn't tell anybody at the time, so we had to learn about it much later under the Freedom of Information Act).

Anyway, since I didn't have that celebrity endorsement to fall back upon, I resorted to reason. This is how I tended to respond to the label (and how you can too if it rears its ugly head again).

1. While Humanism is as nontheistic as communism (or, more properly, Marxist-Leninism), this fact is irrelevant. Ayn Rand's Objectivism, which includes an advocacy of laissez faire capitalism, is also nontheistic. So is the academic philosophy underlying Neoconservatism. Meanwhile, there are Christian socialists who are clearly on the godly side of the divide. A person's position on theological questions, then, is no predictor of his or her politics or economic theory.

2. Marxist-Leninism holds that humans are social by nature. The philosophy thus focuses on the cooperative and social bonds between people and assumes that there is one, ideal, nobler side of human nature that should be promoted. Humanism, on the other hand, holds that human beings, while being social animals, are nonetheless capable of independence, individuality, and the pursuit of self-interest. This makes human nature somewhat contradictory, rendering moral dilemmas an uncomfortable fact of life.

So then, while it is true that both Humanism and Marxist-Leninism recognize that humans are social animals, it is also true that Humanists, like Objectivists and libertarians, recognize the value of individual liberty and the right to pursue one's own interests (the pursuit of happiness). Contrariwise, Humanists reject the utopian, statist, and authoritarian social control of communist societies as much as they reject the radical individualism of laissez faire capitalism and Social Darwinism (finding it inherently sociopathic). Humanists hold the view that no society can be effective and rewarding that doesn't give expression to both individuality and community, balancing freedom with responsibility and advancing both liberty and social justice.

3. Finally, there is the issue of knowledge. After the manner of philosophers David Hume and John Dewey, Humanists don't claim to know anything with absolute certainty but only with "warranted assertability," a concept of relative confidence in empirical findings. As Voltaire said, "Doubt is not a pleasant state of mind but certainty is absurd."

By contrast, Marxist-Leninism has historically placed doctrine ahead of an open-ended search for the truth. Unproven (and perhaps unprovable) metaphysical concepts such as "the force of history" dominate Marxist-Leninist thinking to the point that Marxist-Leninist conclusions are derived logically, by dialectic, rather than through reason as applied to observation and experimentation. This doctrine-driven approach leads to the kind of dangerous political zeal that not only blinds believers to the reality around them but also prevents them from grasping the negative moral consequences of their acts. This is why those in the thrall of a communist ideology have at times practiced gross incompetence and outrageous atrocity-leading Humanists to regard communists as quasi-religious in their commitment. In a similar way, laissez faire capitalism and Objectivism are doctrine driven, leading to what some Humanists have termed "market fundamentalism."

Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III addresses all of these issues, making it plain that, for Humanists, knowledge "is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis"; human beings "are social by nature and find meaning in relationships"; ethical values involve "freedom consonant with responsibility" in a way that combines "individuality with interdependence"; and major social goals are to "minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability" while upholding "human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society." Therefore no thinking person reading this document could conclude that Humanism is communistic.

Fred Edwords is the editor of the Humanist.

SRC: www.thehumanist.org...

Also, I think you are failing to realize that Marxist-Humanism stresses subjectivism (SHOULD be obvious), and other Humanism is more objective. There is a difference between what you are debating and what I am.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by XBadger
 


Thank you XBadger for helping to clear that up.

It does very much sound like you know what you're talking about, and I'm glad to have you on my side as far as the Hitler thing goes.

Feel free to read, toaster and whammy.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Frontkjemper
 


what you claim to be and how you act because of what you believe are two separate things. Hitler had humans beings killed because of this belief in evolution.... he thought they were no humans.
he called Jessie Owens an animal because he was black.

Catholic? yeah right! just another one of those claims made to justify evil deeds.

you dont have to be an atheist to believe in evolution either. humanism does support communism and evolution supports both.

I know its pointless trying to convince you people of something like this only because you are so dependent on the "evidences" the media presents to you.

evidences for the big bang, evidences for evolution (macro), evidences for the origin of life....
none of it fits together but all of these issues we have, all of these lies we live, all of these conspiracies (most of them), and all of the lack of truth... all ties in and forms one truth that you will find in only one place... the Bible.

its all coming together you all arent seeing it. it fits together better than a puzzle.

cant wait for that day to come, and all your mouths will be left gaped wide open.


sorry for going semi off topic, it does tie in, but its still semi of topic.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
nm. Sorry was confused thinking one of the replies was directed at me.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by XBadger]

[edit on 8-6-2008 by XBadger]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
what's dude,
just want to let you know that you are right that Hitler was not an Atheist. He did believe in God. But just like the book of James shares with us; 'The demons believe and tremble' is how Hitler believed in God. Lets also remember that LORD = YHWH, Lord = Adonai and lord = anyone who lords over us. Master.
So Hitler's lord was satan and he served his lord regilously and did what he was told without question. One because of hatred for the jews, two because of his lord's hatred for God and His people. Three because he was doped up most of the time by coc aine, opium and prescription drugs.
so i say to you as you have shared. do your homework before we speak out. do not go to a gunfight with a knife. Also do not assume that your opponent at this fight will fight fair. so always be prepared: by doing your homework.

peace out
damoG



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by XBadger
 


I think XBadger here has it nailed!
If my research is accurate, Hitler was a pagan jew, who was born Catholic but didn't appreciate the religion past its pagan associations. He did, however, recognize the authority of the Papacy (there's a reason for this, if'n you know your biblical prophecy) and was used for the purpose of riding Germany and other parts of Europe, of protestants and practicing jews (by practicing i mean, monotheistic Jehovah folks). I believe this is a very old battle, that started long ago, and was mentioned by Jesus during his time on Earth and referred to in texts as far back as ancient Sumer.

It's my firm belief that the holocaust was just as damaging to protestanism as it was to judaism. Foremost, Hitler was attempting to remove from the gene pool, particular family lines. Not all jewish people. Specific genetic markers.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by undo]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I agree Hitler was a pagan and occultist. But the atheist apologists always point to his his Catholicism as evidence for his theism. He believed in the supernatural. Surely Satan was his only "God". But as far as the one true God - he was an atheist.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Well there are some pantheistic, norse and other pagans, but many pagans today just worship the planet, not a god. They fancy themselves as gods, instead. Now if you put that into context, Hitler had studied Vedic Aryan history and this followed to Sumerian, and the realization that there was a lineage of supermen on the planet, called Nephilim in biblical texts. I'm theorizing that he wanted to reorganize the planet, based on Nephilim bloodlines.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Your version of humanism is just a new spin on an old idea by Marx. SSDD

The NWO is very real and coming soon. Obviously the way you promote its propaganda you a true believer in it.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Hitler was not a bad man. You must realize that he opposed the elite like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers and was rather successful at it too until they eventually won, so of course with their control of our media and government, they are going to paint Hitler as Satan himself.

The funniest conspiracy theory I hear is that Bush's family like Prescott Bush, financially supported Hitler and gave him millions of dollars. But that's pretty ridiculous considering Hitler was against the very thing the Bush's and other Elite families stood for, and that was monetary control of the world.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by AgentScmidt]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Now that (nephilim connection) makes sense to me... he obviously had a genetic agenda.

The Nazis were deeply involved in UFO research as well.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by undo
 


Now that (nephilim connection) makes sense to me... he obviously had a genetic agenda.

The Nazis were deeply involved in UFO research as well.


Yep! And if you follow the path from Sumer, Hitler starts to look like a modern day version of some antediluvian nephilim kings. A VERY old battle.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Funny things about labels. No one label ever fully describes a person, nor are they ever 100% accurate. Why are we so bent on identifying people by labels? Sounds like a thinly veiled attempt to jockey for position in a argument.

Hitler was an Atheist! Ok, now what, all atheists are little hitlers in waiting? Because Hitler was atheist it makes all atheists evil? Even if you could prove Hitler was atheist, it wouldn't help any argument from any perspective.

Hitler was a Christina/Catholic/whatever. Ok, now what, all Christians/Catholics are little hitlers in waiting? Because Hitler was an Christian it makes all christinas evil? Even if you could prove Hitler was Catholic, it wouldn;t help any argument from any perspective.

It's just like Albert Einstein tug of war, Atheists wnat him on thier side and Christians wnat him on thier side. It's like we're picking teams here.

If you use a label to identify someone, you are bypassing a lot of information just to make a quick an easy assumption. Don't do it.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


The oldest battle in fact


And that really is the nature of the secular humanist movement as well. Let's set up "man" as the final authority - appealing to human vanity. Yet the historical record is clear man kind is the big loser. Now who authored that philosophy is clear to those "in the know".



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

The Nazis were deeply involved in UFO research as well.


This is true. Why do you think we really went to war with them? Do you really think it was to save the jews from the holocaust? Sorry but no, that's a hoax, just like we were hoaxed into believing we went to war with Iraq to get rid of the WMD's.

We went to Iraq for the Oil and to expand our control of the world, not the WMDs which never existed.
We went to Nazi Germany for their advanced UFO technology and to stop Hitler's campaign against the elite NWO, not to stop the holohoax.


To convince the people to let you go to war, you have to sell it to them. Do you think anyone would have let Bush invade Iraq if he admitted he wanted to go there to make America's military footprint bigger, and to get Iraq's oil? No! So he had to come up with the excuse that Iraq was evil and had WMD's, for the people would let him go to war.

The same thing happened in WWII. Would the people really have let FDR go to war with Germany if he admitted it was to prevent Hitler from stopping the NWO's world domination, and to gain Germany's info on UFO's and advanced aircraft? No! So they had to sell the war to the people, make us think we were going over there and dying in war to save the evil sick human experimenting and killing that the Nazis were supposedly doing.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by AgentScmidt]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentScmidt
 



Hitler was not a bad man.


The hell he wasn't.

So this was the work of what you call a "good" man then?




[edit on 6/8/2008 by Bigwhammy]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join