The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2013, 05:52 PM
The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
It's pretty stunning how many times I encounter this one. Okay, I'm in a debate with a theist (mostly over the net of course). The theist wants to call me immoral and downright evil, and uses the "Hitler Argument". Now for those of you who don't know what the "Hitler Argument" is, (although most have, it's been used even by Bill O'Riley, repeated winner of Idiot of the Year Award) it's very simple. It is claimed that Adolf Hiter was an atheist; therefore, the third reich, the holocaust is all in the works of an atheist, ergo claiming that since Dolfy "was" an atheist, all other atheists are just as bad as Hitler. Does it sound stupid? Of course it does. Now, the problem is, that Hitler acually was a member of the catholic church, and other sources point to that Hitler was more of an creationist. But it doesn't stop there; it Hitler doesn't work, just slap in another historical scumbag like Stalin or Pol Pot since they tried to abolish religion...

So, has anyone else ecountered someone making this pretty silly argument? Let me know.
And just in case, when I mention theists, not everybody says so, and bla bla bla, i'm excused.

They came, they saw and acknowledged
Some good, some bad
Opinion: Dangerous
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2013, 06:12 PM
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
The answer to this is that Hitler was a Catholic, and that Communism is basically a religion.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
09-04-2013, 06:30 PM
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
I hear it all the time. Usually it pops out when the person I am debating with has no response to a point I have made.

Hitler was not an atheist. There may be an argument to be made that he wasn't a Christian, but he did believe in a god.

But even if he was an atheist, the vast majority of pre-war Germany was devoutly Christian, and they had no problems following Hitler. Where was their Christian morality? Oh yeah, they followed Martin Luther's highly anti-emetic teachings.

As far as Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, go, they did not replace the bad dogma of an infallible God with rational thinking. They replaced it with the bad dogma of the infallible State.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Simon Moon's post
09-04-2013, 06:31 PM
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
Hm... well Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches! Mustaches make you evil!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like KeenIdiot's post
09-04-2013, 07:01 PM
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
Point 1: I would like to stress that Religion played a significant role in the dozens of "Communist" states. Some actually adopting a state religion in order for their own brand of "National Communism". This was much more evident in the Eastern European "Communist" states.

Even in the Soviet Republics, churches still operated normally, and churches still existed for the full 70 or so years that the USSR existed. But unlike in the the US, they wielded no political power.

The "Communism is killing religion" or "Communism is murdering millions" is just propaganda.

Point 2: People are good or bad regardless of religion. Religion may make bad people act good, but it also makes good people act bad (all for the wrong reasons mind you). Ask those people how not forcing a Christian state religion results in a desire or grudging reluctance to murder people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2013, 07:10 PM
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
(09-04-2013 07:01 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  Point 2: People are good or bad regardless of religion.

Exactly. I don't call christians evil because a pope or a bunch of cursaders butchered other people. That's the logic I want to imply to the people who think this argument is relevant or even accurate in anyway, but trying to say that to people like BillO is like trying to teach a donkeys ass about being a human. In the end, it's only going to think that tide goes out and tide goes in, and that cannot be explained. And it wants to do it live of course.

They came, they saw and acknowledged
Some good, some bad
Opinion: Dangerous
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2013, 07:20 PM
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
Hitler used the Bible to suit his fanatical run and rants towards fascism.
A sort of neo religious committee was to be set up later, all for the white supremacist cause. So much for his atheism.

Stalin, enjoying his purges and mass genocide, seemed to show strong religious fervour. Maybe he didn't realise it?

As for Pol Pot, he claimed to be a Buddhist of sorts. No they weren't all peace lovers into self immolation.Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2013, 08:12 PM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2013 08:15 PM by TheMrBillShow.)
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
Adherence to any dogma that immunes itself against criticism and against skepticism thwarts the pursuit of human freedom and human integrity.

Whether that dogma is of a political nature or of a religious one is secondary. The problem with totalitarian states (religous or secular) is not an over-abundance of skepticism and opposition. States of this nature would not place a value on relentlessly pursuing truth wherever it might lead. Only an idiot would proclaim the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (et. al) "secular humanists." The remedy for one of these totalitarianisms is not the other. Rather, the remedy is free inquiry and secularism.

There is no "I" in "team" but there is a broken and mixed up "me."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2013, 08:48 PM
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
I have seen this argument in the context that religion can do great harm in the form of aircraft being flown into buildings, and bigotry towards gays. The response to those charges is that Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., were atheists.

Given that context, my response is that unlike the radical religious, Stalin and Pol Pot did not kill because of atheistic tenets. Osama Bin Laden used Islamic dogma to justify terrorist acts. He would have been unsuccessful had he used atheistic dogma. Discrimination against gays cannot be rationalized using atheistic tenets simply because none exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Katiegal's post
09-04-2013, 09:33 PM
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
What Katiegal said, also. Stalin and Pol Pot didn't kill anybody because of atheism; whereas in the past and in modern times, Christians and Muslims have killed and tortured in the name of Christianity/Islam. That's the main difference, as I see it. It's also useful to point out that communist dictatorships tend to replace "god" with "dictator." And Hitler was religious, so he has no place in the discussion. It's just that theists want to distance themselves from him, so they pile him in with atheism.

It's true that some people are bad with or without religion, and some good with or without religion, but I still think the main argument here is that people kill for their god(s), people don't kill for atheism. At least, not that i know of.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes amyb's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: