Why do some theists bring up Adolf Hitler when discussing atheism?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Godwin's law, which usually indicates a weak argument and a lazy mind.

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1989 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[Skipper]

Regardless of his view on religion (he was Roman catholic though) it's a moot point as neither he, or anyone in history has killed in the name of Atheism. Its' religious folk grasping at straws trying to make Atheism seem just as evil as religion.

[tackattack]

---

Because they're ignorant?

Yes i would agree with that, but some of these people are well educated, it seems to me to be a selective ignorance, or to put it another way, they choose to believe that because it fits in with their world view.

---

Having a degree in something or all the right test answers has little to do with individual ignorance. It's merely indicative. Since the world is experienced in the now I like to evaluate the now and it helps when you think of ignorance in the same light. Once ignorant not necessarily always ignorant, once educated but temporarily blinded both are a temporary yet manageable predicament. However continual ignorance is indicative of brain damage. We cal just work towards enlightenment as best we can individually.

[Minimalist]

Hitler was a very bad christian,

Not by German standards. Anti-semitic violence had a long and glorious history in Germany as well as other parts of Europe.




Had the fucker won they would have made him a saint.

[krazedkat]

Godwin's law, which usually indicates a weak argument and a lazy mind.

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1989 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

My friend told me about this last year

[theVOID]

Bringing up Hitler or Stalin is designed to hide the fact that you have nothing intelligent left to say while still maintaining the desperate need to win the argument and make yourself look good, it's basically a mix of an appeal to emotions and scaremongering.

What is even worse is the tired line "if there is no god then Hitler and Mother Teresa both ultimately end up in the same place" which is true, but it's also not an argument for the existence of God - Just because a worldview has implications that aren't in-line with our desires doesn't make the worldview false.

[Rev. Rye]

It has always baffled me, why some theists bring up the name of Adolf Hilter when debating with atheists.

Ive been watching theist/atheist debates on UTube for a while now and see this quite alot, so I desided to find out for myself.

It's Called Argumentum ad Hitlerum. It really seems to do a lot to discredit the argument of your opponent

As a avid reader of anything to do with World War II, I desided to read Mein Kampf, and found out that he was a christian, a bitter twisted power hungry jew hater, but still a christian.

Well, Hitler's actual religion is up for legitimate debate. He was most likely a Roman Catholic when he wrote Mein Kampf, but I've heard that by the time the Final Solution was getting started, he was merely just another agnostic politician using religion to get the proles riled up. As Seneca is believed to have said, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

Oh by the way, it was the most boring book I have ever read.

Yes. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust are fascinating subjects [If you want to read more, Richard Evans, Ian Kershaw, Albert Speer, and, to an extent, William Shirer have created some of the best writing on the subject], but is founded on one of the most frustratingly unreadable tomes in the English Language. Hitler was an orator, not a writer. There is really only one way to read it: take the rage inducing drug of your choice (PCP or cocaine should do fine), and shout it to thousands of unfocused students. I think it's safe to say that even if I somehow didn't know about the Holocaust or didn't think that killing 6 million Jews and likely as many goyim was wrong, I'd still hate him with a passion because of that book's unreadability. It makes Stephenie Meyers seem like Papa Hemingway in comparison.

[Minimalist]

As Seneca is believed to have said, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

It was not Seneca. It seems to be taken from a comment by Gibbon in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Chapter 2:
p. 25. The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrates, as equally useful.

[Rev. Rye]

As Seneca is believed to have said, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

It was not Seneca. It seems to be taken from a comment by Gibbon in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Chapter 2:
p. 25. The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrates, as equally useful.

Well, wikiquote said it was spurious, so I said "believed to have said", as opposed to just "said." As it turns out, it was just a streamlined version of a quote from Gibbon. For what it's worth, it seems that the streamlining did change the meaning of Gibbon's original sentence. Gibbon was talking about the comparisons between the many different cults of worship in ancient Rome, while Pseudo-Seneca seems to be talking about organised religion in general. Admittedly, though, denying the state Gods would probably have led to an execution and possible damnatio memoriae.