Was Hitler a Christian? – #9 Post of 2011

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Because of some public statements Hitler made about Christianity, some have argued that he was a Christian himself, notwithstanding the fact that all of the the atrocities he committed were blatantly contrary to everything Jesus and his apostles ever taught.  Nevertheless, these people maintain that he considered himself a Christian.

David Robertson, in his book The Dawkins Letters, explains that “if we really want to know what Hitler thought, his actions and above all his private words are the most compelling evidence.”  Roberston, who has studied Nazi Germany extensively, quotes Hitler’s personal secretary, Traudl Junge, speaking about conversations they had concerning Christianity.

Sometimes we also had interesting conversations about the church and the development of the human race.  Perhaps it’s going too far to call them discussions, because he would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened.  He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them.  The laws of nature were his religion.  He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy.  ‘Science isn’t yet clear about the origins of humanity,’ he once said.  ‘We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes.  We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures.  And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first.  Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated.  Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.’

As Robertson aptly comments after this quote, “That just about says it all.””

  • Andrew Ryan

    If one takes these reported comments of Hiter’s as accepting evolution at face value – and there are plenty of direct quotes where he denies that species can change – then he’s still not saying anything contradictory to the current official position of the Catholic Church on evolution.

  • Anonymous

    This entire debate is so pointless, I think it is tragic that people spend so much time on it. You can find a random good person and say, “That person shares my belief system!” but that doesn’t prove your beliefs correct. You can find a random bad person and say, “That person’s beliefs are antithetical to my own!” but that doesn’t prove your beliefs correct either. Even if you were to aggregate statistics about the behavioral tendencies of people of one belief system or another, it wouldn’t speak to the actual truth value of any beliefs.

    The debate over whether Hitler was Christian has happened because so many Christians insist that Hitler was an atheist. (As though that proves that atheism is wrong.) Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. But I think it’s interesting to note that Hitler constantly invoked religious ideas in his efforts to promote Nazism. The Wehrmacht’s belt buckles were emblazoned with the slogan, “Gott mit uns” (God with us). Hitler referred to Jesus as a heroic early anti-Semite in order to convince people that you could be a “good Christian” and hate Jews at the same time.

    You can find enough quotes from Hitler’s speeches, writings, and conversations on both sides of this debate to make it ambiguous at best what Hitler’s personal beliefs truly were. He’s dead, so we’ll probably never know what was going on in that sick, deluded mind of his. But I think it’s pretty clear that Hitler used Christianity to gain the support of and foster enthusiasm in the German people. Christianity certainly contributed to the success of the Nazi regime.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Quite. And it’s undeniable that the majority of the German people, who accepted Hitler and carried out his orders, were Christians. Even if you argue that Hitler lied and pretended to be a Christian to gain their support, that still doesn’t help the apologist. He was accepted as Christian by the people, and Christianity was used to justify what they did.

    I’d be happy to accept Hitler as a madman, regardless of his beliefs. It is apologists who continually and perversely try to exploit the holocaust to vilify atheists or mainstream biological science (to the oft-voiced anger of Jewish groups).

  • A Horse

    The reason it is an effective argument for the Christian apologist is that Hitler is one of our purest examples of what happens when Naturalism reaches its logical end. Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy was the foundation of Hitler’s worldview. Hitler personally presented Nietzsche’s writings to Mussolini.

    Hitler embodied this logical outworking that “might is right” and that the “strong” must exterminate the “weak” to allow the “upward movement” of the German people. Naturalism has no objection to this conclusion.

    The example that the point illustrates is that if Naturalism were true, there would have been no basis for us to stop Hitler, and such a world is unlivable. I do not see how that vilifies athiests or science, it is a legitimate challenge to a worldview that has in its purest forms resulted in the slaughtering of millions.

  • Jen

    He was definitely NOT a Christian, no doubt about that! http://www.churchflfind.com

  • Good point. I don’t think any clear thinking Christian would claim “Hitler was an atheist, therefore all atheists are like him, or at the minimum can be like him”. I don’t use Hitler as an example of an atheist to attack other atheists. That would be completely unfair and intellectually dishonest.

    However there’s no doubt on either side (or there shouldn’t be) that Hitler did embrace the ideology of evolution and used it strongly in his advancement of genocide. As horse pointed out, it seems as though the staunch evolutionist must agree that macroevolution does square with the “might makes right” philosophy. It applies in the animal kingdom, and if we are just the upper portion of the animal kingdom, the same rules apply.

    Another question is; can one rightly conclude from the Scriptures (the authority for the Christian) that what Hitler, or any of the inquisitions, witch trials, etc, did were indeed in line with Biblical teaching? I would say absolutely not, and any of the atrocities committed in the name of Christ were done so in direct opposition to the Bible, either by distorting or ignoring the clear commands laid out in Scripture.

    It’s the philosophy and ideology behind the competing worldviews that are at issue here, and I think what Hitler (and the multitude who supported him) committed must be dealt with by the both groups on their grounds and sources of authority. As Christians, we can easily point out where the holocaust is in direct opposition to the Bible. Easily. The atheist must show where the holocaust is in direct opposition to whatever the authority is for atheism, and presumably that is the process of macroevolution.

  • Anonymous

    Why is it that you think “Hitler is one of our purest examples of what happens when Naturalism reaches its logical end”? Why is Nietzche’s philosophy the pinnacle of naturalist thinking, and why does Hitler’s interpretation of it constitute the ultimate expression of it?

    You are so very, tragically wrong when you say that there is no basis for condemning Hitler without religion. If you think that the only reason to prevent genocide is because your god told you it was wrong, you are mistaken — both about moral philosophy, and what your supposedly holy book actually says on the subject.

  • Anonymous

    God commands the Israelites to commit genocide in the Bible. Did you miss those parts? He commands all sorts of other atrocities too. Don’t pretend that the god of the Bible is all rainbows and unicorns.

    And for goodness’ sake, believing that evolution by natural selection *occurs* has nothing to do with moral principles about how we ought to behave toward one another. You’re building a strawman is-ought fallacy when no one is actually arguing that.

  • Anonymous

    Do you think that is relevant for whether or not Christianity is true? If Hitler was a Christian, would that prove Christianity wrong? If Hitler was an atheist, would that prove atheism wrong?

  • Andrew Ryan

    Why on earth does naturalism leave us without a reason to stop Hitler? Not only is that nonsense, but you might as well say that a recipe for a chicken stew gives us no reason to stop Hitler. Evolution doesn’t mean ‘the strong must destroy the weak’. In nature the weak often triumph over the physically stronger, by virtue of having lower nutritional needs. Tigers are more likely to starve than rabbits.

    Even if it did mean the strong must triumph, Hitler lost. Was he the weak? The second world war was ultimately ended due to science discovered by a Jew, the supposed weaker race.

  • A Horse

    Thanks for your response nfq. I am open to learning where I am wrong. Can you please condemn Hitler using a Naturalist philosophy for me?

  • A Horse

    I need help with your argument, if you don’t mind. You said that my argument was nonsense, but did not offer a naturalistic argument for stopping Hitler. I share your emotional revulsion for Hitler, but I believe it is important that we understand why he must be opposed on something other than the basis of feelings.

    Can you logically derive for me why Hitler shouldn’t have “helped” Evolution? In Hitler’s mind, he was creating a “super” race through artifical selection, in other words, speeding along the Darwinian process. Indeed, he thought it was quite a noble task.

    Your next point actually strengthens my argument. Hitler lost because the Allies operating within a theistic framework valued ALL life and opposed Hitler. Surely you can agree that Hitler would have won if the Allies would have been cheering him on or joined in?

  • Andrew Ryan

    What do you mean by ‘operating within a theistic framework’? A bunch of countries were defending themselves and their allies from attack. Simple as that. If someone attacks me, I don’t need to search for a ‘naturalistic justification’ to defend myself or my family. I just need to value my life or those of the people under attack.

    Artificial selection has nothing to do with natural selection. If it’s artificial then by definition it isn’t natural.

    Go ahead and give a ‘non naturalistic’ argument for stopping Hitler, because I’m not really sure what you mean. If your daughter is I’ll do you try to work out non naturalistic reasons to cure her, or do you just give her medicine because you want her to get better?

  • Andrew Ryan

    Ok, imagine two hyperthetical scenarios.

    1. A theistic universe where a guy is shooting innocent people.
    2. Exactly the same, but it’s a ‘naturalistic’ God-free universe.

    Now, are you saying the guy in situation 1 is doing something wrong, but the guy in situation 2 is not? If so, can you explain the difference? The suffering and death they both cause is exactly the same. If you maintain the guy is only bad if there’s a God then I conclude it’s not actually suffering you see as being bad, or you’d want to stop the second guy too.

  • Andrew Ryan

    A Horse, can you answer any of the questions in the first para of nfq’s post?

  • Todd

    I don’t think Hitler was Christian or atheist. There are web pages filled with pointless finger pointing as though his ideals demonstrate the majority opinion of either worldview, much less the current ‘moral zeitgeist’. More likely his belief swayed with whatever was convenient at the moment…

  • Anonymous

    I suppose I am a “naturalist,” though I admit to being unsure of what you mean by that. Bottom line, I see no reason to believe in the supernatural, having only experienced and seen evidence of the natural. I take a scientific approach to solving problems — consider the possibilities, make observations about reality, draw conclusions based on those observations.

    I believe that murder, and by extension genocide, is wrong because I think everyone’s well-being is best served by a society in which murder is not allowed. Virtually all humans would be made unhappy by the prospect of their lives ending. I know I would be made unhappy by that, to say the least. One thing I know about people is that they like being happy and dislike being unhappy. I prefer a world where I am happy, and I can infer from my interactions with other people that they have similar preferences. I want to perpetuate norms wherein my happiness is promoted by others, so I do the same for them. Murder (not self-defense killing in a last-resort situation) is one of the clearest examples of actions that would not promote happiness.

  • Anonymous

    Also, I second Andrew Ryan’s request for you to answer the questions I posed to you in the first paragraph of that earlier comment. You made assertions about the implications of Hitler’s behavior for how we should view naturalist philosophy. It’d be nice if you would at least attempt to warrant them.

    I’m playing along and explaining the painfully obvious argument for why murder should be viewed as immoral even if no god told you so. Now it’s your turn to explain your much less obvious claims.

  • Anonymous

    Aside from Andrew’s already good response, I just wanted to add … I’m pretty sure the Allies weren’t all “operating within a theistic framework.” Easiest example: the government of the USSR.

  • A Horse


    Thank you for your reply. I have a question about your second scenario. Let’s replace the “innocent people” with something of equal value in this second universe, say rocks. Do you have the same objection? Why or why not?

  • A Horse


    Thanks for your reply. You Used the word genocide and atrocities in this response which implies a moral framework. You are saying that these actions are evil. If you believe evil exists, you also believe good exists. You must also posit a moral law to differentiate between the two. You must then posit the source of the moral law, which is God. But you said you don’t believe in God.

    Why are you calling those actions “atrocities?”

  • A Horse

    Thanks guys for the response. nfq, an excellent point on the USSR, thank you for the critique.

    Andrew, I think if you are focusing only on the attack, may I then posit by this mode of thinking that if Hitler had just kept to himself and extermiated the Jews in his own country, then no one from the outside should have joined in the fight? The US was never invaded by Hitler, and wasn’t defending against Hitler, so why did the US join the fight against Hitler (vs. Japan only)?

    You’ve reached the crux of the question again, you value your life and your family. But when you’re no more valuable than a paper clip, why do you value your life? You’re going to cease to exist sometime, why does it matter if it happens sooner?

    In reference to my (hypothetical) daughter, I want her to get better because I value her. The question is why do you? (Same mode of thought in the above)

    Forgive me, but this is taking too much of my day. Both Andrew and nfq are making assertions (i.e. “life is valuable”) that are only unarbitrarily possible in the theistic framework. I cannot continue until you resolve this contradiction.

    It is right that you both know that life is valuable, and especially persons, as your examples only include people (did you notice?). But it is imperitive for us to live with a foundation of why people are valuable.

    Happiness is important nfq, but your argument just pits Hitler’s happiness vs. the Jew’s happiness, so how do we decide who is right? It seems obvious to you, but it seemed just as obvious to Hitler’s side.

  • Anonymous

    A Horse: Genocide is the killing of an ethnic group. It is murder on a large scale. It is not a moral judgment in and of itself (though the presumption that murder is so obviously bad is why groups like the UN are so skittish about declaring things “genocides”, which is I suspect where you are coming from with this question).

    I commented yesterday explaining why I think that murder is bad and large-scale murder is atrocious, even though I don’t think that a god told us that it is. Scroll down a bit; maybe you didn’t get an email notification of it because of this crazy nesting comments stuff. :-

    I think you are also asking of me and my beliefs more than you require of yourself and your beliefs. What is the source of your belief that whatever your god says is morally right?

  • Andrew Ryan

    A Horse, you claim that the only ultimate source of good must be God. How so? Why does positing a God make the question of the source of good any easier. If a God exists, why would ‘good’ automatically follow? If an action is not ‘good’ without a God, why or how would His existence make it good? Surely you either think it’s ‘good’ or it isn’t?

    I can value the lives of strangers just as I value those of my friends and family. All people, with the same capacity to love, live, suffer, laugh, cry etc. I don’t see why this is confusing to you. If lives are not important to you unless a God exists, then you don’t seem to value them in the first place.

    Your other questions: America joined WW2 because it was attacked in Pearl Harbour. Before then it refused to join the war. I’m British and I know this! The war began in 1939, not 1941. Churchill had been begging for US help for years by then.

    Substitute rocks for people? Knock yourself cracking rocks. I value people; if you substitute people for rocks it’s a fundamentally different scenario. So the question comes back to you – you’ve yet to answer.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Why does a theistic framework make life any more valuable? Now who’s making assertions? My life is by definition valuable because I value it. If I value something then, again by definition, it is valuable! You are arguing against simple logic. Are you going to ask me to justify saying A = A?

  • Andrew Ryan

    You ask how life can be valuable if is finite. This seems a perverse question to me. Can you think of anything else that becomes less valuable when its supply is limited? Generally we value what is in limited supply more than what is limitless, no? So yes, life having an end makes it precious. This should not be a hard concept to grasp. To dhrug and say something isn’t worth enjoying becuase at some point it will end – that suggests a level of ennui that I am glad is alien to my ken.

  • Boz

    Live and learn – the issue of hitler’s personal religious beliefs is less clear than I had thought. And will probably never be resolved.

    That said, I am weary of this issue. But it always appears.

  • Greg G


    if there is no ultimate moral law definer, then where do morals come from? Please don’t tell me that we humans thru millions of years have developed this code because that would be a subjective code that is random in nature. For a moral code to be completely objective (defining clear right and wrong) it must be defined by one having the absolute authority to do so. Anything else is just your opinion vs mine and subjective at best, open to interpretation and liable to changes due to economic, social, geographic, generational and evolutional factors. What Hitler did cannot be condemmed or condoned if there is not an ultimate moral law giver. Again, Hitler could claim that he was at a higher evolutionaly state and had greater knowledge that you thus subjectively propogating his moral code of killing those not like him.

    Christians call this moral code giver God.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Greg, I think you’re begging the question. Where does your God get the authority from that you claim he has? Did he give it to himself? How is that any different from Hitler saying he’s in charge so he’s giving himself authority? Are his moral laws only moral because he sets them, or does he set them because they’re moral?

    I’m afraid introducing a God into the scenario actually poses more questions than it answers, and it certainly gets you no closer to being able to condemn genocide, as the poor Canaanite children could tell you… if they hadn’t all been slaughtered on God’s instruction.

    “random in nature”

    Greg, if you mean through evolution, then no it wouldn’t be random in nature: natural selection is not random.

    “Hitler could claim that he was at a higher evolutionaly state”

    There’s no such thing as a ‘higher evolutionaly (sic) state’. Evolution is simply a process of change – it does not lead to or from higher or lower states.

  • Anonymous

    Remind me again what the Nazis had emblazoned on their belt buckles?

    Also: Darwin’s _Origin of Species_ was banned in Hitler’s Germany.

  • Bill Pratt

    I’ve told you before why God has legitimate authority, so your pretending not to know the answer to this question is disappointing (unless you’re just trying to get Greg to tell you something you already know the answer to). Also, your comment about evolution not being random due to natural selection is incomplete. The genetic mutations that natural selection works on are random, so there is an important random component to evolution.

  • Referring to Andrew’s comment below:

    I’ve told you before why God has legitimate authority, so your pretending not to know the answer to this question is disappointing (unless you’re just trying to get Greg to tell you something you already know the answer to). Also, your comment about evolution not being random due to natural selection is incomplete. The genetic mutations that natural selection works on are random, so there is an important random component to evolution.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Bill Pratt: “Andrew, I’ve told you before why God has legitimate authority, so your pretending not to know the answer to this question is disappointing.”

    Bill, to quote your own words: “I don’t recall agreeing to anything you said about this”. I could equally say I’ve told you before why your arguments for God’s authority don’t work, and I’m disappointed you’re pretending not to know that.

    When I hear people trying to justify a God’s authority, they’ll generally use the same arguments they say counts as ‘question begging’ when used by non-theists. Emotional arguments – “Because God loves you”, or property laws – “If you create something, you can do what you want with it”, or WLC’s word salad tossing – “God IS good, therefore whatever his nature is, that’s good, and therefore we should do what he says.

    If you’re allowing those kind of arguments, then one can make similar ones without a God.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Bill Pratt: “Your comment about evolution not being random due to natural selection is incomplete. The genetic mutations that natural selection works on are random”

    That makes no difference Bill. The end result is not random. You can have a sorting or filtering system that deals with random inputs, and the end result will not be random.

    There are a thousand actual examples in nature of order arising out of randomness. The lapping of water on a pebble beach is random, but over time it sorts stones by size. You could get a tray with various holes on it of different sizes and shapes, then you randomly scatter a bunch of different objects on the tray, and then shake it. Eventually, despite their random movement, the objects will sort by size and shape into different holes.

    The specifically point I was answering was Greg’s claim that an evolved code would be “… a subjective code that is random in nature.” Such a code would not be random. Given the ‘millions of years’ that Greg mentions, such a code would be pretty specific. It would have to be one that promotes the general well-being and survival of the species – any other code would be selected against. Codes that IN GENERAL didn’t promote species survival would die out. The minutiae might differ, but one would not expect a code that involved castrating all boys at birth would get very far. One WOULD expect us to develop a taboo against murder and would expect violence against children to be particularly abhorred.

    You can argue that code wouldn’t necessarily be moral, or one you would want to live by, but that is an entirely different argument than the one I was answering. Arguing that it would be random is simple nonsense.

    Note also that I am (again) not arguing that we can look to society’s codes to discern what is in fact moral.

  • None of those are the statements I made when you asked me this question before. I can only conclude you did not pay attention.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Well you just had the opportunity to restate your case. The first time, you just claimed, with no cite, that the point had already been successfully made. Now, 24 hours later, still no cite. I can only conclude you don’t actually have an argument. Just a claim that at some indeterminate period in the past you made an unbeatable argument that you’re disappointed I didn’t accept.

    So go for it: justify that authority.

  • My point is that you do not listen, you do not attempt to understand. Why should I constantly have to re-state the points I make over and over for you to only dismiss them once again? We are going nowhere with this approach.

    But, in case anyone else is interested, they should go back and read the comments posted by me under the Why Ought I Act Morally? Part 2 post. Our exchange is right at the top of the comment series.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Hmm, you claim:

    “None of those are the statements I made when you asked me this question before”

    Then you link to you saying this:

    “God, as the creator of mankind, and as essentially just and loving, is a legitimate moral law-giver. Therefore, we have a duty to follow his moral commands.”

    So you you think none of the above is anything like the summary you distance yourself from:

    “Emotional arguments – “Because God loves you”, or property laws – “If you create something, you can do what you want with it”, or WLC’s word salad tossing – “God IS good, therefore whatever his nature is, that’s good, and therefore we should do what he says.”

    Frankly, I’m surprised by how well I summarised your argument.

    I can’t understand how you can be disappointed that I don’t accept your argument. You ARE begging the question – your explanation for God an authority, and ultimately as a grounded source of morality contains the assumptions that ‘loving’ and ‘just’ are valid concepts. These are among the concepts that you are trying to justify!

    If atheists are allowed to use concepts like loving and just, then they can equally construct a moral system. If you do not judge it permissible for atheists to use these concepts to ground their moral system, then neither can you.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Bill, I’m honestly sorry that you think I do not listen or attempt to understand. I read your posts pretty carefully, I just don’t agree with them, and I explain as clearly as I can WHY I don’t agree with them.

    It’s not fair to criticize someone for making an argument simply because it is one you feel you have answered in the past, as if your response is the final word on the subject.

  • Ggodat


    By your statements I take it that you are a firm believer in subjective morality? It sure sounds like it. Answer this one question please, if there does not exist one being that has the ultimate authority to define a moral code, how can morality be anything other than subjective values? How can it be anything other than your opinion vs. mine?

    Also, how is natural selection not random? Is “Natural Selection” an intelligent being that used a thought process to select changes in a species? NO, Darwin himself defined natural selection as RANDOM changes over millions of years that allowed a species to gather food easier and procreate. Thusly these random mutations would become the norm in successive generations.

    If you honestly think about it you cannot say morals are objective and in the same sentence say they came from no one. It just isn’t logical.

  • Ggodat

    The Swastika to my knowlege has never been used by Christianity as a symbol. So what is your point?

  • Greg G


    If your Un-random randomness theory is correct then why do we still after billions and billions of years still have so much disease and evil in the world? Taking your wave-pebble theory, evolution should have removed all of the evil/diseased people by now. I mean if evolution is the reigning power in the universe and it controls everything (including moral evolution) then we should all be super nice volunteers and have no ill will toward anyone. However, if you compare our society to those in Caanan (pre-Abram) you could make the case that we are certainly no better and most likely worse. So how exactly does evolution script our morality?

    I know, I know, you will ask, “So if God exists why is there so much evil in the world?” I’m sure my answer wont suffice but it is a topic which Billy has covered numerous times.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Ggodat: why not try this: http://tinyurl.com/3dsdyx9

  • Andrew Ryan

    Ggodat: “Answer this one question please, if there does not exist one being that has the ultimate authority to define a moral code…”

    You’ll have to answer me first what you mean by ‘ultimate authority’. Please tell me where is this authority coming from, without begging the question, or using any concepts that you will not allow an atheist to use.

    In other words, if we’re not allowed to condemn Hitler by saying he is ‘hateful and unjust’ then you’re not allowed to grant your God authority by describing him as ‘loving and just’.

    I already answered your question about natural selection. You don’t seem to get the ‘selection’ part of the name. And please supply a quote from Darwin backing up the definition you claim he made.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Greg G: “Why do we still after billions and billions of years still have so much disease”

    An odd question Greg in that I’d have thought the answer was not only pretty self-evident but famously so – diseases and viruses evolve too. Even creationists admit this.

    Ask any doctor and they’ll tell you this isn’t theory but simple fact. It is certainly a scary reality for people in areas where diseases have developed immunities to anti-biotics that worked just a few years earlier.

    Does that help?

  • No. You are completely misunderstanding the argument. I am taking as a starting point that we humans intuitively understand what love and justice are. We understand love and justice just like we understand that 2+4=6. That love and justice exist is a given for both theists and non-theists. I am not trying to argue for the existence of love and justice, which is what you claim I am doing. Again, they are givens.

    I am then asking, if these moral values exist, where did they come from and does their source provide a rational reason for my choosing to be loving and just? I argue that God is where they come from and that his nature is a rational reason to be loving and just.

    There is no arguing in a circle at all.

  • Greg G


    wow, thanks for pointing out that everyone claiming to be a Christian or wearing a symbol of Christianity is one. In the same regard you definitely must be a Christian as well because I’m positive that you have recited the Pledge of Allegience and I’m sure that you both carry and use US curency. It’s nice to have you on our side!

  • Greg G


    No, in fact i do not have to answer you first. You presumption is totally illogical that a moral code can both exist and be TOTALLY objective without there being a being that has both the authority and knowledge to define it. Anything else in all the universe is just a subjective value statement and cannot be morally condoned or condemmed. You prove to me without begging the question (there is no God) that objective morality can exist without a definer…. it cannot be done.

  • Greg G

    what about evil? How come it still exists and how do you even know what evil is unless there is somthing which is ultimately good for us to know the difference? I’m sorry Andrew, but your rhetoric has no foundation here.

    Answer this, where did the universe come from? Is it eternal or did it come into existance?

  • Andrew Ryan

    Greg, can you acknowledge that you understand and accept the point about disease before we move on? Otherwise it’s just a ‘Gish Gallop’ you’re giving me.

  • Greg G


    yes, I concede disease.

  • Andrew Ryan

    So how do you establish what the ultimate ‘good’ is, if you need that before you can get a standard? What standard do you use to say ‘that’s ultimate good? You can say ‘it’s obvious that this being is good, because he’s doing good things’. But you’re saying that one cannot even talk about ‘good acts’ UNTIL you’ve got that standard. So how do you get that standard in the first place? Until you answer this, your question to me is just as much of a problem for you.

    And what rhetoric are you talking about? I’ve tried to be straight talking with you, rhetoric free.

  • Pingback: Isaiah Thirtyfive()

  • Pingback: Was Hitler a Christian? « apologeticsworkshop()

  • Karla Marie Robinett

    Monsters like Hitler are the direct result of what the belief in evolution reduces us to. How can it be otherwise?

  • Zqtx

    @ Karla,

    I don’t believe you’ve read any of the conversation here…

    Tell us again how a belief in evolution causes someone like Hitler?

  • Andrew Ryan

    Given that Hitler rejected evolution, your comment makes little sense.

  • Mary Lou

    Maybe we should define just what a Christian is and then see if Hitler lines up with the definition. A Christian is a person who is in a relationship with God through Jesus Christ by the infilling of the Holy Spirit. A person who has truly converted is led by that Holy Spirit through a life-long process of sanctification, that is, a process by which he becomes more and more Christ-like. The Bible states clearly that in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile (Gal. 3:28). In other words, Jews and Gentiles are equal in Christ’s eyes. He loves them both. Therefore, a Christian loves both Jews and Gentiles.

    Does any of the above describe Hitler? No. Therefore, it seems ludicrous to label him a Christian.

    It is imperative that people realize there are two categories of Christians — those who are Christians in name only, but not in fact, and those who are true Christians, sincerely and honestly following Jesus. Hitler did not follow Christ. Therefore, he was not a Christian.

  • Andrew Ryan

    If you play that game then there are barely a dozen ‘true’ Christians, as virtually no-one lives up to the required standard. So you can’t use that as a ‘no true Scotsman’ argument against Hitler being Christian. I’m not saying he was one either, just saying your argument doesn’t wash.

  • MJR
  • MJR

    @1867c262656d79eb2e568ceabf93aa6d:disqus http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-god