Pope or Hitler: Who Said This?

Pope Or HitlerThanks to jasonpaulhayes for the comment. As Pope or Hitler explains:

This is a response to the Pope’s claim that the Nazi movement was atheist. When it was nothing of the sort.

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny”

Please share what you learned from Pope or Hitler

79 Comments on "Pope or Hitler: Who Said This?"

  1. I think this is BULLSHIT. I played for about ten minutes, and eventually I just started instantly hitting ‘Hitler’ on all of them — and I was never wrong. Haven’t seen a single ‘Pope’ quote on this entire goddamn site.

    • Frankensteinmoneymac | May 8, 2012 at 3:29 am |

      Yeah…this would have made more of a statement if they had thrown some Pope quotes in….All I got were Hitler quotes too. 

      • Atlas322 | May 8, 2012 at 4:47 am |

        You both realize that that’s the point, yes? The website even visibly points out that every answer is Hitler to the right of the screen. 
        The game is meant to point out how Hitler believed fervently in some version of Christianity and that he knew how useful faith was.He believed in God. Every quote sounds like it is should come from the Pope, but the truth is Hitler was just as devout, if not more so. Not a very morally upstanding person, but then again, neither was the Pope.

    • Monkey See Monkey Do | May 10, 2012 at 9:50 am |


  2. The true atheist is the one who refuses to see God in the face of his neighbor. The saying, “actions speak louder than words,” holds true. The pope could see what the creator of this page could not: that to murder out of hatred, or, worse yet, indifference, is an atheism greater than any mere verbal denial of a deity’s existence.

    • kind of like how the pope has NOT acted on the child molesters than run rampant in the church ?

    • Fleming1972 | May 8, 2012 at 1:23 am |

       That’s what’s called the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

      • False. A “No True Scotsman” includes making exceptions to a universal claim, proposition types A and E on a logical square, in order to hold onto a faulty  definition in spite of evidence to the contrary. In my post, I was simply appealing to the traditional Catholic understanding that belief is not, and can never be, separated from actions, and neither can be separated from the state of the soul–hence why Catholics reject the protestant doctrine of sola fide. Murder–destroying the image of God–is more atheistic, in the Catholic understanding, than merely writing a book full of atheistic claims. This is not a “No True Scotsman,” this is a definition, and one that fits very well with a variety of philosophical systems, from pragmatism of James’ type to Nietzscheanism to Thomism.

        Thus, I encourage you to actually learn what the logical fallacies are, and to learn to use them in ways that are not merely philosophical sedatives for use on others.

        • You are refreshingly clever with words.  Your statement “The true atheist is the one who refuses to see God in the face of his neighbor,” is interesting.  You make this sound like a choice.  An atheist does not believe in the existence of gods.  Therefore, it is not a refusal.  It is lack of delusion.  Seeing God in the face of his neighbor?  Seriously, whoever coined this phrase can spot a sheep from miles away.

          • To be fair, the atheist tends to deny a strawman of what God is. What would God be to a man that sees God in the face of his neighbor. Meditate on this for a bit.

          • Calypso_1 | May 8, 2012 at 5:27 pm |

            My question to one who sees God in the face of their neighbor is usually, ‘Do you hear the voice of God from your neighbor as well?’.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | May 9, 2012 at 3:49 am |

            Or do you read comments from those Gods on websites?

          • Calypso_1 | May 9, 2012 at 9:56 am |

            Interesting notion.  I’ve not had the clinical experience of someone who actually thought they were receiving direct communication from deities via online sources.  Coded messages, certainly – CIA, pretty standard delusions of reference etc.  I’ve seen this from TV and film often enough…maybe JHVH isn’t on teh interweb yet.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | May 10, 2012 at 4:14 am |

            I was more thinking in line with the notion the everyone may well be a ‘God’.

          • Calypso_1 | May 10, 2012 at 11:32 am |

            How does this idea affect your actions?

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | May 10, 2012 at 12:30 pm |

            How does any idea affect someones  actions?  Somewhat I suppose. Beliefs are what really affect peoples actions.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | May 10, 2012 at 12:43 pm |

            Personally I like the idea that consciousnes  permeates through everything and we are all subjective expressions of a higher consciousness.

          • Calypso_1 | May 10, 2012 at 6:18 pm |

            I would prefer higher consciousness to be an objective expression of me.

          • Calypso_1 | May 10, 2012 at 3:23 pm |

            You have an idea – you act in accordance with the manisfestation of that idea.
            The affective force, in it’s purest form, is will.

          • So clever you lost your entire audience.

          • whoever said i had an audience?

          • Jin The Ninja | May 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm |

             i’m still reading intently.

          •  It was Dorothy Day who coined the phrase. The phrase does not make any of the pretensions to a view from nowhere that most people are fond of. Instead, the phrase itself is honest about how it presupposes an entire system of beliefs, an entirely different tradition than that one which began in the Enlightenment era. While you can reinterpret that maxim however you will, I did not mean my original post to be an argument as such, just because arguments don’t work across traditions in the same way that they do within them.

            To clarify, my original post was meant to portray a Catholic understanding of what atheism is, not one that atheists can use for themselves, for modern atheism comes from a divergent tradition from modern Catholicism (or at least ideal-typically they do, although things get messy in the real world). But in the Catholic understanding, destroying the image of God is itself a a denial of God, and therefore atheism.

          • Brilliant discussion.  From a Catholic understanding this makes sense, though I would bet hordes of Catholics have no idea what you are talking about.  From the point of view of an Atheist it is a non starter as there is no such thing as God.  The existence of this entitity is simply wishful thinking.

          • If atheism is not a choice, then theism is not a choice either.

          • Fine.  For all those who love god and/or gods, go right ahead belieiving what you will.  I wish you the best.

          • I don’t love God.

    •  http://www.google.co.za/imgres?q=pope+and+hitler&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=eKf&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1317&bih=1095&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=qXnr5GnhdXJfDM:&imgrefurl=http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%2520Religions/Roman%2520Catholicism/former_hitler_youth_elected_pope.htm&docid=oawApE0JuVZUVM&imgurl=http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%252520Religions/Roman%252520Catholicism/hitler_cardinal-nazis.jpg&w=452&h=297&ei=5MCoT8W1IOHP4QSNwamxCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=176&vpy=156&dur=7299&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=157&ty=207&sig=105267877399064212034&page=1&tbnh=124&tbnw=189&start=0&ndsp=36&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:71

    • Atlas322 | May 8, 2012 at 4:50 am |

      You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the term “atheism”. It is not a belief system, rather it is a lack of belief. It is also not a verb, one does not “Atheist” something. Semantics are key in debates and your disregard for them have debased your argument to the point of being invalid. Please, try again. 

      • Your first claim is bullshit. There is no such thing as doubt outside of belief, as all inquiry begins from where one is, at the moment. See C. S. Peirce and William James. Or me, for that matter, on every Disinfo article on the subject of atheism in which the claim “atheism is a lack of belief” was posited. To lack belief is to deny.

        Second, being is inexorably tied to doing. Don’t try to separate the two for the sake of “semantics.” Being is itself doing–for the most part, only enlightenment philosophers, some analytics and utilitarians, and medieval philosophers, on some readings, ever rejected this, and most of them implicitly, rather than explicitly.

        • Redacted | May 8, 2012 at 6:29 am |

          You have converted me. So which demon am I supposed to worship?

          • Perhaps if you even did a cursory wikipedia search of the names I mentioned, you would see that my use of belief is the most broad one there is. As I am using them: Belief=any belief in any idea, not just, or even primarily, those relating to God. Doubt=any doubt of any idea, same applies as above. Thus, your attempt at wit falls flat, because I have no interest in that argument. I don’t argue about things that matter, like the existence of God, on the internet. However, since philosophy of this sort doesn’t really matter, I’ll argue my point all day, or until boredom.

            The point is that you cannot simply doubt. To even phrase or conceive of a doubt, you must first believe something, because knowledge must begin with inquiry from where you are right now–that is, what you believe right now. Those things you believe will lead you to doubt other things, but the beliefs must exist first. The idea that there can be simple non-belief is Cartesian in origin, and, with the rest of the bunk that Descartes withdrew from his ass, is Cartesian in where it ends up: confusion.

            Thus, the question you have to ask when someone says “Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief,” is “What does that mean practically?” From my perspective, it seems like a convenient way of removing any burden of proof from atheism in an argument. In truth, though, atheism has plenty that is subject to burdens of proof–its materialism, for one, its evidentialism for another. This isn’t saying it’s wrong, but you have a responsibility for what you believe, and, consequently, for what you don’t believe.

          • Atheism does not have a burden of proof, Christianity does. You are the ones making a positive assertion that there is a god for whom there is not even a shred of evidence.

          •  You have not responded to my argument. The very concept of a “burden of proof” is subject to it, for I am well aware of the logic behind such an assertion. Respond to what I said, then we can have a discussion.

          • Anonnona | May 8, 2012 at 7:45 pm |

             atheism most def. has a burden of proof, you are trying to proof something with science, that cant be measured with science..

            I am sure there are many, but science, just like spirituality does not explain the full spectrum of our reality..

            This is where atheism falls short, and becomes nothing more than another religion of sorts.

          • Isn’t there a difference between active disbelief, the belief that something is not true, and a lack of belief, not knowing one way or the other?

        • Firstly, you need to rethink how you convey your thoughts. You come across as someone who thinks he’s a lot smarter than he really is. Secondly, your thoughts on atheism are massively misguided and downright ignorant.

          Atheism simply means “does not believe in god.” That’s it. Whatever all that nonsense is you’re trying to ascribe to atheism, it’s dishonest and ignorant at best. How about instead of being dismissive, derisive, and ignorant towards people who don’t think exactly and precisely the same way you do, you actually try to understand where they are coming from? 

          • Atheism starts with a belief of what god is. This cannot be debated. Secondarily they lack the belief in the object that they define as god. I contend that they have a faulty belief in the definition. Thus they are fooling themselves with a strawman.

          • emperorreagan | May 8, 2012 at 8:40 pm |

            And they don’t even have to work at it – the fundamentalist, literalist voices on religion are happy to ignore centuries of theology and philosophy to offer up some backwards caricature of a deity.

          • Oh i fully agree with this. I never said the atheists invented the definition.

          • Dude, I know what atheism is and how it understands itself. I just reject that the atheist’s self understanding is accurate, in most cases (Nietzsche is the exception). Reread what I have written in that light. As for your first comment, I do know what I am talking about on this one subject. I don’t know shit what to do in any other field of philosophical inquiry (ethics, metaphysics, etc), but I do know that Descartes is wrong about the nature of belief, and that atheism of the modern kind presupposes his system.

          •  Screw you, Decartes. Josh Adkisson is on the case.

        • I’m an agnostic.

    • If you see God in the face of your neighbor wouldn’t you be more of a deist than a theist?  Atheist has to mean what it literally means, a non belief in a theistic God.  To just say it is a disbelief in any possible conception of a God makes it too cumbersome.

      •  Seeing God in the face of your neighbor is quite Christian, and quite Catholic, at least when we are being consistent, for all are made in the image of God, according to Christian teaching.

        Contrary to opinion, however, words almost never mean their etymologies. A word is defined by its context in the language, in society, and in history. The same applies to the word “atheist.”

        • I had a neighbor who raped his 13 year old daughter on a routine basis. I wonder if you’d see god in his face while she was screaming NO DADDY, STOP. Yes, I see it now! I see god in the face of the man who raped his daughter.

          Let the excuses roll! I’m sure he was an atheist, right? or maybe he was possessed? Mmmmmmhm.

          • Calypso_1 | May 8, 2012 at 10:52 am |

            “I see god in the face of the man who raped his daughter. ”

            Isn’t that the whole gist of the Xmas story?

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | May 8, 2012 at 9:26 pm |

            So your trying to say that was Satan’s fault?
            Or if goD was interventionist he would’nt let that happen?
            Or is your belief he gave in to deities like hatred, anger, aggression, sadism, & domination.

          • If God truly loved that little girl, God wouldn’t have let it happen.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | May 9, 2012 at 3:44 am |

            But if bad things never happened how would we know what good things were? We would have no reference point or understanding of it.

          • “If bad things never happened…”!?  Jesus Christ, by that logic every child needs to be raped!

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | May 10, 2012 at 4:00 am |

            No it doesn’t. But in keeping with that bizarre line of thought. Perhaps we experience everyone elses experience at some point.
            If we are all one, subjectively experiencing itself….

          • You’ll have to explain the nuances of your previous comment then.  How many children does God need to allow to be raped in order for us to realize that God is good?

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | May 10, 2012 at 12:20 pm |

            I dont think the purpose is to realize God is good. I personally don’t believe in God, I prefer to replace the notion of God with consciousness. As for why bad things are ‘allowed’ to happen, I think that ties in with the question of the purpose or meaning of life. That’s a question that has plagued philosophers for millenia and probably will for many more.

          • Okay, but that sounds very different from your “if bad things never happened” comment, which seems to me to presuppose a purpose.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | May 11, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

            Maybe someone threw themself out into many different points of awareness to experience itself.

          •  Your stuck in dualism.

        • I find the idea that I was made in God’s image incoherent.

        • In the context of a society that generally believes in the existence of a theistic God though, it is natural that ‘athiest’ may be simply put as a non-belief in God, but to be useful as a means for expressing ideas, we have to remember that context which keeps it true to its etymology.

  3. Ahh yes but, who actually believed in what they were saying and who was just saying it to hide who they really were?
    Funnily enough those people who actually truly believe in things like that, never really say to much about it, preferring their actions to speak louder than their words.
    Also those the speak the most loudly about it, in fact shouting it out and every single opportunity are those very self same ones who get caught out when their actions are in direct opposition to their words.
    Religion and politics tends to go together like, hmm, a poorly designed arming device and a nuclear war head, it tends blows up in absolutely everyone’s face.
    As soon as a politician starts preaching or flashing their religiosity, it’s time to toss the bum out.

  4. hitler in word was the typical politician saying anything to get more support and votes. in deed the nazis were big into the occult.

  5.  Atheists, you should remember that arguing with an irrational person produces nothing but an agitated, and defensive irrational person.

    • Eric_D_Read | May 8, 2012 at 5:35 pm |

      I prefer Mark Twain’s take on it.
      “Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

    • All people are rational.  It is always difficult given one person’s situation and knowledge to understand another’s rationale, but let it be known, that we are all rational people.

      • Bullshit.

      • Simiantongue | May 9, 2012 at 5:50 pm |

        It may seem semantic, but it’s not, there is a world of difference between a rational person and a person who rationalizes.

        • In my experience there are people who are genuinely not curious, largely ignorant, or apathetic and just close minded on the whole.  Despite all those…from the given, or that which is known to them, they are in their decisions or opinions rational. 

          Unfortunately for people trying to spread truth and progress, it may even be in someone’s rationale to not accept new or contrary views. 

          It is inhuman and ignorant on a fundamental basic human understanding level though to say that other human beings are irrational.  From your perspective they are, but of course they are because that is your perspective ergo your rationale.  Even if your perspective is better informed, is still your perspective and you have to realize that.

          We all have a limit to our knowledge, we all in our lives seem irrational to people who think or know differently than us.

          • I get what you’re saying but i do think there are times when someone’s rationale is based wholly in fantasy. I mean, what do you say to someone who bases all his opinions in wonderful pieces of art such as Jersey Shore, or Deal or no Deal, or some other nonsense.

            Of course I suppose I’m still faced with your obvious answer, that they would probably be more suited to situations similar to those fantasies, but I suppose its part of my rationale to not care about them.

          • Simiantongue | May 10, 2012 at 1:12 pm |

            Not all people are rational. It’s not as simple as saying, this person is rational and this one not, this one is ignorant and apathetic and this one is not. Such absolute notions are simple minded. People are rational at times and other times they are not. Ignorant and/or apathetic at times and at times not. Some people may be rarely rational and others rational more often than not. People can be rational about certain subjects and on other subjects they may not be. It’s much to complicated to say there is this set of people who are not curious, are ignorant, apathetic people who are closed minded and then there are people like you. We’re all act irrationally at times.

            You will every day encounter people who are not acting rationally. People are constantly slipping in and out of the demographic that we call rational.

            A rational person, one who uses reason, will consciously change their attitudes, their thoughts, beliefs and even their traditions based on available facts that they’ve been able to sufficiently establish and verify.

            A rationalizing person uses certain cherry picked facts to justify and support their preconceived or presupposed conclusions, actions or feelings. A rational person, a person who uses a methodology of reason, allows whatever verified facts to guide their thoughts, feeling, actions to whatever conclusions the facts point to. The key is that people who rationalize are not using facts to form or influence their
            reasoning, they are using cherry picked facts to justify conclusions, feelings, actions. Yet they can still perceive themselves as rational actors. Even though people often do perceive rationalizations as reasoning, this does not mean they are using the methodology of reason. Rationalization is not reasoning it’s an alternative methodology to reasoning.

            We don’t always have the luxury of being able to reason beforehand either. So we can all often times act irrationally. At times like this it’s not uncommon to justify with rationalizations. Though we like to think that these rationalizations are still reason, it’s not. People can easily slip between rationalization and reason. Humans have very slippery minds, at times it’s difficult to be conscious of exactly when we are doing this ourselves. There are many people who make no distinction at all when they do, so I’ve found.

            Using rationalizations should not be confused with using reason. Rationalizations are replete with cognitive biases and often times there is an overpowering, even subconscious urge to not perceive ourselves as wrong headed in what we think, say or do. Whereas reason is based more in the realm of allowing conclusions, feelings and actions to be based on facts that are more objective and provable than intuition. This involves the possibility that previous conclusions, feelings and actions may have been mistaken and should be rectified to align with said facts.

            Whereas rationalizations are reactive. Reasoning is proactive, preparing oneself for and being more open to possible change in reaction to situations that are not resolved by simply reacting to them with more simple preconceived rote thoughts, actions, feelings etc. It takes time and energy to accumulate knowledge and verify facts in order to use reason. And day to day most people just don’t have the time, patience or energy to do so. So they don’t. They use mostly intuitive reasoning. (Now I’m not saying intuitive reasoning is not equal to rational reasoning here. It’s useful and often times, especially in the right hands… ahem, or minds rather, it’s quite amazing. But that’s another subject, we’re talking about people not always being rational not intuition).

            Rationalization also has to do with justifications, which enable one to maintain a constant illusion that we are always acting with self-determination even when, or most especially when we’re not. (This has to do with perceptions of the self and what not, I don’t want to get into that discussion here either).

            I’d say that  people most of the time are not rational in fact. Are not steeped in reasoning for ninety percent of what they do and say every day. Though people are always rationalizing what they do and say, that much is sure. Which is most definitely not the same thing as reasoning. Like I said, there is a world of difference between a rational person and one who rationalizes. A person who uses rationalizations shouldn’t be confused with a person who has invested the time and energy to reason something through.

            What we can say for sure is that not all people are rational. Who is rational and who is not? That depends on when and who you encounter. Because someone is rational or irrational at any given moment is no indication of whether they are being rational or irrational at any other given moment. States of mind are much too fluid for such absolutes. The world in general is much too complicated for absolutes like “People are rational”. Or even, people are irrational. The answer to the question are people irrational is yes. The answer to the question are people irrational is yes. There is no clear demarcation where you can categorize people as rational or irrational.

            Anyway I have some very good arguments that show how important irrational behavior can be and that people can be irrational by nature and still be relatively successful in their thought process. But look at this word count already. Maybe some other day.

  6. The only thing to get is money | May 8, 2012 at 12:41 pm |

    If only atheists ruled the world… ahh what a dream. I’m inclined to believe that an atheist would never commit the atrocities of the religious. Even Stalin and Mao had religious tendencies. Instead of a religious god they turned themselves into secular gods. All the worlds misery goes back to gods.

  7. I’m always skeptical of things like this. I’m not denying the quotes but it seems like everyone tries to put people like Hitler in their opponent’s camp. Go to any conservative website and you’ll see people going on about how Hitler was a hardcore liberal and vice versa with liberal sites. People want to pin these infamous historical figures into a certain category but very often they don’t quite fit in either camp. The world is too complicated to always put people into a camp of liberal or conservative/Christian or atheist. 

    • Warrenite1000 | May 10, 2012 at 12:38 am |

       It may be extremely unpopular to say, and in fact sometimes career-ending, but Hitler was and remains a misunderstood historical figure.  Woe to the vanquished.

      • One of the big things about him is that he built a lot of his following by being against the industrial revolution itself. I wonder what kinds of madness could occur today with someone on that platform.

  8. Anonnona | May 8, 2012 at 7:48 pm |

    The hilarity of it is, as we fools argue amongst ourselves ,the truth whatever that is, is laughing at us. As if our opinions dictate what is “real” or “not” because we studied from another human being, with another earthly concept..

    we are such funny little animals.

    No one is expert on this stuff, atleast not those who claim to be experts by reading books.

Comments are closed.