Atheist Myth: “No One Has Ever Killed in the Name of Atheism”

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is what they believed. Sort of like Evangelical Christians today have to put god on everything, from courthouses to schools, money and the pledge. And, of course Trump isn't really a Christian, but a massive chunk of his supporters are, and though he only pays a Machavelian sort of lip service to them, they believe he is Christian and that god annointed him and guides him.
Just like Hitler paying lip service to them though he cursed them behind closed doors.

No, it's not necessarily what they believed, as has been pointed out to you multiple times. National Socialism was not a Christian movement. It was actually rather bizarre for a Fascist-like movement in that it wasn't really joined to some form of Christianity as the Iron Guard in Romania (Orthodoxy), Falange in Spain (Catholicism) or Ustaše in Croatia (Catholicism). Mussolini also did much for the Catholic Church in Italy despite being an atheist. Pretty much all the leading Nazis hated Christianity and most of them wanted it destroyed in Germany eventually, including Hitler himself. They knew their ideology was incompatible with Christianity. This is historical fact. Nazism was a materialist racist movement with a crude biological form of eugenics. They hated Jews for racial reasons, not religious ones. A Jew could convert to Christianity or any other religion, and they still would kill them. Look at what happened to Edith Stein (St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross). She was a Jewish philosopher who converted to Catholicism and became a Carmelite nun. Did that save her? No! She was still murdered in Auschwitz, because of her "race".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, it's not necessarily what they believed, as has been pointed out to you multiple times. National Socialism was not a Christian movement.

Not convincingly so because I can spend the rest of the day providing evidence to the contrary.
Like it or not, the Nazis where very much about God and Country the way True Patriots (c) here love to go on about God and Country. Like it or not, parts of their racist ideology used some of the same Biblically based arguments as the Klan (another fine group of fiercely devoted Christians).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not convincingly so because I can spend the rest of the day providing evidence to the contrary.
Like it or not, the Nazis where very much about God and Country the way True Patriots (c) here love to go on about God and Country. Like it or not, parts of their racist ideology used some of the same Biblically based arguments as the Klan (another fine group of fiercely devoted Christians).

Yes, no matter how many facts are presented some people will never be convinced because it goes against a certain narrative they have given themselves over to. I'll stick with historical facts and the consensus, thank you, which is pretty clear on where the Nazis stood in regard to Christianity. Your comparisons of the Nazis to the modern Christian right are incorrect and not helpful.

 

[Augustus]

Lenin: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism"

If Lenin wants to misrepresent what atheism is by claiming that his anti-theism/anti-religion stance is 'atheism' he's welcome to... but that doesn't mean I have to allow his misrepresentation to go unchallenged.

1st fallacy, misrepresentation: That Lenin was saying atheism = anti-theism in that statement, he was not. Atheism in that context means "The belief there is no god", and which was a core principle of Marxism (at least according to Marx and Lenin et al.).

Marxism was necessarily atheistic and materialist, they weren't exactly subtle about this point. In this context, disbelief in god was as important to be a 'True Marxist' as belief in god was for a Muslim

"Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. MyI believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution'... This train of thought is radically false.

You're right, Lenin and Co. did NOT just have a simple lack of belief in any god or gods, which is ALL atheism is...

Your 2nd fallacy fallacy is anachronism.

Talking about atheism as a 'lack of belief' in a historical context is flawed as the definition didn't really exist until the 1980s, prior to this atheism was purely the belief that there was no god. Despite what many people think today, the word is athe-ism denoting belief, not a-theism denoting absence.

Look up Bertrand Russell discussing if he is an atheist or an agnostic to see how the terms were used if you don't believe me, or think it is some kind of misrepresentation.

You can use whatever you whatever term you like today, but a) the belief there is no god is also atheism both now and in the past and b) don't expect people in the past to use words in accordance with the pedantic mores of online atheist communities in 2020 that didn't even exist 100 years ago.

they had a strong BELIEF that religion was a bad influence on society and needed to be eradicated. It was this strong BELIEF that religion was bad that they killed in the name of. And of course, they had a good argument for that, since the religion they dealt with was a tool of the aristocracy that they were fighting against. The Church claimed that the Czar they wanted people to rise up against was appointed by God, so OF COURSE they had to be against the Church as well. They killed people in the name of their BELIEF that the religion was wrong, but NO ONE killed ANYONE based on their LACK of belief in god.

Fallacy 3: Anachronism, again.

Go back and read the Marx quote and look at the date and context of what he said about Marxism. The idea that this was a response to the 20th C Russian Tsar is inane, give that he was writing a philosophical text on Hegel in Paris in 1843.

Why is it so hard to believe that Marxism was an explicitly atheistic philosophy? Is it hard to believe that Christianity is an explicitly theistic philosophy?

So to sum up... people HAVE killed in the name of anti-theism... but NO ONE has EVER killed in the name of a LACK of BELIEF in god. Lacking a belief in God in no way shape or form leads to wanting to kill people.

Fallacy 4: Misrepresentation, again.

What I actually said: The belief that there is no god was certainly a key point in Marxist ideology, and one which was explicitly utilised to justify the disregard for human life in pursuit of the 'greater good'.

I specifically didn't use the term atheism because there is always some quibbling 'lack of belief' poster who completely misses the point.

The belief there is no god is also atheism (my atheism is certainly a belief, not a lack of one), but to avoid this pedantry (alas, to no avail...), I purposely stated "The belief that there is no god was certainly a key point in Marxist ideology,"

And I didn't say 'the belief there is no god leads to wanting to kill people', I said it formed part of a a broader ideology, but, within this context, it was explicitly used to disregard the value of human life (among other things). For example: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”.

I said this not because I hate atheism (I'm an atheist after all), or because 'commies were evil therefore Jesus' but because:

1) it is a basic historical fact and I try my best (however imperfectly) to base my views on evidence rather than ideology or tribal identity or what other people in my thought bubble insist is true
2) It really doesn't matter a bit if a belief no god exists can be used to help justify atrocities, as part of a larger belief system that I don't belong to. It doesn't mean a thing about atheism being "good" or "bad", just about any belief can drive negative behaviour in the right context. Beliefs don't exist in isolation, they exist in combinations, and the combinations generally matter, not the individual belief. No one killed anyone simply because they believed there is a God either, it required other beliefs that related to what this god wanted them to do. Neither pure theism nor pure atheism make you do anything, however both can significantly influence the way you look at the world and combine positively or negatively with additional beliefs.

Is there anything there you object to?

 

[Augustus]

But that doesnt change the fact he did lead a group who thought themselves doing their duty for Jehovah and Germany.

Among the rank and file perhaps, but the higher up in the Nazi hierarchy you got, the less you found Christians.

Why do you think the SS (who were the archetypal Aryan warrior) were the least religious of the armed forces, and their officer class was the least religious of the SS?

 

[ecco]

Hitler youth Song:

We are the joyful Hitler Youth
We need no Christian virtue
For our Führer Adolf Hitler
Is ever our Mediator.
No pastor, no evil one, can hinder
Us from feeling as Hitler’s children.
We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and holy water.
The church can be taken away from me,
The swastika is redemption on the earth,
It will I follow everywhere,
Baldur von Schirach [leader of the Hitler Youth], take me along

I wonder where you got that from? No attribution or source?


My research shows an entirely different official Hitler Youth song:

Nazi songs - Wikipedia
Es zittern die morschen Knochen / Wir werden weiter marschieren / heute gehört uns Deutschland free midi mp3 download Strand Hotel Sechelt bed breakfast
Hans Baumann
1. The rotten bones tremble
The world before the red war
We broke the terror
It was a great victory for us.

Refrain:
We will continue to march
If everything falls into pieces
Because today Germany hears us
And tomorrow the whole world.

2. And lies in ruins from the fight
The whole world abound
We should care about the devil
We are rebuilding it.
Refrain:

3. And may the old scold,
So just let them rage and scream
And brace ourselves against worlds
We'll be winners.
Refrain:

4. You don't want to understand the song
They think of bondage and war
Meanwhile our fields are ripening,
You flag of freedom, fly!

We'll keep marching
If everything falls into pieces;
Freedom rose in Germany
And tomorrow you own the world.
​

Perhaps your source was a Facebook entry that you chose to believe?

Search Results
Web results

"We follow not Christ, but Horst... - The amorality of atheism ...
www.facebook.com › amoralityofatheism › posts › we-..

​

Perhaps you wish to believe the American WWII propaganda that all German/Nazis were atheists? How else could they get millions of 18-year-old German Americans to fight the evil Hitler? You do know that most Americans had no desire to enter the war and kill Germans and Italians, don't you? But call them ATHEISTS...

 

[QuestioningMind]

1st fallacy, misrepresentation: That Lenin was saying atheism = anti-theism in that statement, he was not. Atheism in that context means "The belief there is no god", and which was a core principle of Marxism (at least according to Marx and Lenin et al.).

Marxism was necessarily atheistic and materialist, they weren't exactly subtle about this point. In this context, disbelief in god was as important to be a 'True Marxist' as belief in god was for a Muslim

"Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. MyI believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution'... This train of thought is radically false.



Your 2nd fallacy fallacy is anachronism.

Talking about atheism as a 'lack of belief' in a historical context is flawed as the definition didn't really exist until the 1980s, prior to this atheism was purely the belief that there was no god. Despite what many people think today, the word is athe-ism denoting belief, not a-theism denoting absence.

Look up Bertrand Russell discussing if he is an atheist or an agnostic to see how the terms were used if you don't believe me, or think it is some kind of misrepresentation.

You can use whatever you whatever term you like today, but a) the belief there is no god is also atheism both now and in the past and b) don't expect people in the past to use words in accordance with the pedantic mores of online atheist communities in 2020 that didn't even exist 100 years ago.



Fallacy 3: Anachronism, again.

Go back and read the Marx quote and look at the date and context of what he said about Marxism. The idea that this was a response to the 20th C Russian Tsar is inane, give that he was writing a philosophical text on Hegel in Paris in 1843.

Why is it so hard to believe that Marxism was an explicitly atheistic philosophy? Is it hard to believe that Christianity is an explicitly theistic philosophy?



Fallacy 4: Misrepresentation, again.

What I actually said: The belief that there is no god was certainly a key point in Marxist ideology, and one which was explicitly utilised to justify the disregard for human life in pursuit of the 'greater good'.

I specifically didn't use the term atheism because there is always some quibbling 'lack of belief' poster who completely misses the point.

The belief there is no god is also atheism (my atheism is certainly a belief, not a lack of one), but to avoid this pedantry (alas, to no avail...), I purposely stated "The belief that there is no god was certainly a key point in Marxist ideology,"

And I didn't say 'the belief there is no god leads to wanting to kill people', I said it formed part of a a broader ideology, but, within this context, it was explicitly used to disregard the value of human life (among other things). For example: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”.

I said this not because I hate atheism (I'm an atheist after all), or because 'commies were evil therefore Jesus' but because:

1) it is a basic historical fact and I try my best (however imperfectly) to base my views on evidence rather than ideology or tribal identity or what other people in my thought bubble insist is true
2) It really doesn't matter a bit if a belief no god exists can be used to help justify atrocities, as part of a larger belief system that I don't belong to. It doesn't mean a thing about atheism being "good" or "bad", just about any belief can drive negative behaviour in the right context. Beliefs don't exist in isolation, they exist in combinations, and the combinations generally matter, not the individual belief. No one killed anyone simply because they believed there is a God either, it required other beliefs that related to what this god wanted them to do. Neither pure theism nor pure atheism make you do anything, however both can significantly influence the way you look at the world and combine positively or negatively with additional beliefs.

Is there anything there you object to?

Talking about atheism as a 'lack of belief' in a historical context is flawed as the definition didn't really exist until the 1980s, prior to this atheism was purely the belief that there was no god. Despite what many people think today, the word is athe-ism denoting belief, not a-theism denoting absence.

Thanks for clarifying my point. Since the CURRENT definition of atheism (a simple LACK of belief in any gods) didn't even exist when Lenin was alive then OBVIOUSLY no one was killing anyone in the name of a LACK of belief in god. People killed other people in the name of a BELIEF that god doesn't exist and that believing in such a non existent god leads to detrimental effects on society.

Thus I stand by my original claim: No one has EVER killed ANYONE in the name of a LACK of belief in god.

 

[ecco]

Richard Weikart - “Hitler's Religion”

Is that your source for the song as well. That would explain a lot. Just who is this Richard Weikart? (My emphases)

Richard Weikart (born July 1958) is a professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus,[1] and is a senior fellow for the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.[2] In 1997 he joined the editorial board of the Access Research Network's Origins & Design Journal.[3] Weikart's work focuses on the impact of evolution on social thought, ethics and morality. His work and conclusions are controversial.[4]

Weikart received a bachelor's degree in 1980 from Texas Christian University, a master's from Texas Christian University in 1989,
​

It probably isn't necessary to remind everyone what the Discovery Institute is all about. But, I'll do it anyway.

Center for Science and Culture | Discovering Intelligent DesignCenter for Science and Culture
We are the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design.​

How about the Access Research Network? Here is some of their stuff...

Access Research Network
How the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation falsified atheism

"Always Keep Evolution in Context"
"On the Origin of Life"
"On the Days of Genesis"
"On Evil and Suffering"
"Is Evolution Actually Progressive Creation?"
​

So, your source on all things related to your Godless Hitler and your Godless Germany comes from someone who is a Fundamentalist Christian who disparages Evolution and any and all science that denies the accuracy of the Garden of Eden - Massive Flood story.

Is that the best you can do? It's no wonder you didn't provide a source or a link to the writing in your lengthy post.

​

 

[ecco]

The main architects of the holocaust (Himmler, Heydrich, Hitler, etc.) were certainly not doing so out of Christian religious fervour.

No doubt anti-semitism in Germany drew significantly on a Christian legacy, as well as factors deriving from WW1 and Communism. It also drew heavily on scientific racialist theories (viewed as actual science back then). Significantly, racialist theories of Jewishness meant it was an immutable characteristic, rather than a heretical belief system that could be (forcibly) converted away.

Oh, I see. It was "an immutable characteristic, rather than a heretical belief system (a religion)".

Uh huh.

Then please explain why Martin Luther believed he could eliminate this immutable characteristic by converting people from the Jewish religion to the Christian religion.

 

[Tambourine]

No, it's not necessarily what they believed, as has been pointed out to you multiple times. National Socialism was not a Christian movement. It was actually rather bizarre for a Fascist-like movement in that it wasn't really joined to some form of Christianity as the Iron Guard in Romania (Orthodoxy), Falange in Spain (Catholicism) or Ustaše in Croatia (Catholicism). Mussolini also did much for the Catholic Church in Italy despite being an atheist. Pretty much all the leading Nazis hated Christianity and most of them wanted it destroyed in Germany eventually, including Hitler himself. They knew their ideology was incompatible with Christianity. This is historical fact. Nazism was a materialist racist movement with a crude biological form of eugenics. They hated Jews for racial reasons, not religious ones. A Jew could convert to Christianity or any other religion, and they still would kill them. Look at what happened to Edith Stein (St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross). She was a Jewish philosopher who converted to Catholicism and became a Carmelite nun. Did that save her? No! She was still murdered in Auschwitz, because of her "race".

The Protestant Christians of Germany formed their own movement/pressure group in support of Hitler and the Nazi regime, called "German Christians" (Deutsche Christen). Plenty of Christians supported the Nazis, or even outright joined them, because of their explicitly hostile stance against "godless" communism, and during the war people from outside Germany flocked to the banners of the SS in order to wage war in the USSR under German command.

And while the Nazi version of antisemitism (which had been a longstanding tradition in German Christianity, and had been popular among Protestants and Catholics alike) was in theory based on their kooky "racial science" rather than religion, in practice, most of the Jews that were transported to concentration camps were those practicing the Jewish religion, or the children of practicing Jews.

As for Edith Stein, while her Jewish background certainly made her vulnerable, the official stance of the Catholic Church on her murder is that it was carried out due to her repeated public condemnations of the Nazi regime and its policies, not because of her Jewishness.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Protestant Christians of Germany formed their own movement/pressure group in support of Hitler and the Nazi regime, called "German Christians" (Deutsche Christen). Plenty of Christians supported the Nazis, or even outright joined them, because of their explicitly hostile stance against "godless" communism, and during the war people from outside Germany flocked to the banners of the SS in order to wage war in the USSR under German command.

And while the Nazi version of antisemitism (which had been a longstanding tradition in German Christianity, and had been popular among Protestants and Catholics alike) was in theory based on their kooky "racial science" rather than religion, in practice, most of the Jews that were transported to concentration camps were those practicing the Jewish religion, or the children of practicing Jews.

As for Edith Stein, while her Jewish background certainly made her vulnerable, the official stance of the Catholic Church on her murder is that it was carried out due to her repeated public condemnations of the Nazi regime and its policies, not because of her Jewishness.

I'm aware of certain Christian groups supporting the Nazis. There were also Germanic Neopagan groups supporting the Nazis. The Nazis didn't really care which religion a common German followed as long as it was subordinated to Nazi ideology and Hitler. So if you wanted to personally believe that it was Jesus, Odin, science or "Providence" that motivated you as a National Socialist, it didn't matter as long as you kept to what the Party ordered. But the fact remains that none of the leading Nazis were practicing Christians (Hitler himself, Himmler, Goebbles, Bormann, Heydrich, Hess, Rosenberg and so on). Most hated Christianity although they tolerated it for a time due to the war effort. Hitler, for his part disdained both Christianity and Neopaganism. Most of the leading Nazis tended towards some twisted form of Germanic Neopaganism occultism based on blood and soil or irreligion (you could say NS was their religion).

Regardless of what the Catholic Church says, Stein and her sister (also a convert to Catholicism) were both rounded and sent to Auschwitz in a general rounding up of Jewish converts.

 

[Tambourine]

I'm aware of certain Christian groups supporting the Nazis. There were also Germanic Neopagan groups supporting the Nazis. The Nazis didn't really care wish religion a common German followed as long as it was subordinated to Nazi ideology and Hitler. But the fact remains that none of the leading Nazis were practicing Christians (Hitler himself, Himmler, Goebbles, Bormann, Heydrich, Hess, Rosenberg and so on). Most hated Chrisrianity although they tolerated it for a time due to the war effort. Hitler, for his part disdained both Christianity and Neopaganism. Most of the leading Nazis tended towards some twisted form of Germanic Neopaganism occultism based on blood and soil or irreligion (you could say NS was their religion).

Not being a practicing Christian does not make one an atheist, however, so this still renders the claim that the Nazis were somehow crusading for the ideology of Atheism a rather spurious one.

Regardless of what the Catholic Church says, Stein and her sister (also a convert to Catholicism) were both rounded and sent to Auschwitz in a general rounding up of Jewish converts.

A major reason why Stein's death is so well known is her status as a Catholic nun and her subsequent beatification as a Christian martyr. To dismiss the Catholic Church's opinion on her supposed martyrdom seems a rather strange decision in this light.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not being a practicing Christian does not make one an atheist, however, so this still renders the claim that the Nazis were somehow crusading for the ideology of Atheism a rather spurious one.

I know. The list in the OP is stupid.

 

[Tambourine]

I know. The list in the OP is stupid.

I'd argue that the entire argument is mostly nonsense. No major political ideology, not even the explicitly atheist ones, were killing people with the goal to promote atheism.

 

[Augustus]

I wonder where you got that from? No attribution or source?

It's at the bottom of the post, in bold

Richard Weikart - Hitler's Religion

He cites to:

“Werner Reichelt, Das braune Evangelium: Hitler und die NS-Liturgie (Wuppertal: Peter Hammer Verlag, 1990): 134–35; see also a slightly different version in Klaus Scholder, Die Kirchen und das Dritte Reich, vol. 2: Das Jahr der Ernüchterung 1934 Barmen und Rom (n.p.: Siedler Verlag, n.d.): 143.”

Can hear him discussing the main points of the book here if you are interested

Richard Weikart, “Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich” (Regnery History, 2016)

Is that the best you can do? It's no wonder you didn't provide a source or a link to the writing in your lengthy post.

If you are going to lie repeatedly, at least do so on things that aren't easily shown to be false

Richard Weikart - “Hitler's Religion”

Whatever his current affiliations, he was also a professor of history at a secular university

Multiple reviews of this text in scholarly journals if you want to move past the ad homs in regards to your valiant, Holmesian detective work

Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 32, Issue 1, Spring 2018, Pages 121–122,

Weikart does not absolve Christian anti-Judaism of responsibility for helping to create an environment within which Nazi antisemitism could flourish. However, he insists that Hitler’s eliminationist project was in no way beholden to Christian antecedents, but instead was rooted solidly in the biological determinism of nineteenth-century scientific racialism...

With that, Weikart arrives by process of elimination at a conclusion adumbrated by his previous studies: that the best way to characterize Hitler’s religious outlook is as a kind of pantheism with strong social Darwinist undertones. To the extent that Hitler understood himself to be the servant of a higher power, he argues, that power was neither the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition nor the remote Creator of classical Deism but rather an impersonal force immanent in the laws of nature and the fate of the “racial community.” A defining feature of his faith was the absence of any “transcendent morality” (p. 280), and this would ultimately prove both destructive and self-destructive.

Much of the ground Weikart covers is familiar, though few have explored it so comprehensively. The primary value of his book lies in the wealth of information it provides and the accessibility of Weikart’s presentation, which seems intended for a general readership as much as for fellow scholars.

That Weikart frames his account in more or less thematic terms is understandable, although this necessitates some unavoidable repetition and tends to minimize consideration of the ways and/or extent to which Hitler’s views may have evolved over time. As the book’s somewhat sensationalist subtitle suggests, Weikart takes an implicitly “intentionalist” approach to his subject. Hitler’s personal thinking dominates the analysis, with comparatively little attention paid to the social dynamics by which that thinking was shaped, shared, contested, or recast by party loyalists and ordinary Germans—issues that have occupied a host of scholars in recent decades (and that Weikart touches on at least indirectly in his sure-handed account of the protracted church struggles of the 1930s). Whether it is possible in the end to fashion a definitive picture of Hitler’s religious views, which Weikart himself describes as “muddled” (pp. 219, 279), may remain open to debate. His book, however, underscores prior work by Michael Burleigh and others in showing that at a minimum those views deserve to be taken seriously. Any future inquiry will need to pay attention to Weikart’s findings, which offer further confirmation of the salient role that religious impulses played in shaping and defining the Holocaust era.

My research shows an entirely different official Hitler Youth song:

That's nice, but if you read properly you'll notice that the post doesn't say it was the official song.

Perhaps your source was a Facebook entry that you chose to believe?

Perhaps your research isn't very good after all then

Perhaps you wish to believe the American WWII propaganda that all German/Nazis were atheists?

Perhaps you don't really know what you are talking about. If you want to know what I think then you can ask rather than jumping to very irrational conclusions.

If you are going to project bias though, then perhaps start by looking at yourself.

Which of the following do you generally think is more likely to be closer to the truth?

a) The overwhelming consensus of scholarly experts from all backgrounds
b) Non-experts with a superficial knowledge of the topic who are emotionally invested in believing something which conforms with their deeply-held ideological prejudices

I'm going to guarantee you usually ridicule group b) whenever it doesn't actually include you

 

[Augustus]

Then please explain why Martin Luther believed he could eliminate this immutable characteristic by converting people from the Jewish religion to the Christian religion.

Can I explain why Martin Luther didn't believe in scientific racialist theories that emerged in the late 19th/early 20th C?

I suppose I could give it a whirl...

 

[Augustus]

Since the CURRENT definition of atheism

Let's be accurate here, it is one of the current definitions, definitely not the current definition in either popular or scholarly usages.

Thanks for clarifying my point.

I was clarifying (again) that your point had little to do with what I actually said

People killed other people in the name of a BELIEF that god doesn't exist

So, for example, if someone said the following, you would agree with it?

The belief that there is no god was certainly a key point in Marxist ideology, and one which was explicitly utilised to justify the disregard for human life in pursuit of the 'greater good'.

 

[ecco]

It's at the bottom of the post, in bold

Richard Weikart - Hitler's Religion

"In bold" is not a link. Are we to assume that the entirety of your post #252 was his writing? Was any of it your own? How can we tell?

If it was all his writing and none of your own, then that says a lot about your actual knowledge (or lack thereof) of history.

 

[ecco]

Whatever his current affiliations, he was also a professor of history at a secular university

What's your point? Michael Behe also is employed at a secular university. That doesn't mean he can be honest about evolution and ID.

 

[ecco]

Multiple reviews of this text in scholarly journals

Here are some other comments:

Richard Weikart - RationalWiki
Richard Weikart is a Christian creationist and history professor at California State University, Stanislaus. He is also a senior fellow for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute and has devoted his career to elucidating the supposed immoral consequences of evolution.

For Weikart, the materialistic basis of evolutionary theory is responsible for the devaluation of human life in general and the "survival of the fittest" mindset only leads to a completely immoral society. Weikart focuses heavily on the history of Nazi Germany and Hitler, trying to portray them as "Darwinists" and moral relativists, while simultaneously promoting Christianity positively.
​

Note the link and the indented text so that the reader can easily see what is my original writing and what is from other sources.

Here is more about his motivation.

Richard Weikart - RationalWiki
While most scholars are drawn to study a subject out of interest in the subject, Weikart began studying history for a religious agenda. He wrote: "I was drawn to the study of modern European intellectual history in part by the realization that much modern thought had debased humanity" and singles out "modern thinkers" who "specifically criticized the 'anthropocentric' view that humans are special, made in the image of God."[2] He goes on to claim: "By reducing humanity to their biological makeup, these Darwinian-inspired biological determinists contributed to the dehumanization process."[3] So, Weikart studied history because those pesky scientists "debased humanity" with their evidence of common ancestry.​

This is typical of people like Weikart and Behe. They come to a conclusion and then try very hard to bend science and/or history to support their preconceived notions.