Without a morality above humans then morality is just popular opinion

“If morality is subjective, then it does not exist.”

This is true.

However, there is an atheistic model of morality which isn’t subjective, and is therefore quite appropriately named “Objectivism”.
It is based entirely upon reality. It’s a good starting point, but as a complete worldview it lacks one particular aspect: a purpose to life. Objectivism is fantastic when it comes to defining good and evil. But it never addresses the purpose of life. This is where Nietzsche comes in, who’s purpose of life is essentially the same as Buddhism, but also the same as that of real darwinists. Attain godhood.

PS: since Hitler is mentioned above, Hitler justified the holocaust with Christianity. “And so I believe today that I act in the spirit of almighty creator: In fighting the Jews, I fight for the cause of our lord.”  -Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf

Definitely not an Atheist, nor a nihilist.

The Hebraic and Biblical ethic had profound political implications. There is a higher law than that of the state. Nations, no less than individuals, are subject to those objective moral absolutes whose authority is grounded in the transcendent God. Morality is not cultural, but theological. Because of these transcendent moral standards, it is possible to criticize the state and its leaders

For mythological cultures, such as the Canaanites, the king was semidivine. The social order was understood to be one with the religious and natural order. Thus, social laws, customs, and the dictates of those in power were fully sanctioned by the mythological worldview. It was thus literally unthinkable to criticize the king, since there was no conceptual framework for asserting any higher authority. Social change, in the direction of greater mercy or justice, was practically unheard of. Even customs horrific to the Judeo-Christion mind such as child sacrifice were accepted even by the parents of the victim. This is how the crops grow. The gods, the king, the spirits of nature, the needs of the community, and reality itself require that the child be given to Moloch.

The Hebrew prophets, on the other hand, excoriated kings and whole cultures for the evil they were committing. They demanded that those in power change their ways and change their societies according to the objective righteousness of God…

That a prophet could come into the presence of a king and denounce him for oppression and bloodshed on the higher authority of the “word of God” was a conceptual development of the profoundest importance for Western society. We are so used to criticizing our leaders and our society that we take it for granted, but this is only because the Judeo-Christian ethic is so deeply grounded in Western thought, which ever since has had a tradition of social criticism and moral reform.

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism . Concordia Publishing House. Chapter 3

@ Vknid: ” He was also heavily into evolution and used that in some of his platform where he thought the Germans were the peak of evolution and everyone else was lesser than them or maybe just steps to get to that point.”

This is a popular, but false allegation. It was part of allied propaganda during WW2.  He never once called the Germans the peak of evolution, just a “higher race”, which supposedly gave them a divine destiny. The idea of higher and lower races predates Darwinian theory, and dates back to the early days of transatlantic slavery, and before that to Arab slave trade. It was generally viewed in a teleological way, much like the American idea of manifest destiny.

As for evolution, Hitler categorically denied it:

”Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.[15]
”It was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.[16]
”The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.[17]

“What right do we have to believe that man was not from the very
beginning what he is today? A glance at nature informs us
that in the realm of plants and animals alterations and further formation
occur, but nothing indicates that development [Entwicklung] within a
species [Gattung] has ever occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man
would have to have made to transform him from an ape-like condition to
his present state.”

I found a few articles that claim hitler spoke of evolution a few times, but when I looked up the quotes, Hitler used the term “entwicklung”, which can mean evolution in rare cases, but generally means development or condition. And yes, I speak German. No one in Germany thinks Hitler was an Atheist or Darwinian. Not even his political opponents before his election ever accused him of that. Even the Social-Democratic party at the time (SPD, who still rules Germany today), while calling him every name in the book, never called him two things he is often falsely called today: 1)  an atheist    2) a right winger

PS: Another argument against Hitler believing in evolution would be his goal of a classless society (which again he justified theologically, claiming “God created nations, not classes.” A classless society runs against the very concept of evolution. How can there be evolution, if all are made equal? Evolution means you have winners and losers, and the winners get to breed in higher numbers. It’s not for the state to decide either, but for each individual based on their individual merit. Just like in nature. Nature doesnt give all bears and tigers and equal share of food. The most capable hunters catch the most prey. Incompetent hunters starve or are unable to feed their young.
Translated to human evolution, this would mean that if the Germans had been superior, why woulds they have feared the Jew? Had Hitler believed in evolution, he would have just let the competition play out.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Wisdom.

PS: since Hitler is mentioned above, Hitler justified the holocaust with Christianity. “And so I believe today that I act in the spirit of almighty creator: In fighting the Jews, I fight for the cause of our lord.”  -Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf

Definitely not an Atheist, nor a nihilist.

As has been pointed out so many times by so many unwoke scholars that it should not need saying ever again: everything from Hitler’s table talk, to his friend’s diaries, to his speeches given to the actual Nazi party make it clear he was an atheist, or at most some kind of sad, semi-pagan agnostic. The fact that, in mixed crowds and writings to be read by them he gesticulated toward Christianity is meaningless.  It is so disingenuous to pretend otherwise that it smacks of intentional lying. But then, if atheists ever had to be consistent and truthful, they’d stop being atheists.  He’s one of your guys. At the least he’s like one of your sad agnostics flailing toward semi-Buddhist syncretism.  That’s fine. Just accept it and move on. No side has only good ones.

Final note: I bet, if you really look, you’ll find that most of the places that tell you Hitler wasn’t atheist, will turn out to be places youo wouldn’t listen to about anything else. Seems to be mostly lefty academics, at lefty institutions, defending atheism and socialism by muddying the waters, like they always do.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by DeGave.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by DeGave.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by DeGave.

One more:

Here’s what arguing Hitler is Christian from his popular speeches is like (exactly like):

The year is 2050.  A future atheist is arguing in the debate on the religious beliefs of Barack Obama. The topic has come up following the civil war that resulted from wokism.  The leftists are, obviously, trying to show how it wasn’t leftists that led to the civil war. 

“I think we can all admit, it is unclear if Obama supported Pride.  In his campaign speech in 2007, he clearly said that marriage was “between a man and a woman.”  It is, then, clear that what he deeply believed, in his heart of hearts, was that gay marriage was a sin against the God he clearly loved and worshipped every week in faithful Christian church attendance.  We can assume from his church attendance, he was also staunchly pro-life.  There is also debate if, in fact, he was really a Democrat.  He said, on multiple occasions, ‘I am not for democrat policies.  I am for good policies.’ This brings into question if he were not, in fact, a Republican.”

That’s what you’re doing.  You’re cherry-picking his statements for popular consensus building while ignoring what he said in private, or in context, and willfully pretending you believe a politicians public speeches reflect the reality of his beliefs.  A belief you are clearly too intelligent to actually hold.