I can understand that people can sound intelligible while either skirting around or grossly missing the mark. I, however, think he raises a valid concern. So which parts are easily countered? 

Hhitchens` wass not without his faults, of course. He was fairly notorious for purposefully inciting others. He tended to use language that could be divisive and distracting from the issue at heart. But that's always been both his most endearing and objectionable feature. Though he tended to have fun, was inciteful and many, including I, may have often disagreed with his methods, he was rarely classified as being unreasonable. Without being familiar with his work, it`d be unfair to assume what his ability was to reason (I wonder what parts had given you doubt in his ability here) or to make connections. Though his vocabulary is quite excellent, he has encyclopaedic knowledge over many historys, politics and literature, and draws many clever connections between them.

These comments of his may provide some context of character:

"Time spent arguing with the faithful is, oddly enough, almost never wasted``

``The one unforgivable sin is to be boring``

And his most famous saying aka Hitchens' Dictum: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 As Generic User has also pointed out, you still haven't provided anything remotely close to evidence regarding Hitler being an atheist, and you seem to wish to go further and further from that topic.  You have not sufficiently demonstrated that Hitler was a pagan, you have not demonstrated that there is a close relationship between paganism and atheism, and you have not done anything to dispute the idea that Hitler was most likely a Christian and that the people of Germany at the time were mostly Christian.  So, it appears you were simply talking out of your ass and have nothing to back yourself up, and I feel like I have sufficiently made my point.

"so I guess those Aryan Japanese were left alive because they looked so similar to Hitler?"

the japanese were considered to be "honorary aryans" 

"the concept of evolution existed before darwin...""So it's based on relegion or atheism?  Can't be both."

it was a belief that the ancient religions held that every living thing is in a constant state of evolution

"It would appear to me that you again lack reading comprehension  The Oxford and Merriam dictionaries that you provided include the definition I gave."

why therefore did you disagree with me when I provided this definition originally "i thought atheism was the belief that there is no god"

your definition for atheism seems to be in constant flux one minute it means one thing and the next it shapeshifts into something different and yet you want to lecture someone on what atheism does and does not mean thats funny

" Secondly, if your knowledge of atheism consisted of anything more than 2 minutes of googling"

so you are more of an authority on what words mean than official dictionaries apparently lol

"This has been the atheist position dating back far more than a few years."

tell that to the people who assign meanings for words in dictionaries; they obviously disagree with you

" If you're trying to say Hitler was an atheist, it would be understood by any one with a firm grasp on common sense that you're using our current understanding of the word."

and our current understanding of the word is the same one that you originally rejected lol

" Even if atheism came from paganism, that does not make pagans atheists."

and that point was never made 

"Please show me where I said that atheism started a few decades ago."

i didn't which is why i typed "i suppose" rather than actually quoting you... how is your reading comprehension going buddy?

"And even if you said catholicism, you would STILL be wrong.  The catholic church accepts evolution, but many catholics do not.  (which isn't really sensical since they're supposed to believe in church doctrine, but then religion doesn't always make sense."

so tell me who determines what the catholic ideology is about? individual catholics or the catholic church? lol

"Again with the lies.  My definition of atheism fit with the ones you presented" 

how ironic... as the reality is the exact opposite as i addressed above

" And if you think atheism is the same as humanism, and you think Hitler was an atheist, then you think he was also a humanist.  And that's bat shit crazy."

 i don't think that they are the same but i do think that humanism is fundamentally atheistic and therefore all humanists are also atheists

however all atheist are not humanists

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanism

"  the  denial  of  any  power  or  moral  value  superior  to  that  of  humanity;  the  rejection  of  religion  in  favour  of  a  belief  in  the  advancement  of  humanity  by  its  own  efforts"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/humanism

A rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather thandivine or supernatural matters.

"Two completely distinct concepts.  You can be both, but you can be one without the other. "

no they are not they both reject god

" Look up Christian Humanism. "

are christian humanists the same as humanists? no the definitions show that they are two distinct groups

and our current understanding of the word is the same one that you originally rejected lol

No, your current understanding is the one that I originally rejected, and still do.

so tell me who determines what the catholic ideology is about? individual catholics or the catholic church? lol

Unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to define an ideology that I have no part in.  I know that there are catholics who claim to be catholic yet do not adhere to every view of the church.  That's all I can say as someone who is not a catholic and has not done extensive research on catholicism.

are christian humanists the same as humanists? no the definitions show that they are two distinct groups

They are subsets of the same group.

"so I guess those Aryan Japanese were left alive because they looked so similar to Hitler?"

the japanese were considered to be "honorary aryans" 

You said he left people alive because they looked like him.  Come on now, if you can't keep up with your arguments, how can you expect me to?

no they are not they both reject god

No.  The only definition you provided says they reject religion, which is not the same thing.  All of the other definitions (which curiously you chose to omit) do not involve an inherent rejection of god or gods. 

" Even if atheism came from paganism, that does not make pagans atheists."

and that point was never made

That is my best interpreation of what you are saying.  You claimed Hitler was an atheist, then start talking about his supposed pagan beliefs.  So, that seems to be what you're saying as far as I can tell.  I've repeatedly asked you to clarify this position, and you haven't. 

i didn't which is why i typed "i suppose" rather than actually quoting you... how is your reading comprehension going buddy?

Saying "I suppose" does not excuse you from backing up your BS.  If you suppose I think something, and you have no reason to back that up, then you are misrepresenting me.  So back up the BS or apologize please.

tell that to the people who assign meanings for words in dictionaries; they obviously disagree with you

So, the editor of Webster decides to decide what atheism is.  Instead of the atheist community? 

so you are more of an authority on what words mean than official dictionaries apparently lol

What is an official dictionary exactly?

I keep trying to drag this back to the original point of your claim that Hitler was an atheist and Naziism was an atheistic regime, but you seem incredibly reluctant to address that.  You've pretty much abandoned all of your points (quite wisely I might add because they were terrible points) and you're down to arguing semantics, which is an utterly uninteresting topic.  The last refuge for one who has been spouting nonsense.

Humanism is not a "group".  It is a philosophy that has a wide group of adherents.  It's a broad category like for instance Christianity.  Catholics and Protestants are both Christians, and Christian Humanists and Secular Humanists are both humanists.  There is a reason secular humanists use the term secular to distinguish themselves from theistic humanists.  Look back on the dictionary pages you referenced, because besides the one definition you cherry picked, the others all would be able to include secular, atheistic, or religious humanists.  And if you think that Christian humanists are not humanists, take it up with them.  You seem to be quite willing to define movements and groups you are not a part of and have no knowledge about, and I can't figure out why you feel qualified to do so.

If you actually want to learn about humanism, http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/What_is_Humanism That's a good way to start.  I'll give you this passage

Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933, Humanist Manifesto II in 1973, and Humanist Manifesto III in 2003. From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree.

Since you are interested in the origins of things, you should probably find it important to note that the originators of humanism were both secular (close to atheism but not quite) and religious. 

Speaking of definitions, yes the dictionary definition of atheism is wrong, and no I have not once changed my definition.  Dictionaries are not absolute authorities, and I don't know why you think Webster, who writes a sentence about atheism, should be trusted organizations whose sole occupation is atheism. (although again, one of the definitions of atheism perfectly fits). 

There is a well defined lexicon regarding atheism and theism that is used to discuss these.  Webster's dictionary  is not a book specializing in the discussion of religion, so their definitions may not be appropriate.  If you are not aware of the proper terminology that is used in these discussions, you should either have the humility to accept definitions from people who are more knowledgeable, or to at least go beyond a basic dictionary definition. 

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

American Atheists (Atheist.org)

What is an Atheist?

An atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist.

Infidels.org

The definition for atheism that we use, put simply, says that atheism is the lack of a god-belief, the absence of theism, to whatever degree and for whatever reason. The one thing that all atheists have in common, according to this definition, is that they are not theists. One either believes one or more of the various claims for the existence of a god or gods (is a theist) or one does not believe any of those claims (is an atheist). Though we do not recognize any “middle ground,” we do acknowledge the agnostic position, which spans both theism and atheism: a theistic agnostic thinks one or more gods exist but can say no more on the subject than this (is a theist); an atheistic agnostic doesn’t know if any gods exist (lacks a god belief, and is thus an atheist). Noncognitivists think all god-talk is meaningless, and thus lack any god beliefs (are atheists).

PositiveAtheism.org

You can also read, The God Delusion, watch any debate with prominent atheists, or generally do some research so you'll have some clue what you're talking about.

This is how atheists define atheism.  And just like humanists should define humanism, atheists should define themselves. So no, I'm not rebranding atheism.  This is how atheists define it, and have for quite some time.

Now, please find one instance of me giving any definition of atheism besides "not believing in a god" "a lack of belief in gods or deities" or another way of saying the same thing.  If you're accusing me of something I didn't say (yet again) back it up with some evidence (and btw saying "I suppose you think" does not excuse you from shoving words in my mouth.  If you suppose I think anything, you'd better have a reason, and if not, you're misrepresenting me).  If you cannot back up what you're saying, then I will again expect an apology.  I believe you owe me five at this point. If you can provide anywhere where I propose any other definition of atheism, I'll of course apologize. 

Now that I have provided you with several sources explaining the views of atheism are, written by atheists themselves, and have given you a clear definition several times, I expect that you will no longer have any confusion about what atheism is. 

Now please please please answer this question that I'm repeatedly asking and you are repeatedly ducking. 

Do you believe Hitler was an atheist and that Naziism was an atheistic movement?  Do you have any evidence?  Do you have anything to dispute my evidence that Hitler was most likely a Chrstian?  This is what we were talking about, and you seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid it.  This is about the fourth time I've tried to get this conversation back on track, and you have doggedly refused to discuss the actual matter we were discussing.  So please, provide some evidence to back up your assertion that Hitler (and/or Nazi Germany as a whole) did not believe in a higher power.  If you cannot, then kindly admit your statement was wrong, and make more of an effort in the future to actually know about something before speaking about it.

"You said he left people alive because they looked like him.  "

yes that was a stupid claim i can admit that

"Humanism is not a "group".  It is a philosophy that has a wide group of adherents. "

so tell buddy if we take the adherents collectively what word could we use to identify them... group perhaps?

" because besides the one definition you cherry picked, the others all would be able to include secular, atheistic, or religious humanists.  And if you think that Christian humanists are not humanists, take it up with them."

humanists are generally atheistic which is why the definitions only make reference towards those who fit that description

have you ever heard of generalisations before? 

"Now, please find one instance of me giving any definition of atheism besides "not believing in a god" "a lack of belief in gods or deities" or another way of saying the same thing.  If you're accusing me of something I didn't say"

oh stop that bullshit this came about because you accused me of presenting the wrong definition which i then disproved by presenting definitions from various dictionaries

which amuses me since as i said previously how can you expect to carry on a discussion about atheism when you have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not even understand the meaning of the word yourself

"No, your current understanding is the one that I originally rejected, and still do."

"  If you are not aware of the proper terminology that is used in these discussions, you should either have the humility to accept definitions from people who are more knowledgeable, or to at least go beyond a basic dictionary definition. "

lol so therefore you are more qualified to give the definitions of words than dictionaries? 

"Unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to define an ideology that I have no part in. "

but you are arrogant enough to claim that you are more of an athourity on defining words than dictionaries usurping their primary role

"This is how atheists define atheism.  And just like humanists should define humanism, atheists should define themselves. So no, I'm not rebranding atheism.  This is how atheists define it, and have for quite some time. "

and what about white supremacists? should we perhaps not call them racists or bigots or whatever because they choose to place themselves under the umbrella of white nationalism? do you have an inkling now as to how ridiculously stupid that argument is now? do you perhaps understand now why we use unbiased sources for definitions?

lol anyway i'm done here... with regards to the main issue of hitler being an atheist i posted various articles that deal with where his ideology developed from

if you are interested then you can look into what i posted and if you are not then continue attacking theists for being blind followers without considering perhaps that we all have been mislead by varying degrees even the high and mighty atheists of the world

so tell buddy if we take the adherents collectively what word could we use to identify them... group perhaps?

Haha. It seems that I'm not the only one who can't follow your arguments.  You can't either. To quote you (because I have this weird thing about not making shit up).

"are christian humanists the same as humanists? no the definitions show that they are two distinct groups"

You said they are distinct groups, but now you want to call them one group (take the adherents collevtively). congratulations on completely contradicting yourself.  Bravo.  Just... bravo.

But of course humanism isn't a group.  It's an abstract concept.  If you hadn't ripped my poor quote kicking and screaming from its context, it would be quite clear what I was saying, which is that secular humanists and religious humanists are part of the larger humanist group.

humanists are generally atheistic which is why the definitions only make reference towards those who fit that description:"

Even that's a bad generalization (I honestly don't know how many humanists would or would not identify as atheists.  I would actually imagine a larger number would call themselves theists simply because there are far more theists in the world), but you're closer at least.  The dictionaries do not in any way imply that all humanists are atheists, and they absolutely do not conflate humanism with atheism.   And that means that when you said all humanists are atheists, you were defying the mighty dictionary.  You're also now changing your definition, which is another nono in your book. 

You've contradicted yourself twice in the last few sentences.  And I've got the quotes to back it up.  That's that magical "evidence" thing I've been talking about.  I back my shit up, cause I'm nice like that.

have you ever heard of generalisations before? 

Yes, I've heard of generalisations before.  But, I try not to use them in any sort of debate or argument, because I know how logic works.  Why would you be making generalizations in an argument?  That's a logical fallacy. This is logic 101 stuff here. Not only that, but making a generalization about a whole group of people is downright offensive (to them at least).

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/sweeping-generalisation/

" i don't think that they are the same but i do think that humanism is fundamentally atheistic and therefore all humanists are also atheists"

You said ALL humanists are atheists, and you were pretty clear that you really meant all.  Now you're trying to slink away from it like a dog who just laid a turd on the carpet.  And calling that argument a smelly turd would be insulting to turds everywhere.  There's no rationalization for it, that statement was downright wrong. 

"Now, please find one instance of me giving any definition of atheism besides "not believing in a god" "a lack of belief in gods or deities" or another way of saying the same thing.  If you're accusing me of something I didn't say"

oh stop that bullshit this came about because you accused me of presenting the wrong definition which i then disproved by presenting definitions from various dictionaries

which amuses me since as i said previously how can you expect to carry on a discussion about atheism when you have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not even understand the meaning of the word yourself

If you want me to stop that bullshit, provide evidence.  :)  I either said it, or I didn't, and it should be easy to prove me wrong if I am.

Have you gone to college? Or high school?  Or a decent elementary school?  Try to write a paper with using dictionary definitions as your primary source.  See how that works for you.  Any teacher at above a third grade level would ask for real evidence.

I have presented several reputable sources that define atheism.  Webster is not an authoritative source.  It's a reference tool.

Plus, even if I was wrong about the definition, which I'm not, that still doesn't change the fact that my definition has been absolutely consistent throughout this.  Whether I was Right or wrong, you are lying about me changing the definition.  So, since you cannot find anything to back up your claim, I am owed an apology. 

lol so therefore you are more qualified to give the definitions of words than dictionaries?

No, but for the case of this word, I provided several sources that are more qualified. 

but you are arrogant enough to claim that you are more of an athourity on defining words than dictionaries usurping their primary role

So, ultimately, your argument is "but the dictionary said so!" Like I said, I've shown several reputable sources of atheism which all contradict what you presented.  But hey, since you love dictriding Webster so much,

Dictionary.com

Oxford English Dictionary

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

This is the definition I have given several times, and it is in your precious dictionaries.

Hmmm... So both the definition you're proposing and the one I'm proposing show up in dictionary.com and Websters.  Only mine shows up under atheism in Oxford (my dictionary of choice btw).  So how could we resolve this dispute?

I know!  How about we look up what other resources have to say about it!  Brilliant!  And lucky you, I've already done that!  And the sources all back up my point of view!

So, no I did not try to usurp the mighty dictionary, and yes, my definition is valid as it IS in the dictionary AND it is in line with reputable sources.  I'm hoping now that I have the backing of the mighty dictionary, hopefully this line of stupidity will end. 

And if you still think I'm wrong, you can find some evidence. :) 

and what about white supremacists? should we perhaps not call them racists or bigots or whatever because they choose to place themselves under the umbrella of white nationalism? do you have an inkling now as to how ridiculously stupid that argument is now? do you perhaps understand now why we use unbiased sources for definitions?

Yes, I understand quite well why we used unbiased sources.  You apparently don't.

There are situations when you want to use an unbiased source.  (By the way, this is absolutely hysterical coming from someone who used creation.com to try and show Hitler's views on Darwinism, but logical consistency is clearly not your forte.) 

But if you want to give a lesson on writing, (strange for someone who can't use sentences, but I digress) let's talk about primary and secondary sources.  Primary sources are things that are said by a person, group, or organization, and these are undoubtedly the best way to find out what a person believes of thinks.  That's why I keep asking you to quote me instead of making up shit I never said.  Because I, or artifacts I produced, are the best way to determine what I have said or what I believe.  And atheists are the best source to find out what atheists believe.

By the way, this is also why I presented quotes from Hitler and laws in Nazi Germany to support my point of view, instead of the mostly unsourced stuff you gave.

Now suppose you want someone to evaluate what I've said.  THEN you would want a secondary unbiased source (which btw I would love because I would like to know if you're as incoherent and logically inconsistent as I think, or if it's just me.  Seriously, if anyone is actually reading at this point feel free to chime in or PM me.  I'm curious what an unbiased source wout think).  So, if I wanted to know if the Aryan Brotherhood is biggoted or racist, I should probably look for an unbiased source.  But, if I wanted to know what they believe, then I should probably look to a primary source, for example by asking the Aryan Brotherhood or looking at their literature.  Because, you know, they know the most about what they believe.  Cause they believe it.

lol anyway i'm done here... with regards to the main issue of hitler being an atheist i posted various articles that deal with where his ideology developed

from

And even if those sources were worth anything, they're not, none of them said anything about Hitler being an atheist.  I'm not sure why you will not answer my questions with a simple yes or no. 

I can read the articles , and even if they were worth reading, that wouldn't tell me what YOU think.  People can read the same articles and reach different conclusions. 

I'm not trying to be a jackass (at other parts I am, but not here) but I have no idea what your point of view is.  I have asked you several times to clarify it.  It wouldn't be hard.  All you'd have to say is "I think Hitler was a(n) _____________.  It is very telling that you won't even write down your opinion in a clear statement.  At least the weasling away from them is amusing. You have a bright future in politics.

if you are interested then you can look into what i posted and if you are not then continue attacking theists for being blind followers without considering perhaps that we all have been mislead by varying degrees even the high and mighty atheists of the world

Well, if you're done here, then I at least give you credit for ending it the way you started.  With dishonesty, adhominen attacks, and again resorting to pathetic strawment attacks on me.  I have not at any point (at least not in this discussion) attacked theists at all.  I have not said anything about theists being blind followers (I don't think I have in any other topics and I am 100% sure I didn't in this one).  So that's another apology I'm owed.  By the way, I'm a big fan of edible arrangements, so if you want to send your apology in the form of fruit, that'd be lovely.  You are of course welcome to back up any of these claims you made about me with quotes, but every time I've given you that opportunity you've failed to do so.  I don't know if you're a pathological liar, if you're only hearing what you want, the education system failed you, if English is not your primary language, if you are too young to formulate a coherent argument, or if you just realise you have no legit arguments and need to resort to strawman attacks, but the only one who has made any sort of attack on any group of people is you. 

You've claimed atheists worship man, which I find offensive (I certainly don't worship man.  If anything, I worship women, and even then, only the pretty ones).  You've claimed atheists claim there is no god, which many atheists would take issue with (probably wouldn't be too upset, but would tell you you're wrong).  You've claimed all humanists are atheists, which a whole lot of Christians who consider themselves humanists would take issue with, and you've claimed that the Catholic church perverted (your word, and I'll be happy to quote you if need be) the teachings of Jesus.  And your claim (again without any backing) that apparently atheists have misled us is the cherry on top of your hypocrisy flavored cake. 

As for me, my position has been pretty simple.  Hitler was not an atheist.  I have provided a lot of evidence to support that position, and you have not brought forth anything to go against it.  Despite several reasonable attempts to gain clarification, and despite the fact that other people, including germans with a far better grasp on the use of nordic symbols and what they mean, have disagreed with you, you have yet to clarify your position, present evidence, or counter the evidence I've presented.. 

Since you have, despite several requests, refused to state your opinion clearly or defend it,  I'll graciously accept your concession, and hope that in the future you will look into a topic before making yourself look foolish. 

World would be heaven without religions.

Man has an innate need for religion to sate his ego, his desire to be loved among all things created. The real world has proven this ideal to be a fallacy. So many before us have died on this planet with no protector and there with be no protector for us for as far as facts have shown we only have one another. Our emotions are our biggest weakness as well as a balance to our intellectual progress. Religion causes intellectual progress to stagger though, which is why you will find the countries with the most religion are falling behind in educational competitiveness.

"There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19)

"The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate." (Proverbs 8:13)

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

It seems perfectly consistent for a Christian to hate X since "God" hates X.