God and Satan are terms used to represent things. They refer to something. People confuse the name with what it refers to.
If I say "That thing over there." while pointing to a dog. People would probably starting calling the dog 'Thing' or 'That' instead of 'dog'
Hey Dante let's not fall into this same trap.
Instead of arguing over what is meant by empathy or instinct..
sorry to disappoint you, but...
Not to worry if that is a dead end, let's pick up here,
I'd like to understand where you are coming from and how you see things:
Ignoratio elenchi jump to: navigation, search
Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. Ignoratio elenchi falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies. It is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.
How nice that you disagree about the sincerity of Hitler's political beliefs, yet agree with the sincerity of Gandhi's political beliefs. What does the how and why, of how people develop political beliefs, have to do with the sincerity of those beliefs?
Winston Churchill used to refer to Gandhi as a fakir, in a play on words. 
One fantasy you appear to connect very well with is Hitler as a one-dimensional stick figure. Hitler was a very complex individual of great presence and being.
I think fate was served well, but humanity was not. Better if Hitler had faced trial and judgement in an extra-judicial process. The man became a super-human myth that even his enemies are prone to give too much power to.
Myth and symbolism. 
Mahatma Gandhi Album- Churchill on Gandhi "It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor." - Winston Churchill, 1930
Dear Dante: I applaud your willingness to objectively examine Hitler and Gandhi under the same microscope and try to avoid bias associated with these two figures.
1. I hope you will reply to my comment on why you expect to assess or compare these two men by the fact they were "both killed by others" since that action of killing them would reflect equally or more on the motivation of the "killers" and their reasons for acting, not so much on whatever their targets were doing which is their responsibility.
2. As for your showing the flip side, that Gandhi could also have been acting in insincere or negative ways and not always for the best interest of others, this reminds me of the question I had to answer for a philosophy essay in college on whether intentions or outcome were more important. I made a square that showed all the possibilities
1. good intent --> good outcome
2. good intent --> bad outcome
3. bad intent --> good outcome
4. bad intent --> bad outcome
Even though it was not a perfect argument, I basically said that if
someone started with a good intent, the WORST that could happen
is good intent/bad outcome (and the best scenario was still possible
of good intent/good outcome both but not the worst scenario of bad intent/bad outcome).
And if someone started out with
a bad intent, the BEST that could happen was bad intent/good outcome
(and the worst scenario could also happen, of bad intent/bad outcome but
not the best scenario of good intent/good outcome.
So I argued it was better to start out with good intent
because at worst you would "break even" if things still came out bad,
and be 50/50 with someone starting out with
bad intent that actually came out good unintentionally,
and also starting out with good intent was the only way to
get the best scenario of good intent/good outcome.
In your case you were saying both men could be sincere
and have different outcomes.
So can we talk about what QUALITY of their intentions
it was that made the difference in the outcomes?
To be fair could we consider Hitler's and Gandhi's
intentions as being 50/50 to be equal -- that they could have both
"sincerely intended" to do something they deemed necessary to solve problems,
and we can count them as having equal positive impact on their supporters
as negative impact on their opponents if you want to treat them as equal.
And you can even count that what followed both these men, good and bad, moved people historically in the future in positive ways to try to improve the human condition
(and others to be destructive and kill people, including them if you count that as equal).
Both inspired people to change the world to avoid the ills of the past as they saw it.
However, if you look at the WAY they inspired people to work,
and look at the actions and motivations of the people in the
actual movements around these men,
can you see the moral difference?
Even if Hitler had equal "sincerity" and even just intentions
behind the destruction he preached and/or
forced on people if you blame him for that and not the people who followed him,
and Gandhi had some negative drawbacks with his positive teachings
and influence, can you see that the work done by others around these
men WAS different morally due to the SPIRIT of how they worked?
That Hitler worked with the idea of retribution by killing off relations with people
but Gandhi was focused on restoration by rebuilding relations with people.
Gandhi never preached any kind of problem solving by blaming
others much less killing off such persons, but promoted the idea
of changing the world globally by changing oneself locally to influence others.
Do you acknowledge that the difference in spirit of approach
makes one morally uplifting toward sustainable growth and solutions
while the other is problematic and incites more backlash and self-destruction?
In your own objective terms, what do you call this difference?
Do you see one approach as FEAR based and one as LOVE based?
What terms do you use, and we can try to use those to show alignment.
r/
