Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a correlation between religious fundamentalism and holocaust denying?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 96 (431916)
11-02-2007 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
11-02-2007 8:39 PM


A false dichotomy
All holocaust deniers that I have ever met in my life as well as all the holocaust deniers I have ever known in my life have all been religious fundamentalists, whether they're christian or muslim. The reasons varied from "further research need to be done" to "god is tooo good to allow such a thing to happen".
First of all, is there a correlation between the two ideologies or is it just a coincidence? Also, I'm just curious whether we have holocaust deniers here at EvC. In other words, holocaust deniers, show thyselves.
I've never met an actual holocaust denier before, but a quick Google search states that atheist holocaust deniers exist. Or perhaps the term "fundamentalist" is obscure since a fundamentalist muslim and a fundamentalist christian are worlds apart, insomuch that they fundamentally believe in totally different ideologies.
Maybe the term fundy should be placed over the heads of extremists of any sect, denomination, group, ideologue, or affiliation.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 11-02-2007 8:39 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Jon, posted 11-13-2007 4:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 96 (431927)
11-02-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
11-02-2007 9:13 PM


Pallywood, and the Westerners that believe it
I'm tired of the Holocaust being trotted out to justify every excess of Israel's oppressive actions against Palestinians, so in that sense I "deny" that the Holocaust excuses any conceivable action taken by Jews
Since there is almost always two sides to every story, we should remember that we can't categorize all people in to one group, simply by virtue of... whatever.
And since you are Mr. Empiricism, I thought you might like this series concerning facts about Pallywood, which is fast turning in to a cottage industry. Things aren't always what they seem to be.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2007 9:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 96 (432034)
11-03-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by EighteenDelta
11-03-2007 12:15 AM


Semites: A misused term
Can we stop using the term 'anti-semite'? It has to be the single stupidest term in misuse today. Jews aren't the only semitic people. In fact the largest group of Jew haters often referred to as anti-semites, are in fact semitic peoples. People of Arabic decent are Semites.
Yes, you're absolutely right. Arabs are semites, which makes the term anti-semite not follow. The Jewish people should know the historicity of the word better than most, since it derived from Genesis 10.
Semites are simply the progeny of Shem, one of three sons of Noah. Arabs fall within that category which is explicitly explained in the whole chapter.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-03-2007 12:15 AM EighteenDelta has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 96 (432974)
11-09-2007 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by riVeRraT
11-07-2007 7:46 PM


Re: Holocaust Deniers
First off, I've never heard of the expression holocaust denier. wtf is that?
People that either dispute the amount of people killed or the reason why they were killed. Or people that just pretend it never happened.
I've never met anyone that denied it, but they do exist. Like Taz said, Mel Gibson's father is a raging anti-semite, which obviously has spilled over to some extent in Mel's life.
More currently, the president of Iran is an outspoken holocaust denier.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 11-07-2007 7:46 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2007 12:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 96 (433079)
11-09-2007 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
11-09-2007 12:57 PM


Re: The Holocaust and Evidence
The problem with a genocide like the Holocaust is, imagine trying to try Hitler for the murder of just one of the victims of the Holocaust.
Well, I guess it wasn't too much of a problem since the upper echelon of the Third Reich stood trial for war crimes. The only ones that didn't fled to places like Argentina and Australia. Some were hunted down and stood trials then. Others, like Hitler, decided to commit suicide because he knew the outcome was grim.
If there was enough evidence to convict lesser officers within the SS, then Hitler would have been screwed. Obviously he was aware of that, which is why he chose to take his own life.
If not only that person was killed, but everybody in the town where that person lived was killed, too, and then everybody who knew about that town was either killed or couldn't be found, how exactly would you legally prove that that one person had been alive in the first place? You might find a birth record somewhere, but that would just prove that they had been born. How would you prove that that one person had been in a concentration camp if the only people who could have identified that person were there in the camp with them, and then they were all killed together?
If you are asking whether or not you can piece together the murder for each individual person, sure, that would be exceedingly difficult, and in some cases, impossible. But the Nazi's, for whatever reason, really didn't cover up their tracks very well. In fact, the images we have today of The Final Solution, mostly came from Nazi's themselves. They implicated themselves.
It's fairly difficult to establish the eventual disposition of the millions of Jews who were swept up in the Holocaust. For any given individual it's quite difficult to come to a positive determination about whether or not they died in a concentration camp, fled the country and took refuge somewhere else, potentially under an assumed name, or just disappeared somehow in the chaos of war.
I'm sure a few of them did manage to escape, though we know that the Nazi's took measures in making sure they didn't. The Nazi's controlled all of Germany, Austria, Belgium, etc, etc. That's a long walk through enemy fortified positions. Aside from which, all the people that received settlements were found by Russian, British, and US forces inside the concentrations camps when they were liberated.
And, of course, you can always deny the existence of the gas chambers and mass executions.
Not very convincingly since human remains were strewn all over the place, some fully decomposed, some with rigor mortis and dependent lividity, some in full blown putrefaction, the ovens were found, the Zyklon B was recovered, the showers converted for gas were discovered, the gallows, the incinerators, and, and, and, all found at Aushwitz and the other concentrations camps. About the most a Nazi soldier at the time could say, is that they didn't have any personal involvement.
Who's to say (so argue the deniers) that they weren't simply marched out the other door, clean and healthy, and then taken to some other facility?
Because of the insurmountable evidence. Scroll down and read these documents.
It's only in the convergence of evidence that the Holocaust is undeniable. There's no one, specific piece of evidence that can confirm it beyond all doubt.
Well, you can't identify with complete certainty every single person that was killed in the Holocaust. Of course not. You can only find thousands and millions of remains, and deduce that they are in the rubble, just like how not everyone was recovered from 9/11. But they never came home. They worked there. Planes destroyed two buildings, damaged a third, and was incinerated in the four crashes. Its greatly implied that they died, as there is no other reasonable explanation as to their disappearance since there exists credible evidence that they did in fact die in the place they were supposed to be.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2007 12:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2007 10:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 43 by Taz, posted 11-09-2007 10:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 96 (433262)
11-10-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
11-09-2007 10:07 PM


Re: The Holocaust and Evidence
It's hard to determine precisely who died as a result of their actions.
On an individual basis, yes, some were harder to prove than others. The German people have always been a meticulous bunch. I don't know if that's just social perception, but it certainly seems that way. Some people's families were fortunate enough to have uncovered documentation supporting the notion that their loved one was indeed killed at [pick one] concentration camp. Others, I'm sure, were not nearly as fortunate. All they know is that their family had been taken away, but never came back.
Look, it's a known problem with genocide. That's one of the reasons that the courts that try war criminals operate somewhat differently than criminal courts.
Yes, it was a problem in the case of Idi Amin, and as you said elsewhere, with Slobodan Milosevic-- as far as it relates to individuals.
Would that justice have proceeded completely according to the rules of jurisprudence? It's a little ridiculous to talk about hypothetical trials but I imagine some corners would have been cut.
You mean like a rigged court? While the trial was going on, I remember wondering what would have happened had the Iraqi people pulled an O.J. on Saddam. I wonder if the US would have ensured, by hook or by crook, that he went down for his war crimes.
All I'm saying is, these are the facts of the situation, and they're what give Holocaust deniers rhetorical purchase.
I agree. There are enough unknowns that you and I may seem as self-evident, that the conspiracy theorists use as license to prop up theories on.
But you can't escape the convergence of all the evidence. Agreed?
Agreed.
An interesting trait among conspiracy theorists is that, usually, they believe in all of them or most. For instance, if someone believes that Tupac and Biggie Smalls are living on some island laughing their way to the bank, you can pretty much be certain that they also believe Roswell, 9/11, JFK, Moon landing, etc, etc too.
Why is that? Does it add intrigue to their life that they feel they are missing? What about the uncertainty that is so alluring to these kind of people? Why are they apt to believe it just because its controversial? Do they just want to be called esoteric-- the guy who has the inside scoop where the rest of us are unaware?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2007 10:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2007 9:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 96 (433280)
11-10-2007 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
11-10-2007 9:56 PM


Re: The Holocaust and Evidence
It's fairly difficult to find someone who rejects all woo and conspiracy theories - a skeptic, in other words.
I wouldn't necessarily call conspiracy theorists, "skeptics." Obviously, for face value, they are skeptical of a paradigm. Noted. However, the people that refer to themselves as skeptics (such as Michael Shermer), are not swayed by anecdotal evidence-- or so they say.
It reminds me of an episode of Penn and Teller where they set out to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In the show, it features a man on a stage saying, rather vehemently, that nothing can make him believe that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. At that, Penn blasts him saying, (paraphrasing) "NOTHING will make you believe otherwise? Then you aren't a true skeptic, because a skeptic demands to be proven otherwise."
In that sense, I agree with Penn that such people are not true skeptics, even though they might be skeptical of a certain paradigm.
It's much more common to find persons who hold one or two unsupportable beliefs, like a belief in aliens, or Bigfoot, or Jesus; but when they're exposed to the proponents of another scam, who are using precisely the same arguments in favor of their position as the first group, they can't seem to get along.
I don't see it that way, generally speaking. If one believes 9/11 was a conspiracy, chances are, he thinks JFK and Roswell was too. These are the kind of people that play Tivo reruns of the X-Files in their dark and dank basement. I'm sure you know the type.
quote:
Does it add intrigue to their life that they feel they are missing?
You tell me, NJ. You fell for the creationist scam and Christianity. What was missing in your life that you felt you needed a magic Sky Fairy to fulfill?
There's a flipside to that coin my friend, which should make it easy to see a clear motive behind it all. The mere fact that people devote countless hours trying to prove the non-existence of "Sky Fairies" is extremely telling of their disposition. It would be one thing simply to not believe. Its a whole other thing to try and find satisfying reasons why a God wouldn't exist.
There must be something disturbingly gratifying for an atheist to try and bash someone's time honored beliefs for no apparent reason. Perhaps they are trying to persuade themselves more than the other person.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2007 9:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2007 12:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 55 by Rrhain, posted 11-13-2007 12:09 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024