Is there a correlation between religious fundamentalism and holocaust denying?

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, but I certainly don't deny that it happened.Point taken, though, about holocaust denial and fundamentalism. It's not without reason that both creationism and holocaust denial are chapters in Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things", a study of why people come to hold positions supported by no evidence.

I was able to have mine signed by Duane Gish, who is mentioned throughout. My dream is to accrue, like trophies, the signatures of the (living) bullshit artists detailed in the book.

Cheesecake is pie. Don't you watch "Good Eats"?

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. 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?This is similar to the problem they had prosecuting Milosevic for the Bosnian genocides.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.And, of course, you can always deny the existence of the gas chambers and mass executions. I mean who can contradict you? If you saw the inside of the chamber while it was being used to for a mass execution, you died in the execution. And the rooms were originally built to be showers. All the prisoners saw were people who went in one door, and never came out that door. 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?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. This situation is much like the situation with a scientific theory like evolution; deniers of evolution gain much apparent traction from the fact that evolution is supported by a convergence of evidence, not any one single experiment or observation that proves the entire theory.In both cases the situation is like a bridge held up by many pillars. You might dispute that the pillars hold up the bridge at all, and in doing so, you might ask "show me the pillar that holds up the bridge. If you remove it, and the bridge does not fall, then clearly that was not the pillar that held up the bridge. If there's not a single pillar you can take out where the bridge does not fall, then clearly the bridge is not being held up by any of the pillars."It's specious, but that's the kind of specious argument that Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers are both forced to make, because both propositions are supported not by one proof, but by a convergence of much evidence.

Sure, but that really doesn't address the issues I raised in my post. It's hard to determine precisely who died as a result of their actions. At Nuremburg, they knew that millions had; trying to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any specific individual died in the Holocaust is quite difficult.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. Oh, I don't think he would have gone free, no. But, like the Saddam trial, I imagine that courtroom procedure and evidentiary requirements would have taken a backseat to a pre-ordained verdict.They would have strung him up for his actions, doubtless. And doubtless he would have deserved it. 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.All I'm saying is, these are the facts of the situation, and they're what give Holocaust deniers rhetorical purchase. They're wrong, of course; I'm just trying to explain the obstacles people who defend the historic consensus face when grappling with the deniers. Michael Shermer has a whole section on Holocaust denial in Why People Believe Weird Things. That's all I'm saying. That's why the demand by Holocaust deniers for their opponents to do just that - to wit, "name one person proved to have been killed in the Holocaust!" - is so disingenuous. Deniers have answers for all this, of course; "those people died of starvation, disease, and neglect, not execution"; "the ovens were for cremating the already dead", "Zyklon B is an insecticide, used even by the US", "the showers were used for delousing prisoners, as a hygiene measure", "how could gallows have been a means of mass execution", etc.I'm not arguing Holocaust denial, I'm just saying, for any individual point of evidence, the deniers have some rebuttal, usually specious or dishonest. They're much like creationists in that regard.It's in the weight of evidence, taken in total, that the Holocaust (like evolution) simply can't be refuted. I agree, and it's not by coincidence that 9/11 conspiracy theorists use the exact same arguments to deny that there were any passengers on the jets, etc. It's because you can appear to deny anything with the techniques the denialists use.But you can't escape the convergence of all the evidence. Agreed?

Really? I find it the exact opposite. It's fairly difficult to find someone who rejects all woo and conspiracy theories - a skeptic, in other words. 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.It's weirdly inconsistent, like they're picking dogma from a Chinese menu. "Sure, Jesus, Bigfoot, and moon hoaxes I can believe in; what? Aliens, homeopathy, and Holocaust denial? What are you, some kind of crank?" 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?

Er, I'm not. Quite the opposite. How did you manage to misunderstand me so completely? Why? Why aren't those the exact same thing? To reject a proposition without any sort of reason for doing so isn't good skepticism, either. Obviously, as atheists we come up with rationale for holding atheist positions. Why wouldn't we? It's not for "no apparent reason", and it's not "bashing." It's addressing the claims of religion to defend ourselves against the persecution of religionists.What, Christians are the only people who can talk about what they believe? I might just as easily ask you why you feel the need to bash gays all the time. Very suspicious!

That's a good one. The pretzels episode has permanent residence on my MythTV box. Custard pie, according to Alien Elvis. Not to make an argument from authority, but if Alien Elvis says it, it must be true. (I guess that is an argument from authority.)

I wonder when you're going to contribute meaningfully to any topic. Please don't mistake the utter impotence of your arguments for any particular intractability on the part of your opponents.There's no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist."

You have to be a military history buff to have remembered the military code-names for those things, particularly the German ones.They certainly don't teach them in American schools. We call D-Day "D-Day", not "Operation Overlord".

How about - something that advances discussion of the topic, not thinly-veiled personal attacks and sniping? That would make them dishonest, not a "fundamentalist", unless you're redefining words, and we all know how much you hate that.If you have something to say about the Philosophy topic, Ang, then the place for that is the Philosophy topic, or perhaps in a successor, not here in a completely unrelated thread.Like Jon you appear to have a problem where you think its appropriate to bring personal attacks into threads where they're not related. What's the deal with that?

No need, I know all about it; I just can't remember the military code-name of the operation. Operation Malta or something? (Or was the body dropped at Malta? I can't recall.)But, hey, They choose the operation code-names deliberately so that they're unconnected to the specifics of the operation, so that they can refer to them in potentially compromised channels without giving away operational details. "Operation Land an Invasion Force on the Normandy Coast" kinda gives away the game, doesn't it? I agree, but, you know, you have no idea what Phat knows, and I'm sure he could prepare a list of "must-knows" that would leave you scratching your head.I don't mean to harp or get nasty, but I think it's in somewhat poor taste to fault someone because they're not as into a particular area of trivia as someone else - even if you don't think it's "trivia" at all. (To some degree it's not, but then, to some degree it is.) Why don't we save our opprobrium for those of us who know nothing about a field but don't have the honesty to admit it?And, you know? It's a good sign that you can live your life and not know that there's a serious intellectual movement to deny one of the most significant acts of the 20th century. It means that Holocaust deniers have failed to gain much traction in popular culture. Well, it's actually "hubris", which might be an ironic lesson for you.

Speaking of redefining words, since when did "willing to be convinced at any time by sufficient evidence" mean "strict adherence"?

With no fundament to be fundamental about? I don't see how there could be. It's just an empty insult used to belittle people who don't show adequate deference to religious nonsense."Militant atheist" is the exact same way.

I have no idea what you think you're talking about.I'm sorry, Jon, that you're not so astoundingly and obviously brilliant that I find myself forced to agree with your every position simply because you espouse it.At any point, if you'd like to begin supporting your positions with evidence and not simply with accusations about how intractable and unreasonable I'm always being, then we might find ourselves in agreement about something. (God, I can't imagine why you find my approval so necessary, though.)On the other hand, if you insist on acting like a petulant infant simply because you've been asked to defend your assertions with something more than personal attacks, don't expect people to be bowled over by your arguments. Your entire contribution to the Philosophy thread was essentially "if you don't agree with me right now you're some kind of idiot creationist", and then when - shockingly - that failed to produce the desired results, you began polluting two other unrelated threads with personal attacks.What explanation can you possibly have for your outrageous behavior? Who am I to you that you feel the need to insult me in two different threads just to get my attention? What, you think you're going to insult me into liking you?It's kind of sad and pathetic.