Is there a correlation between religious fundamentalism and holocaust denying?

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."

No, I do not. It is so outlandish to me, that if I ever did hear it, it would have stuck. I don't see how you compare those two, or quantify that statement. Willful ignorance? Having never heard a term?
Ultimate insult? WTF are you trying to say? Just come out and say it.
I never heard of it, and now that I have, as I have stated several times already, I find it incredibly stupid, and almost not worthy of me even paying any attention to it. Yes, it is a great insult to those who suffered, but I am not the one doing the insulting, or should you be putting that blame on me.I was going to say in my last post that your ignorance on this is the root of your prejudice, but I refrained. Now it is clear that it is the root of your prejudice. Not only can't you understand how people can live their lives not knowing everything, (maybe because you think you know everything yourself) you then start to hate people for it, then call them names on it. What's next? I am a anti-semitic because I never heard the term holocaust denier? Who gives a shit, and what does that have to do with what I said about it? Those are not well publicized events. Where do you come up with this stuff? Why am I talking to you?

Wow.
Operation Overlord = The invasion of Normandy. Y'know that little D-Day thing.
Operation Barbarossa = The Nazi invasion of The USSR.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

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".

What is your definition of meaningful? Slavish agreement and praise of you? That your opinions count more than anyone else because you count more than anyone else? Sure there is, it's an atheist who uses the same tactics as a fundamentalist to silence opposition.Tactics such as:1. Redefining common words such as culture, race, philosophy, economics, etc. just to convince one of the delusion they 'won' as opposed to contribute meaningfully to any discussion.2. Demanding utterly unique systems of classifying knowledge not used by any earthly entity such as history is part of anthropology, or hand basket weaving is part of engineering, or conversely, the study of logic is not part of philosophy.3. Repeatedly accusing any opponent of holding to beliefs they explicitly state they do not such as "everything is philosophy."4. Repeatedly using strawmen arguments (see above).5. Claiming that various people who have not given any statement of support for specific points agree with you when there is no evidence they have. Such as claiming Ben or Nator agree with your position that economics "contributes nothing to human knowledge."6. Claiming victory in the face of universal opposition such as what occurred when you were the only person arguing Hispanic is a race instead of a culture.7. Falsely claiming your opponents arguments support your positions.I say if you get to make up non-standard definitions and classification systems just to set up and knock down a straw man, then Jon gets to create a new phrase to describe such behavior on the part of any given 'fundamentalist atheist.'At least you haven't argued against the holocaust, so far as I know, so I guess such fundamentalist debate methods are not related to holocaust denying in this specific case.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

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?

I know they don't teach them in American schools. That's why I said I can understand if you go through life never having heard of those terms.And yes, I am a history buff, particularly WW2. Give me a pen and a piece of paper and I'll write out for you in detail each major event in WW2. I'll even tell you all about how Hitler got fooled into believing the Normandy Beach landing was just a diversion.Again, I fully realize that these are not very well known facts, so I don't care if you know them or not. But there are certain things that people really do need to know, even in the most general term.For example, people might not recognize "blitzkrieg", but they should at least heard of the Phony War. They might not recognize "luftwaffe" but they should have heard somewhere about the maginot line. I'm not saying they necessarily have to know what these things are, but they should have at least heard the words somewhere. These are facts that have ingrained themselves in our culture.A little side note. Funny true story.One time I was waltzing along minding my own bussiness and deep in thought about something I can't remember right now. All the sudden, an old man tapped me on the shoulder and I turned around. With him was a young woman. He asked me, "In one word, tell me why Oedipus killed his father and married his mother?"Still being dumbfounded by this stranger's question, I said "fate".He then briefly explained to me that his friend there had never heard of Oedipus and he was just trying to prove to her that any random person on the street would know what he was talking about. He then thanked me and we each went on our merry way.Anyway, our conversation has just reminded me of that encounter.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Ok, I have been a little harsh on riverrat. I apologize for that. I guess I've been living a sheltered life.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

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.

quote:

---

Dictionary.com (emphasis added)

​

fun·da·men·tal·ism
-noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

---

Oh well.... looks like you can't win 'em all .Jon

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

So... can there be such a thing as a 'fundamental atheist'?

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.

Man... you'd think someone broke your rattle or something.Perhaps you should start a thread in which you take each word of the dictionary and give us all a crashfrog denition. That way, when we debate with you, we can all be in an agreement on what word to use. For example, when we need to say "dishonest" we can use "fundamentalist"; and when we want to say "describe" we can use "belittle". Otherwise, I do not see how every debate with you is not going to end up breaking down into a semantics disagreement in which you refuse to accept a denition of a word that is otherwise agreed upon by every other speaker of English.Sounds good, eh?Jon

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.