an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Creationist, Comparable to Holocaust Deniers?

This is Keith Gilmour, writing on the 21st Floor

Creationists and holocaust deniers, however, offer a third option – but, by requiring the rejection of overwhelming scientific/historical evidence, rule themselves out of any serious discussion and therefore ‘neither’ should be invited into schools to “talk to pupils.” And they exclude themselves further via everything else that they have in common. To wit, both object that a minority of highly educated people reject what 99% of scientists/historians accept – and that this fringe group will eventually be proved right. (For holocaust deniers, see Paul Rassinier, Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz, The Institute for Historical Review, and etc). Both are notorious for quoting experts out of context (to give the misleading impression their crank view has some serious support), for mischaracterising scholarly debate (on details) as a failure to agree even on the basics, and for seizing upon any mistake (however minor) to argue that the entire field of study is riddled with incompetence, ignorance and deception. Both rely on a kind of ‘book disproved by its missing pages’ reasoning and are forever demanding ‘caught in the act’ evidence before they’ll believe a single thing (though usually only in this area of life). Both groups imagine themselves to be victims of a massive conspiracy that shuts them out of some imagined ‘debate’ and both accuse their critics of misunderstanding them (like we think holocaust deniers imagine no killings took place at all and evolution deniers believe nothing has evolved, anywhere – ever). Call them evolution/holocaust sceptics, if that seems more appropriate!

Read the rest of his excellent article by clicking here.

Single Post Navigation

10 thoughts on “Creationist, Comparable to Holocaust Deniers?

  1.      It concerns me when people compare creationism with holocaust-denial. First there is the blatent appeal to ridicule. But there is also the fact that, if the holocaust was invented there would be no way to tell.     For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the camps were built after the war was over. That is a logical implication of the belief that the holocaust was invented. At the time, there would be physical evidence that they were "too new." (With the passage of nearly seventy years, any such evidence would be lost.) Ordinarily, I would accept an argument of "why didn't someone present this evidence at the time?" But there is a small problem. The governments passed legislation forbidding anyone to so much as question the event publicly. This doesn't make sense in the face of a real event (but governments do many things that don't make sense.) But it makes perfect sense if they are trying to protect an invented "justification" for bombing campaigns against civilian targets. Based on the laws in effect, if someone had, and tried to present, evidence that the holocaust was fictional, he would have been thrown in jail and the evidence would never see the light of day. If the holocaust was faked (and I certainly can't prove it was) then a perfect impenetrable seal was made so that no one can prove it. If it is real, then the same seal prevents demonstration of the fact.     But there is another concern. "Approved" ideas are allowed to be heard and even encouraged in the school system. "Unapproved" ideas are, in actual fact, suppressed and not allowed to see the light of day. To me, it sounds very Orwellian. Believing the Allies invented war crimes to justify their own dubious actions becomes a "thoughtcrime." And that should chill anyone whether they agree with that belief or not.

  2. The full horror of the Holocaust wasn't realised until after the war, it wasn't used to justify the events as they were happening. There are plenty of survivors of the holocaust who would give evidence as to just how real it was.

  3.      "The full horror of the Holocaust wasn't realised until after the war, it wasn't used to justify the events as they were happening."     The hypothesis would be that it was invented to justify the actions after the fact. That is was used (at least opportunistically) to justify Hiroshima and other civilian bombing campaigns is pretty much a given. Whether it was real or invented is not.     "There are plenty of survivors of the holocaust who would give evidence as to just how real it was."     Are you seriously trying to tell me that, under the assumption that the Allied Powers decided to fabricate war crimes that they could not present invented witnesses as well? The opportunity for "this could not be faked" is gone.     But the bigger question is should some things be thoughtcrime? I get that you believe that the holocaust was real. I even get that most people tend to trust what their governments say. But whether dissent (even or perhaps especially what you consider unreasonable dissent) should be heard or suppressed is the important issue. Because if you give a government a category of dissent that can "reasonably" be outlawed, sooner or later, all dissent will be defined to fall within that category.

  4. The holocaust happened, get over it.Christians in general hated Jews in those days too, get over it. Some still do, it would appear.

  5.      "The holocaust happened, get over it."     And that, dear sir, is the sum total of all the evidence you have to support the assertion. It is supported, not by bringing evidence (which may, at one time, have been possible) but by suppressing dissent.     "Christians in general hated Jews in those days too, get over it. Some still do, it would appear."     Let me help you out with this one as well. First off, there have been no posts by christians here. Second questioning whether an alleged crime actually happened or was a government fabrication in no way implies hatred of the supposed victims. Saying that the alleged crime was actually a good thing and that the victims "deserved it" would qualify as hatred.     Whether the holocaust happened or it didn't (and I have never made an assertion one way or the other because I can't) the Allied Forces have destroyed the evidence. Either proposition is consistent with any evidence that we can actually gather. And, any more, whether it is fact or fiction has no impact on day-to-day life.     On the other hand, it would appear that Eurasia is alive and well. Some people support the idea that anyone who engages in "thoughtcrime" should be silenced. That is what you are saying when you say "get over it." Why should anyone "get over it" if he thinks that governments are abusing laws to silence critics? You may love Big Brother; but I do not.

  6. Got any reason why the government would make up the story of the holocaust? How would they get the other allied governments to go along with it? It has nothing to do with "Big Brother" or "1984". It simply happened. Besides having talked to people who were there and saw it for themselves, there is Russia. During the "cold war" Russia would have loved to expose a USA coverup or conspiracy.It happened, don't worry another minute about that it might be "Big Brother" in action.

  7.      "Got any reason why the government would make up the story of the holocaust?"     Read back through the previous comments.     "How would they get the other allied governments to go along with it?"     It was in the interest of all the Allied Forces.     "During the 'cold war' Russia would have loved to expose a USA coverup or conspiracy."     But not one in which it was complicit. People seem to forget that the Soviet Union was among the Allied Forces.     Oh, I know it's Big Brother in action, whether the events are real or fictitious. Big Brother is about quashing dissent.

  8. Heh heh, Th' big brother may be reading this thread right now – I mean, they could, couldn't they? "They"? Well, don't vote for "them" any more and … "they" will disappear and go home and draw their pensions.I read all the above and there was no outlawing of dissent concerning the holocaust. What makes you think there was? Did you ever hear of anyone being thrown in jail because they didn't believe the holocaust happened?Well, maybe "they" didn't put a man on the moon either – could have been faked, you know.

  9. Corky:     In Europe, there was. And I believe in some countries there still is. Any evidence would need to be gathered in Europe, and in Germany in particular. Here is a link for you.     "Well, maybe 'they' didn't put a man on the moon either – could have been faked, you know."     Well, it is possible. It's not there are regular flights allowing people to examine the original footprints. But at least no country has passed a law criminalizing moon-landing denial.

  10. Pvblivs, it's true that there are a couple of countries where Holocaust denial is a crime, but that's not the case across the majority of Europe. The overwhelming evidence, including eyewitness accounts from victims, is that the Holocaust happened. Surely if it had been faked the German government would be desperately trying to clear their country's name, rather than acknowledging an ugly incident in their past?I understand the point you're making, but I think that the Holocaust is maybe not the event to be making it with.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: