allgood wrote:I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed ASMarques posts at the Dawkins Forum. It's a long time since I read through them, but when I did I thought you did an outstanding job of courteously standing your ground in the face of blatantly irrational bullying.
Concerning the reason why so many people react in such outlandish fashion to any denial of the corpus of "Holocaust" doctrine, let me tell you that I recently went back, one year after I left, simply in order to post a correction to a minor, but incorrect, bibliographical reference that no one had even pointed out (concerning the "Gas Chambers", not the "Crematories" book by Pressac, where he mentions David Olére's alleged human sausages made in the crematories).
Well, here is the quintessential reaction of a puzzled poster to my short errata message:"Such care for detail and accuracy is very interesting indeed. I mean, you can be deluded to the point of insanity, deny an entire chapter of history that, directly or indirectly, has deeply affected hundreds of millions of individuals, yet care for inconsequential minutiae."
And there you have the reason why, in a nutshell: when one follows a religious creed, one is concerned about keeping one's "feel-good" faith, not in examining the detail or keeping the accuracy that might put it in peril by bringing forth the conflicting truth.
However, the strain that this places on your desire to reject the direct, if unexpressed, experience of what you know deep-down to constitute the only true, and truly mysterious, faith (what you might call "the rational process and the way you use it") is too much to cope with. Hence the anger, the insults, and the frequent appeals to persecution. It's really a defensive stand the believers take, and the only way you can help them is by unleashing their anger, in a calm but provocative way.
Though I'm not really a great fan of shrinks, perhaps we have a few things to learn from their couch tricks. Bring the hate out and you may yet in the long run save another intoxicated soul, while having some discrete fun yourself (alas, I'm afraid no one will pay you for your efforts)...
allgood wrote:I think it is important to take advantage of opportunities like Richard Dawkins' Forum to show how the much maligned so-called Holocaust deniers - at their best - are far more reasonable and rational than their detractors. Few neutral participants have the guts to speak out against Zionist bullying - but I'd be surprised if you didn't expose it for what it is to at least a handful of fair-minded readers.
Exactly so. You should never let the vocal holo-clowns make you forget the silent people that may be following a given exchange. In fact, the abuse-throwing idiots are very useful to the whole proceedings. The ideal situation is when offensive remarks are directed at you and never replied to in kind, while you're getting a public tribune to clearly expound your logical arguments; the stream of insults constitutes the formal aspect that makes it patent to the silent observer that the blind hateful fanaticism, unable to debate the truth, is on the "Holocaust"-peddling side, not yours.
allgood wrote:Not that I'm an atheist myself, BTW. But that's another debate for another place...
In a strict philosophical sense, neither am I. I will actively deny gods with earthly biographies, that may be more properly bundled together with pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, but I don't exactly think that those guys can be tied in with rational -- and rationally inquisitive, i.e. anti-religious -- concepts, philosophical and speculative in nature, such as the extension of some sort of "subjectivity / consciousness" (very much non-humanlike in form) to an unitarian whole. I simply don't know about that, but I don't think it is an absurd debate, nor the larger concept behind it a necessarily unknowable abstraction, given the very fragmentary and obscure comprehension we have of our own human individual subjectivity.
But you're right about that being another debate for another place. We should restrict ourselves here to the foibles of "sacred histories," and that's not a small program to begin with...