coward_anon

How can it be right to forbid denying anything whatsoever? That is thought crime pure and simple. Just because an "international jurisdiction" "recognised" it, doesn't mean a) they got it right and b) new evidence may not come up thus calling for a re-assessment of the whole thing. History is science, nothing is undeniable in science.

"In light of the thousands of eye witness accounts, is it sensible to say that?"

Well, this is funny, because here's the issue on which Dawkins fails completely to apply the principles he advocates we all should.

Incidentally, so do you. You claim thousands of eye witness accounts. Well, how many of those have been independently verified? Furthermore, even the highly know and regarded ones are ridden with inconsistencies and outright lies (I'm thinking Elie Wiesel here).

And even if they were there remains the point that no hard proof whatsoever has been produced to support the claim that the Holocaust as is told today ever happened. No documents exist that don't require a double interpretation to support such claim. No gas chambers that differ any bit from standard delousing chambers used at the time, even in the US, have ever been uncovered. This could go on.

I'm not trying to advocate for one version or the other. That's not the point. The point is, that this issue is NEVER applied the same principles that are applied to a rational inquiry or scientific endeavour or even a case being judged in a court of law. If you don't believe me, well, go and check by yourself. But don't just limit yourself to the Yad Vashem because that's the same as reading the Bible and saying it proves itself (although there are plenty of inconsistencies in the Yad Vashem data curiously).

I admire Dawkins and his work, but the truth is, in the issue of the Holocaust he's as stupid as the people he accuses of being stupid. Even worse, I bet he would viciously defend his stupidity against anyone who would challenge him otherwise.