4 ms·

There's something rational about looking at historical events and asking if it's unlikely, likely, or strongly likely that they happened at all. For example, I

There's something rational about looking at historical events and asking if it's unlikely, likely, or strongly likely that they happened at all. For example, I have heard of a handful of Germans today who for one reason or another say the Holocaust never happened. In light of the thousands of eye witness accounts, is it sensible to say that? Another example, there are atheists today who for one reason or another say the Resurrection never happened, and not necessarily because they have ever looked into the historical primary and secondary sources. In light of the hundreds of people who died at Roman hands in the 1st century, refusing to recant that they had seen the risen Lord, is it sensible to label their testimony a delusion, or inherited from their parents, without any thorough investigation at all? As for those who had seen Christ themselves: "I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God's church." "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep." Are the New Testament sources primary, accurate, unbiased, trustworthy? When were they written? Have they been corrupted or do we read them as they wrote them? How many sources are there inside and outside of the New Testament? Are they independent? Are they coherent? Here are some people who have tried to address these questions: Paul Barnett, "Is the New Testament history?" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-History-Paul-Barnett/dp/0892833815 http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-History-Paul-Barnett/dp/...) FF Bruce, "New Testament Documents" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/dp/0802822193/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316091359&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/...)

coward_anon 15y ago
"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.
- jorangreef 15y ago
  I'm sure you are more painfully familiar with the matter than I am. I have an adopted Jewish aunt. Her mother and father put her on one of the last trains to leave Germany for England. At the last second her mother pushed her baby sister through the window to her. She never saw her parents again. I have a Jewish friend who's grandfather was one of the last survivors of a concentration camp, and who walked to Israel and started repairing shoes on the streets of Tel Aviv. I live across the road from the South African Jewish Museum, and I have seen the photographs. I am not a historian and I do not claim to be one, but I think it's sensible to say that something happened, and that hundreds of thousands of people died and were affected. Furthermore, anyone who would suggest these things never happened would have some "explaining away" to do.

coward_anon 15y ago

"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.

jorangreef 15y ago
I'm sure you are more painfully familiar with the matter than I am. I have an adopted Jewish aunt. Her mother and father put her on one of the last trains to leave Germany for England. At the last second her mother pushed her baby sister through the window to her. She never saw her parents again. I have a Jewish friend who's grandfather was one of the last survivors of a concentration camp, and who walked to Israel and started repairing shoes on the streets of Tel Aviv. I live across the road from the South African Jewish Museum, and I have seen the photographs. I am not a historian and I do not claim to be one, but I think it's sensible to say that something happened, and that hundreds of thousands of people died and were affected. Furthermore, anyone who would suggest these things never happened would have some "explaining away" to do.