Honestly, why do people find it so hard to equate holocaust with Soviet Russia's mass exterminations? The only real difference I can see is that one was condemned after the War, while the other was purposefully not talked about, so as to not piss off the Reds.
A simple cursory familiarity with the topic would tell you that the holocaust was intentional murder while the soviet mass killings were the plundering of resources, the time frame was different, the motives were different, the organazational choices were different, pretty much every damn thing was different. That enough for you?
Paradigms aren't about blindly assuming things are identical, they are about making coherant comparisons realizing the differences.
That's actually a good point: if there's no shortage of records about the holocaust, then why is it so difficult to compile a comprehensive list of names of victims, killed by the Nazi Germany in concentration camps? For some reason, there are only estimates out there, varying as wildly as 1 to 6 milion. What the hell? We're talking about the Germans here, they must've had population censuses back then.
I have absolutely no clue where you are getting those numbers. 1 million is a number pushed by the denial movement. All mainstream sources are in agreement that the number of jews killed is roughly five to seven million. The exact number is hard to pin down because, obviously, the victems to stay alive, which complicated the record keeping process. Also, there is room for differences in methodology with an census interpretation. While the mainstream sources might advance slightly different numbers, they would support each others numbers as methodology as being good and would agree that the different figures make sense given the various assumptions and methodologies. There is no controversy outside the denialists. The known, well recorded, jewish deaths alone are a bit more then five million, a million deaths is nothing but a denialist position.
So yeah, the problem isn't that the matter is clear, the problem is you are under informed.
If you need religion to see why we need to do good and to realize that life is worth living, you must lead a very empty life. Isn't compassion enough to make you do good, and isn't your appreciation for beauty and ability to see it enough to make you want to live? If anyone honestly finds themselves needing religion to remind them that they need to do good, they must be some kind of heartless monster. You should never need or use religion as a reason to do good; you should do good out of your love for your fellow man. If a religion happens to advocate doing that without any self-destructive beliefs, I support it. The majority of religions, however, are not like that, at least not in practice.
The issue, however, is the importance of science versus religion. A world without science would be worse to live in than a world without religion, in my opinion. Science cures diseases and allows us to feed more people. Many of the problems facing the world today could be solved by science. There is always the possibility of a problem being solved in the near future by it. By contrast, religion does not work to solve problems. It will not cure African Sleeping Sickness, or any other diseases. Although it may help some of the less compassionate people in the world find a reason to help others, it is not nearly as important as science.
Religion can be replaced by human kindness. The things that science gives us cannot. Both have caused problems throughout history, but science has been the force that brings us things that can help our world in a profound way.
To clarify, here are some beliefs I hold which apparently you thought I disagreed with:
I don't need religion to be a good person. I'm a good person because my parents raised me right so I do good things.
Religion doesn't have concrete effects. Science does.
Religion is not kindness.
Yes, religion isn't essential. TV isn't essential and for 8 weeks out of 12, I live without it. But during the third of the time when TV is available to me, I like TV. It has a positive impact on my life, brings me happiness. Likewise, not everyone is going to be helped by religion all the time. But there are billions of people who are helped by religion, it gives them happiness and helps them live better lives. Sure, it's not the only thing that will work for them. But it's a good thing. I practice religion and other routes towards the examined life: literature, bay12, science, learning about world events. Religion doesn't require that me or any one else eschew other ways to a positive life. Religious
intolerance is what compels people to do that.
You can't blame the sin of religious intolerance upon all of religion. That would be highly ignorant towards the reasons why people become intolerant. Do you really think a religion who's central tenant is love towards all with no exceptions, is inherently intolerant? Because that is the central tenant of Christianity (according to Christ) which is the most practiced faith in the world. Look at any other large religious movement and you will find similarly benign principles. We taint religion with intolerance for the same reason we taint anything with intolerance, because humans aren't perfect.
When I examine my own life, I am firmly of the opinion that my faith has been a positive influence. I think I would have been a good person without religion. But religion pushed me to be better then I would have been otherwise, it has pushed me to re-examination, charity, honesty with myself.
There are wackos who seek out the intolerant side of religion like there are wackos who have subverted science towards intolerance (social darwinism, eugenics, Christopher Hitchens
) But most people aren't religious for the tolerance. They are religious for positive reasons.
You said that if there is a faith which tells you to love others and take no self destructive action, you would support it. Well, my faith has always pushed me towards love and has never lead me to harm myself. My faith is Roman Catholicism, which is the largest religious sect in the world today. Yes, there's tons of people who have used Catholicism towards intolerant ends. But is that surprising in a movement of a billion people and a two thousand year history? Examine the religion itself and you will see nothing but benign principles. Look at all the good in the world those principles have done.
Author
Topic: How can people still not believe in the Holocaust? (Read 15738 times)