Comments by Scientifical Madness

Comment #161979 by Scientifical Madness on April 15, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Institute for Historical Review:

The IHR at the crossroads

IHR published the non-peer-reviewed Journal of Historical Review.

The IHR was originally founded by Dave McCalden (also known as Lewis Brandon), a former member of the National Front, and Willis Carto, the head of the now-defunct Liberty Lobby. Dave McCalden left the IHR, and Willis eventually lost control of it, in an internal power struggle. Liberty Lobby was an antisemitic organization best known for publishing The SPOTLIGHT, now reorganized as the American Free Press. The current head of the IHR is Mark Weber.

Beginning in 1979, IHR publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." This money (and an additional $40,000) was eventually paid in 1985 to Auschwitz survivor Mel Mermelstein, who sued the IHR for breach of contract for initially ignoring his evidence (a signed testimony of his experiences in Auschwitz). As a result of Mermelstein's case, a U.S. Superior Court in California declared the Holocaust an indisputable legal fact.

According to British historian of Germany Richard J. Evans:

Like many individual Holocaust deniers, the Institute as a body denied that it was involved in Holocaust denial. It called this a 'smear' which was 'completely at variance with the facts' because 'revisionist scholars' such as Faurisson, Butz 'and bestselling British historian David Irving acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed and otherwise perished during the Second World War as a direct and indirect result of the harsh anti-Jewish policies of Germany and its allies'. But the concession that a relatively small number of Jews were killed was routinely used by Holocaust deniers to distract attention from the far more important fact of their refusal to admit that the figure ran into the millions, and that a large proportion of these victims were systematically murdered by gassing as well as by shooting.

The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)

Bradley Smith and CODOH

In 1987, Bradley R. Smith founded a group called the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust". He is former media director of the "Institute for Historical Review" which is a clearing house for Holocaust denial propaganda.

Holocaust Denial: Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

VHO

What's in a nym?

Many of the articles on the VHO website - though they may look as though they are written by different people - are actually by the same person, using different pseudonyms!

That just about discredits most of the sites that ASMarques has linked to. I can certainly present more information, if necessary.

Myth/Fact Sheets

The Holocaust History Project

2. EXPELLED!

Comment #147894 by Scientifical Madness on March 21, 2008 at 2:15 pm

For those who haven't heard a great deal about this film, Ben Stein has been promoting it by telling pretty much anyone who will listen that evolution doesn't explain where gravity came from, or any of the laws of physics.

There is documented evidence that shows that PZ, Richard and Eugenie Scott were mislead on a grand scale when agreeing to take part in the movie. However, the deal breaker came last night when Wesley Elsberry showed that they had bought the "Expelled" domain name before the interviews were conducted, and as far as we can tell, "Crossroads" or a similar name was never bought.

There are also the emails that PZ, Kristine, et al, all received confirming that their applications had been accepted, and specifically stating that no tickets were required.

It has been a highly amusing episode, with perhaps one exception. The supposed review by Stuart Blessman, which has unfortunately made its way on to a number of Christian websites. It is clearly dishonest, but his own backtracking has conclusively shown this to be so. These were his original words:

"Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in."

This is what he said when challenged about his version of events:

"And since I was literally 3 feet away from Myers when he was "expelled," I heard every word. It was obvious he was being kicked out by theatre management because he was not invited nor was he on the pre-submitted list. He didn't cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out."

I don't understand how you can be "literally 3 feet away from Myers when he was "expelled", and hear "every word", and then not be able to keep a straight story concerning what happened.

It is disappointing to see that people are prepared to go to such lengths, to be honest.

3. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82304 by Scientifical Madness on October 26, 2007 at 2:59 am

I have no intention of not calling myself an atheist. In the UK it is entirely the reverse of the United States. It is far more embarrassing to identify yourself as a theist, than an atheist.

I still maintain that Sam Harris has a point, however. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at Christian and creationist websites, and I have no doubt that there is a campaign to undermine our cause, based on the atheist term, largely, and many believers are credulous enough to swallow what they are told.

I can only speak of those that I have encountered. If there are 240 million Christians in the US, there is literally a limitless supply of new people with the same old questions. That poses a problem, however we look at it.

I am delighted that you are both determined to stick two fingers up at those who are attempting to smear you. It would be advantageous for us to move beyond the current level of discourse, at some point, though.

I am concerned with defeating creationism, at present. Even evolution has been linked to atheism, and the fact that there are people entering universities with the expressed intent of destroying Darwinism is fairly worrying.

As I have previously said, I am willing to accept that my alarm may have a lot to do with my sheer amazement that the greatest country in the history of this planet is having to deal with such stupidity. It is more difficult to explain away the fact that Sam Harris, as well as many of those who I speak to in America (Richard also said that he would have to think about it) are not sure if the collective term is a help or hindrance to our objectives.

In the end, it is entirely a personal choice.

4. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82273 by Scientifical Madness on October 26, 2007 at 1:29 am

Scientifical Madness: No reporter, Atheist or otherwise, would throw the word "atheist" into a question 3 times like that. Neither would a christian reporter. Sam's example is spurious. When speaking with a theist, one need not preface every question, statement, or rebuttal with the phrase, "as an atheist, I..." Usually the label is applied once in the conversation, if at all, and we're off and running.

If one is worried about the "atheist" terminology baggage, then one can use some other word or none at all. Like my previous posts have said, it depends upon context whether a specific label is warranted or not. But some of us will go ahead and take the brunt of the bigotry for you and still use the term "atheist." We'll take the heat, then slowly change the zeitgeist, benefiting all of you who shy away from the label.

I took it as meaning that, as soon as believers know that you are an atheist, they become instantly suspicious. Now, of course that has nothing to do with us, and it most certainly says more about them than anything else, but we have to be realistic. Dare I say, rational. If the situation is as it is, then we have to be prepared to exchange ideas about tactics. I am not even from the United States, so there may be a slight overreaction on my part, but it is evident to me that there are an enormous amount of duplicitous theists in that country, who don't think twice about behaving contrary to all of the supposed teachings of Jesus Christ. I guess that from a tactical stand point it is both necessary and intelligent to plot the most direct path to our eventual aims.

I am quite comfortable with being an atheist, thank you very much. I do know that there are those that are not, however. You remarks were uncalled for, to be honest. This is entirely a question of tactics. Make no mistake, our opponents are busily plotting our downfall as we speak. There is a reason that 80-90% of American citizens are religious.

I suppose that I fear stagnation if we simply continue on as we are, without stated goals. I don't know how many other sites you visit, but I am frankly fed up of answering the same questions over and over again. It may be a consequence of my attention span, though, admittedly.

Don't you worry, I can take the heat, alright. I may die of boredom, though, if I have to explain that lacking a belief in God is not likely to lead to me committing genocide, once more. Or explaining that we did not evolve from apes, and that there is probably more evidence for evolution taking place than all other scientific theories put together.

I get the feeling that the Christian right in America is sending out its foot soldiers, purposefully ignorant, simply to waste my time, and that it doesn't really matter what I say to them, or how many websites that I direct them to - in the words of Greydon Square - they just don't get it!

5. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82241 by Scientifical Madness on October 25, 2007 at 11:23 pm

I have much empathy with Sam's viewpoint, to be honest. This is more of what he has had to say:

"My point, with respect to the term "atheist" (or any other), is that the use of a label invites a variety of misunderstandings that are harmful to our cause. There are many people in this country who do not believe in God and who understand that there is conflict between science and religion, but who do not feel the slightest inclination to join an atheist group or to label themselves in opposition to religion. These people are "atheists" by any measure, but you will never meet them at one of our conventions. They have read the writings of the "new atheists," sent us letters and emails of support, are quite fond of criticizing religion whenever the opportunity arises, but they have no interest whatsoever in joining a cult of such critics. And there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety."

"Imagine President Bush announcing his veto of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research at a White House press conference. A reporter for a major television network can ask one of the following questions. Which would you choose to best strike a blow against religious ignorance in this country?

1. Mr. President, what rational basis is there to worry about the fate of three-day-old human embryos? These embryos do not have nerve cells, much less the nervous systems they would need to suffer their destruction on any level. Your veto, frankly, seems insane to any educated person, and it is painfully obvious that it was the product of religious metaphysics and superstition—not science or morality. Do you ever worry that you may be dangerously misled by your religious beliefs? What can you say to the tens of millions of Americans whose suffering will be needlessly prolonged by your faith-based thinking?

2. Mr. President, as an atheist, let me ask what rational basis is there to worry about the fate of three-day-old human embryos? These embryos don't have nerve cells, much less the nervous systems they would need to suffer their destruction on any level. Your veto, frankly, seems insane to millions of atheists in this country, and it is painfully obvious that it was the product of religious metaphysics and superstition—not science or morality. Do you ever worry that you are failing to represent the interests of millions of atheists who also vote, or that you may be dangerously misled by your religious beliefs? What can you say to the tens of millions of Americans whose suffering will be needlessly prolonged by your faith-based thinking?"

If there is one thing that I have noticed since entering this debate, it is that very few believers (those involved) are principled, or even intellectually honest.

I have been quite shocked by the tactics that they are prepared to employ to defend their position - misrepresentation, flat out deceit, and character assassination is far more common on the other side, in my experience.

This has to be about more than wanting to belong, or an occasional 'hobby', surely? We have an opportunity to make a real difference, and yet we can't even pass first base most of the time due to tired old arguments that I am convinced are being used as a method to wear us down - a stalling tactic. We could simply refer people to literature or websites in the future, if those arguments arise.

I am proud to be an atheist, but we cannot ignore the fact that the other side are prepared to use dirty tricks. I fear that, for the most part, we are simply talking past each other at the moment. There are too many important issues that require urgent attention.

If we simply state that we want to rid the Western world of fear and superstition, we are liable to lose key battles due to the fact that too many American's - those who would ordinarily be on our side - don't want to be associated with what is unfortunately a misunderstood, and dare I say it, 'dirty' word.

6. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81621 by Scientifical Madness on October 25, 2007 at 1:23 am

That has to be one of the most frustrating debates that I have seen. D'Souza is like a used car salesman. There is solace, however, and not just because Hitchens clearly triumphed. D'Souza is only likely to fool those who are already indoctrinated, or those who don't possess the relevant knowledge to see through his misrepresentations and fallacies - which is, of course, an insult in itself.

As somebody has said previously, D'Souza is quite prepared to use dishonesty in that arena. The best way to prevent that, and/or deliver a blow to his reputation, is for us to methodically expose him and make sure that it is as widely distributed as possible.