More about Israel.

[OMC]

Did you watch the video, it is quite interesting though how a narrative is created well in advance of an event.

When one looks at the flow of money and if one is an analytical observer why exactly these events occurred.

I would still separate two questions.

First, why did these events happen?
That's a historical question involving politics, economics, ideology, power, war, and human motives.

Second, did these events happen?
That's an evidence question.

Looking at financial interests, political agendas, or the way narratives are shaped may help explain motives, but it doesn't automatically erase the historical evidence itself.
For example, if someone argues that governments, media, or influential groups used the Holocaust for political purposes afterward, that's a claim that should be evaluated on its own merits.
But even if that were true, it would not follow that the Holocaust itself never happened.

So I'm all for asking questions, following the money, and examining motives.
My only caution is that explanations for why a narrative is promoted are not the same thing as evidence that the underlying event was fabricated.
In other words, it's one thing to question how history is presented.
It's another thing to conclude that the event itself never occurred.
Those are two very different claims, and each has to be supported by evidence.

 

[HeIsHere]

I would still separate two questions.

First, why did these events happen?
That's a historical question involving politics, economics, ideology, power, war, and human motives.

Second, did these events happen?
That's an evidence question.

Looking at financial interests, political agendas, or the way narratives are shaped may help explain motives, but it doesn't automatically erase the historical evidence itself.
For example, if someone argues that governments, media, or influential groups used the Holocaust for political purposes afterward, that's a claim that should be evaluated on its own merits.
But even if that were true, it would not follow that the Holocaust itself never happened.

So I'm all for asking questions, following the money, and examining motives.
My only caution is that explanations for why a narrative is promoted are not the same thing as evidence that the underlying event was fabricated.
In other words, it's one thing to question how history is presented.
It's another thing to conclude that the event itself never occurred.
Those are two very different claims, and each has to be supported by evidence.

I do not think it is possible to have that level of a discussion and all that it entails on a discussion board.

Most people do not have access to primary source documents nor do they have the training to conduct historical analysis so ultimately I am reminding myself these types of discussions are really of little value.

 

[OMC]

I do not think it is possible to have that level of a discussion and all that it entails on a discussion board.

Most people do not have access to primary source documents nor do they have the training to conduct historical analysis so ultimately I am reminding myself these types of discussions are really of little value.

That's fair. Some topics are simply too big and too complex to do justice to in here as I have tried and it becomes a novel that no one has time to read lol.
People can raise questions, share evidence, and challenge assumptions, but serious historical analysis usually requires much more than a few posts back and forth.
I don't think that makes the discussion worthless, but it does mean we should approach it with some humility.
Sometimes the best we can do is identify the key questions, do our homework, and be willing to revise our views if the evidence leads us there.
At the end of the day, being committed to truth is more important than winning a debate

 

[Revelation1v8]

People should be allowed to question history stuff.

Does that mean you should be allowed to question God and His Word? Because that's what you do, while you try to deny it.

--

 

[HeIsHere]

That's fair. Some topics are simply too big and too complex to do justice to in here as I have tried and it becomes a novel that no one has time to read lol.
People can raise questions, share evidence, and challenge assumptions, but serious historical analysis usually requires much more than a few posts back and forth.
I don't think that makes the discussion worthless, but it does mean we should approach it with some humility.
Sometimes the best we can do is identify the key questions, do our homework, and be willing to revise our views if the evidence leads us there.
At the end of the day, being committed to truth is more important than winning a debate

If you have read the book "The Undoing Project" by Michael Lewis, one can see that the underlying problem/issue probably more so than lack of skills and intelligence is cognitive bias and heuristics.

I would also recommend Bonhoeffer's short paper called the the "Theory of Stupidity" if you have not already read it, it is based on the writing of Carlo M. Cipolla (economic historian).

Both these sources were incredible eye-openers for me.

 

[Revelation1v8]

If you have read the book "The Undoing Project" by Michael Lewis, one can see that the underlying problem/issue probably more so than lack of skills and intelligence is cognitive bias and heuristics.

I would also recommend Bonhoeffer's short paper called the the "Theory of Stupidity" if you have not already read it, it is based on the writing of Carlo M. Cipolla (economic historian).

Both these sources were incredible eye-openers for me.

It doesn't sound like either of them did you any good. Otherwise, you would know that history and prophecy didn't end in 70 AD.

---

 

[OMC]

If you have read the book "The Undoing Project" by Michael Lewis, one can see that the underlying problem/issue probably more so than lack of skills and intelligence is cognitive bias and heuristics.

I would also recommend Bonhoeffer's short paper called the the "Theory of Stupidity" if you have not already read it, it is based on the writing of Carlo M. Cipolla (economic historian).

Both these sources were incredible eye-openers for me.

I've heard of The Undoing Project, though I haven't read it myself.
The issue of cognitive bias is something I think all of us underestimate.
We like to imagine we're following the evidence wherever it leads, but often we're filtering the evidence through assumptions we don't even realize we have.
That's one reason I try to hold some conclusions more loosely than others.
Intelligence alone doesn't protect us from bias.
Sometimes very intelligent people are simply better at defending conclusions they've already reached.
Bonhoeffer's thoughts on stupidity are especially interesting because he treats it less as a lack of intelligence and more as a kind of surrender of critical thinking to a group, ideology, or crowd.
In my experience, that's where humility becomes so important.
The question isn't just, "Am I smart enough?" but "Am I willing to be wrong?"
Whether we're discussing history, theology, or politics, that may be one of the hardest questions any of us can honestly answer.

 

[Churchgoer]

I've heard of The Undoing Project, though I haven't read it myself.
The issue of cognitive bias is something I think all of us underestimate.
We like to imagine we're following the evidence wherever it leads, but often we're filtering the evidence through assumptions we don't even realize we have.
That's one reason I try to hold some conclusions more loosely than others.
Intelligence alone doesn't protect us from bias.
Sometimes very intelligent people are simply better at defending conclusions they've already reached.
Bonhoeffer's thoughts on stupidity are especially interesting because he treats it less as a lack of intelligence and more as a kind of surrender of critical thinking to a group, ideology, or crowd.
In my experience, that's where humility becomes so important.
The question isn't just, "Am I smart enough?" but "Am I willing to be wrong?"
Whether we're discussing history, theology, or politics, that may be one of the hardest questions any of us can honestly answer.

Exactly, humidity, plus respect others. Do not play God's role. (We all know whose trick that is.)

Blessings.

 

[HeIsHere]

The question isn't just, "Am I smart enough?" but "Am I willing to be wrong?"

Yes a very important observation.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

The evidence listed was used to come up with the numbers. If you want more specifics from the evidence, then do an A.I. search for more specifics regarding that evidence.

---

What is HeisHere laughing about?! Then he/she says don't assume what they believe about the Holocaust. Someone tell them it's not a good idea to drink and post.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I agree. You have been lied to, and it's despicable.

And right on time comes Charlie. So we have another Holocaust lying denier, good to know. It explains a lot.

 

[ThomasMatthew]

I would still separate two questions.

First, why did these events happen?
That's a historical question involving politics, economics, ideology, power, war, and human motives.

Second, did these events happen?
That's an evidence question.

Looking at financial interests, political agendas, or the way narratives are shaped may help explain motives, but it doesn't automatically erase the historical evidence itself.
For example, if someone argues that governments, media, or influential groups used the Holocaust for political purposes afterward, that's a claim that should be evaluated on its own merits.
But even if that were true, it would not follow that the Holocaust itself never happened.

So I'm all for asking questions, following the money, and examining motives.
My only caution is that explanations for why a narrative is promoted are not the same thing as evidence that the underlying event was fabricated.
In other words, it's one thing to question how history is presented.
It's another thing to conclude that the event itself never occurred.
Those are two very different claims, and each has to be supported by evidence.

Case in point, 9/11.
The event happened.
Pretty much everything else concerning that event is in question.

I am not of the opinion that a mass extermination campaign was carried out against European Jews.
But the trains, camps, tattoos, experimentation, and incredible loss of life were very real. The narrative however, was completely contrived.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

You're really going to tell PennEd that his own uncle lied to him about what he witnessed? THAT is what's TRULY DISPICABLE.

---

It's beyond childish...

 

[OMC]

Case in point, 9/11.
The event happened.
Pretty much everything else concerning that event is in question.

I am not of the opinion that a mass extermination campaign was carried out against European Jews.
But the trains, camps, tattoos, experimentation, and incredible loss of life were very real. The narrative however, was completely contrived.

If I understand you correctly, you're not denying that terrible things happened.
You're questioning whether the commonly accepted explanation fully accounts for the evidence.
I think that's a different discussion than simply saying, "It never happened."

 

[HeIsHere]

If I understand you correctly, you're not denying that terrible things happened.
You're questioning whether the commonly accepted explanation fully accounts for the evidence.
I think that's a different discussion than simply saying, "It never happened."

Evidence can also be manufactured, sometimes even police officers do this, sadly.

 

[OMC]

Evidence can also be manufactured, sometimes even police officers do this, sadly.

I guess the question I always come back to is: at what point does the amount of independent evidence become too large to explain as fabrication?

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I'm passing along verifiable information, which you reject out of hand in favor of an intentionally contrived narrative.

Tattoos prove that someone was in the camps. That is all. I don't deny the camps, I don't deny that people died in them. I don't even deny that there were horrible things done to them.

Which was wrong, if you were right. That's bad enough. Agreed?

But there were no ovens, no crematoriums, no extermination plan.

Yes, there was and there's plenty of evidence for it.

If you would stop arguing for half an hour and go do your own research you would arrive at the same conclusions. Your anecdotes are not evidence.

Lol eyewitness testimony is not an anecdote. I have met someone with a tattoo myself. You haven't heard their testimony but you say they're lying. That's simply ridiculous.

 

[ThomasMatthew]

If I understand you correctly, you're not denying that terrible things happened.
You're questioning whether the commonly accepted explanation fully accounts for the evidence.
I think that's a different discussion than simply saying, "It never happened."

The Holocaust, or mass extermination campaign against European Jews never happened. Yes, that is my position.

 

[ThomasMatthew]

I guess the question I always come back to is: at what point does the amount of independent evidence become too large to explain as fabrication?

That would depend upon the reliability of the evidence.

 

[ThomasMatthew]

Which was wrong, if you were right. That's bad enough. Agreed?




Yes, there was and there's plenty of evidence for it.




Lol eyewitness testimony is not an anecdote. I have met someone with a tattoo myself. You haven't heard their testimony but you say they're lying. That's simply ridiculous.

Eye witness testimony by definition is anecdotal.
I also have a tattoo.