intruder denialists are like holocaust denialists, anti-science lynch mob

Go down

intruder denialists are like holocaust denialists, anti-science lynch mob

Post by redpill on Sun May 03, 2015 11:58 pm

from wiki

Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.[1][2] Holocaust denial includes any of the following claims: that Nazi Germany's Final Solution policy aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich, and included no policy to exterminate Jews; that Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews; and that the actual number of Jews killed was significantly (typically an order of magnitude) lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million.[3][4][5]

Scholars use the term "denial" to describe the views and methodology of Holocaust deniers in order to distinguish them from legitimate historical revisionists, who challenge orthodox interpretations of history using established historical methodologies.[6] Holocaust deniers generally do not accept the term denial as an appropriate description of their activities, and use the term revisionism instead.[7] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary.[8]

Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[9] For this reason, Holocaust denial is considered to be an antisemitic [10] conspiracy theory,[11] is frequently criticized, and is illegal in several countries.

there are holocaust denialists, denialists who claim the holocaust never actually happen. it is a hoax.

holocaust denialists claim there is no evidence for the holocaust, and doubt there were 6 million jews in europe.

there are climate change denialists who claim there is no evidence of man made climate change

his article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change. For the public debate over scientific conclusions, see global warming controversy.

Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[5][6][7][8][9] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system,[17][18] the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well as preparing for warming "in the pipeline" due to past emissions. Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming.

Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated, some by conservative billionaires, via two trusts (Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.[19

there are shakespeare authorian denialists. they deny that william shakespeare wrote the plays.

and there are jesus mythicists, jesus never existed denialists. they claim there is no evidence jesus ever existed.

Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to 30–33 AD), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity,[12] whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God. Christianity regards Jesus as the awaited Messiah (or "Christ") of the Old Testament and refers to him as Jesus Christ,[e] a name that is also used in non-Christian contexts.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[19] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi[20] from Galilee who preached his message orally,[21] was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.[22] Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer.[23] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life. The widely accepted calendar era (abbreviated as "AD", alternatively referred to as "CE"), counts from a medieval estimate of the birth year of Jesus.

The Christ myth theory is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; or if he did, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[264] Different proponents espouse slightly different versions of the Christ Myth Theory, but all versions go beyond the mainstream view in Historical Jesus research, which accepts that many of the events described in the gospels are not historical but which still assumes that the gospels are founded on a basic historical core.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of a historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in historical-critical biblical scholarship that a historical Jesus did live in that area and in that time period.[265][266][267][268][269][270][271] However, scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[272] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[273][274][275]

the jesus myth theory is heavily promoted on all atheist forums, even though the evidence for jesus existence is better than the evidence of many figures in history whose existence is not questioned. fundamentally jesus mythicists deny the gospels and early references as "evidence" then claim there is no evidence.

Historicity refers to the question of whether alleged past persons and events are genuinely historical, or merely mythical. The study of whether the Jesus mentioned in the Christian New Testament was a real person is covered in the article Historicity of Jesus.

In general, modern scholars who work in the field largely agree that Jesus himself did exist historically, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[15] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[16][17][18]

Christ Myth theories find virtually no support from scholars. According to New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, most people who study the historical period of Jesus believe that he did exist, and do not write in support of the Christ myth theory.[134]

Ehrman also notes that these views would prevent one from getting employment in a religious studies department:

These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.[135]

Maurice Casey, theologian and scholar of New Testament and early Christianity, stated that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists" and "demonstrably false", and that "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".[136]

Writing in 1977, classical historian and popular author Michael Grant concluded 'modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory.'[137] In support of this, he quoted Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion that the Christ-myth theory has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'.[138] At the same time he also quoted Otto Betz's 1968 opinion that in recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' — or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.'[139]

R. Joseph Hoffmann, who had created the Jesus Project, which included both mythicists and historicists to investigate the historicity of Jesus, wrote that there were problems with the adherents to the Christ myth theory. They were asking to set up a separate section of the project for those committed to the theory, which Hoffmann felt signalled a lack of necessary skepticism. He noted that most members of the project did not reach the mythicist conclusion.[140]

creationists, who are evolutionist denialists. there is no evidence of evolution.

denialists claim either evidence does not exist, or the evidence that is offered is denied as such.

typically they are either incompetent, do not understand or evaluate evidence, or have an axe to grind.

rdi like all denialists are all 3

RDI is based on a predetermined conclusion.

UKGUY wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household as being responsible for the death of JonBenet, no hair, no fingerprints, no touch-dna, no semen, no saliva, no footprints, no foreign fibers, absolutely nothing, zilch!

I don't know how he can say this with any kind of credibility. I guess the word "unsourced" is beyond his comprehension.

ukguy wrote:no touch-dna


this is Mark Beckner
mark beckner wrote:
"I tried to be honest and fair," Beckner said, "and I think the only thing I would emphasize is that the unknown DNA (from JonBenet's clothing) is very important. And I'm not involved any more, but that has got to be the focus of the investigation. In my opinion, at this point, that's your suspect.

"The suspect is the donator of that unknown DNA, and until you can prove otherwise, I think that's the way you've got to look at it."

obviously ukguy cynic tricia superdave koldkase and all the denialists have some psychological and mental problems, as well as deficiencies in their intelligence, to not understand these words.

RDI is fundamentally denialists, predetermined conclusion, a cyber lynch mob

RDI retards demonstrating incompetence

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

Posts : 2462
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum