Creationism and the Holocaust

I like how athiests say that if you make an extraordinary claim (like that God exists) you have to have extraordinary claims to back it up. They say that books and writing isn't enough to prove this claim, because anybody could have just forged the Bible and just *claiming* to be an authority on the matter.

In 50 years from now, or a few hundred years from now, people believing that the holocaust happened, will face the same problem. They say that there's "mountains of evidence" to support this highly extraordinary claim, but with time, this mountain will be eroded into an amount of evidence no bigger than the Bible. Then people will point and laugh at the jews and their "fabled" extinction, going "Well, you're still *here*, aren't you? How do you explain *that*? I don't believe in your religious texts - I'm an atheist.".

Let me see if I get the question; Are you looking for fundamental differences between Holocaust and Creationism? Or similarities?

I'd say there are basic similarities; Both are belief structures that demand to be believed in, with "evidence" ranging from "I don't believe in your evidence" to "Believe as I tell you, or else!"…

—  Creationism states that a fuckton of archaeological evidence isn't really proof, since it fails to properly support the story of Intelligent(?) Design.
Evidence offered: Little. Rather, it refuses to accept the evidence provided by actual science. But it still demands to be listened to, even believed in.


—  Holocaust is the story of how a cultured nation suddenly became the Ultimate Eeeevil Empire™, and turned its existing concentration camps into dedicated death camps, basically for the Evulz.
Evidence offered: Non-believers are put in jail (in the name of Democracy™ and Freedom™) and framed as Nazis, effectively giving _actual_ Nazis some kind of monopoly on phrases like "Truth does not fear an investigation". And, in the process, a monopoly on _actually_ being interested in _actual_ truth.
And a fuckton of hullabaloo is presented to make this sound as if we were still living in a truth-loving democracy.

For this to stop being a belief structure and instead moving into evidence-backed history, we need to stop giving Nazis that idiotic monopoly on skepticism. Allow the stuff that isn't backed by evidence to be removed from the equation, and let's have an actual look at what remains.


Notes that are sadly important:
1) Simply asking "Where's the (_actual_) evidence?" is *_NOT_* an ill-willed "twisting of someone's words", or "siding with the culprit", or any of that shit; it's how stuff like criminal prosecution is supposed to work; Either prove – beyond reasonable doubt – the suspect to actually be Guilty for real, or find them Not Guilty and release them. Anything else makes for a rights-free society where anyone can get thrown in jail for reasons that have nothing to do with justice.

2) I really do _not_ support Nazis. There's actually a shitload of _real_ reasons the Nazis were bad, long before the Holocaust comes into play. So let's stop being retards already!