Your definition of religion is vague and your claim of historical revisionism is without merit. It is necessarily the case the evidence for a historical event will become less compelling as time passes and primary sources should be considered the best account of what happened.
I agree. What has religion got to do with this? By definition, religion is based on pure faith, with little actual physical evidence for support. OP seems to deny the Holocaust, which is his opinion, but he can't deny that there is a plethora of evidence for the Holocaust. (Arguing that that evidenc
e is planted by "Allied intelligence" or whatever is another matter, but they exist) Besides, what's the point of dragging religion into this?
If that is true, then these first hand sources should be of primary importance? This is testimony by camp survivors who spoke of a luxurious work camp with amenities - not a death camp. Your opinions of Auschwitz should defer to those speaking in these videos.
This Youtube video seems to be your primary source of evidence. But, where is the video even from? It's posted by a channel dedicated to denying the Holocaust, and there is no indication of the validity of these accounts. Meanwhile, there is much more evidence that opposes them.
The Allies had an active war propaganda department - they also desperately needed a reason for why they spent millions of lives fighting Germany. None of this existed until after the war - when the camps were unearthed. No Allied liberated camps are claimed to be death camps, only ones documented.
Evidence of the Holocaust, emaciated inhabitants of work camps, are equally explained by the act of the Allies bombing logistics lines in the final part of the war - cutting off food and medical supplies to work camps. Typhus was a common illness and without supplies contributed to the symptoms.
Is any of this evidence different from evidence provided by Herman Rosenblat? A man who has admitted it was merely 'real in his head'? How precisely is the evidence different from that provided by Ellie Wiesel, who wrote a book Night - A former friend from the camp does not recognize Elie Wiesel.
I notice on each of the "The Holocaust is fake" debates you try and start you quote two, maybe three people, as evidence but deny all of the others that are posted to refute you. You do realize that pretty much anyone can post a Youtube video, right? Do you have any evidence that the person in the video was truly a Holocaust survivor and it isn't you that's buying into the "Holocaust is fake" hoax being spread by anti-semites to discredit Jewish people?
Auschwitz was simply a work internment camp - Just as the allies had for the Japanese. These Holocaust survivors give their testimony of a very peaceful environment while refusing to validate any of the claims of the popular narrative - despite the huge censure-ship received by anyone doing so.
I myself have heard many Holocaust survivors describe the horrors of the gas chambers. Obviously, there are varying accounts there. But that aside, how do you explain the gas chamber structures and mass grave that have been unearthed and the millions of Jewish loved ones who disappeared?