No, I call people stupid... — Benkei

Because you're a juvenile dickhead. You're like 12 years old emotionally. And I know this for sure, because I'm 13.

So now we appear to have competing claims from the two of you regarding what it is that most Palestinians really want, and would accept as a basis for peace.

To refine that a bit, the question may not be what MOST Palestinians want, but what do those with the most guns want? You know, when did majority opinion really matter in the Arab world?

In any case, I don't claim to know the answer, so a debate between the two of you on this subject would be helpful.

And Benkei, please try to act like an adult, like BitconnectCarlos has done.

This could be true, and I will investigate further, thanks. If you can provide recent public statements from Hamas to this effect that would be welcomed, or I can do the homework.

But honestly, it's pretty much impossible to accept you as a reliable source of information given how hopelessly partisan and self involved all of your posts on this subject are. I'm still convinced that your only real interest in this subject is to call people stupid from a position of imaginary moral superiority. Almost all of what you write here, all about Benkei, Benkei, Benkei, Benkei, Benkei.

Assuming 180 has a substantive claim that Atheism is a logically supportable position — Hanover

First, let us prove that logic is relevant to such enormous questions so far beyond human scale. Until such proof is provided, all sides of the debate lack credibility, and the debate collapses under it's own weight.

As example, imagine two religious people having a debate about competing interpretations of Bible verses which are describing God. Until the Bible is shown to be a credible authority on the subject of gods, such debates are fun, but essentially meaningless.

A collapse of the theism vs. atheism debate is not automatically a bad thing. It could be just another step in a credible investigation which is making progress. As example, should we discover that hammers are not a good tool for fixing broken windows, that would be progress. Having discarded the hammer we can now turn our attention elsewhere.

If both theism and atheism are discarded, we are left with nothing. It's typically assumed this is a failure, but that's not necessarily true. A state of conceptual nothing actually matches the nature of the vast majority of reality pretty well. This would seem to matter for those who wish for their philosophy to be based on observation of reality.

My vote is as follows...

We have to respect people's right to decide what goes in to their own bodies. Some people will make poor decisions about that, this is nothing new.

I would reserve social condemnation for those who won't wear a mask when that is ordered. It's such a tiny burden, to decline it is to raise one's middle finger to the rest of society.

And now, please greet my inner fascist! No shit, those stories about people who get in to fights with flight attendants about masking gets my blood boiling. Mr. Fascist says, take them to the nearest door, hand them a parachute, and push them out. After all, they have 30,000 feet to figure out how to use the parachute.

Ok, so maybe, maybe, maybe that's a tad extreme. But really, we put up with way too much shit from such people. How about, ban them from all airlines for life? Ok, I guess I can live with that.

I have always said the matrix Is language. — Trinidad

I like that, thanks. Never thought of it that way.

I'm sure many are living in a matrix of concepts purely out of fear. — Trinidad

And, thought is pretty appealing. In the real world, I am small beyond measure. But in thought, in my own mind, I am the ruler of a kingdom of concepts. Ok, sure, it's a tiny tiny tiny kingdom. But it's MY kingdom.

I agree with the establishment of a Palestinian state, as expressed already above.

As has been discussed already, this doesn't really solve the conflict, because a Palestinian state is seen by many (especially Hamas) as being just a stepping stone to the real goal, the end of the Jewish state.

So, I see this...

1) The establishment of a Palestinian state.

2) A civil war between Hamas and the PLO, with Hamas the likely winner.

3) The arming of the Palestinian state by outside powers, such as Iran.

4) Hamas continues to pursue it's long stated goal of ending the Jewish state, leading to ever more conflict and violence, and ever more victims.

It's also not been established that Palestinians would actually be better off in a Palestinian state. All the other Arab states seem to be some version of chaos, corruption, oppression, incompetence, etc. That doesn't prove anything about the future of a Palestinian state, but it's a large pile of evidence which shouldn't be ignored.

All that said, I agree, establish the Palestinian state. And if that state should attack Israel, roll the tanks across the border, go house to house to find the leaders, hang them all, and then leave.

As example, Syria has tried to invade Israel on multiple occasions. Every time they try that they get their butts kicked. So they've finally learned that lesson and don't try anymore.

If a Palestinian state were to attack Israel, Israel should avoid the usual tit for tat limited engagement which never leads to anything but a repeat of the exercise a few years later. If a Palestinian state were to attack Israel, find every Hamas leader, and kill them. Make it clear to one and all, fuck with us, and you die.

That's how the Middle East works. It's a knife fight in an alley. You either win, or you die.

Or, an even better solution for the Israelis, pack up your stuff and get out of the ghetto. I know, I know, not gonna happen, agree. But that would the rational choice.

Here's another theory to add to the pile...

Animals and primitive humans have/had a primal bond with reality. I literally live in a wildlife hospital, and spend about a billion hours a year in the woods, so this isn't just a theory to me.

As thought emerged and developed in human beings that primal bond with reality was diluted and broken. As thought developed, our attention was increasingly shifted from reality, to thoughts about reality. That is, from the real to the symbolic, from outward to inward. We can't have a primal bond with something we're not actually paying much attention to.

Religion is an attempt to restore this primal bond. This effort is referenced in phrases like "get back to God".

The primary problem with religion is that it typically (not always) attempts to restore the primal relationship with reality through the use of concepts and ideas, that is, thought, the very thing which distracts us from the primal bond.

Imagine that you experience this primal bond with reality, and you see the value in the experience and want to share it with others. What to do? You try to explain it in language, in thought, because what else can you use to communicate? And then, most people, given how mediocre and unserious most of us are, focus on the words instead of the experience they point to.

In my interpretation, one of about a billion available, Jesus was referring to this with the phrase "die to be reborn", and his various teachings about love. To the degree we can die to "me" (made of thought) our attention is liberated to focus on reality again, and for a time at least, the primal bond with nature is restored to some degree. In the East the same goal is often approached in a more direct manner, by various methods of turning down the volume of thought.

The cool thing is, nobody has to believe anything in this post or by any religion. Anyone who wants to can do the experiment for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

But, because philosophers tend to be as lazy and mediocre as anyone in any religion, we probably won't do the experiment, but will instead argue over the words. That's the way of the world, alway has been and always will be, little can be done about it.

I used to think this laziness was a problem, but now I'm not so sure. My current theory is that a certain degree of illusion is necessary for the continuation of life. If we were to achieve a true bonding with reality and thus lost the fear of death, well, why bother putting up with the burdens of the world?

Where can DNA be found outside living organisms? — Wayfarer

Well, no where that I'm aware of. I was just struggling to respond to the interesting point made by Gnomon.

My guess is that the Singularity contained generic Information (program), analogous to the DNA in a seed or egg -- or like the "Boot Program" of a computer. And since Information is non-physical (e.g. mathematics & logic) everything in our vast current universe could be compressed into a tiny package with no physical dimensions (i.e. occupying no space).

Especially this part...

And since Information is non-physical (e.g. mathematics & logic) everything in our vast current universe could be compressed into a tiny package with no physical dimensions

While DNA does have physical dimensions, it seems to play about the same role as what Gnomom is talking about.

The essential divide in this issue is between those who are out for blood and those who actually seek solutions. — BitconnectCarlos

I cast my vote for this. The Mid East conflict is a lot like this thread, lots of yelling, not all that much thinking.

And, I suspect it's a lot like this thread in that there's a lot of conflict addiction going on. I think forum threads like this can provide some insight in to larger conflicts. We all know that exactly nothing will be solved by this thread. And before we read even the first post we knew this thread would be conflict based. And so we clicked on the link, and jumped right in!

As example, look at the cable news industry. Conflict, conflict, conflict, all day long. Extremely popular.

Once we humans get wrapped up in some victim pose, that can be so satisfying to our egos that it can become near impossible to let it go. And of course, if one is going to be a victim, one needs an enemy.

I'm comparing your moral thinking to that of a six year old. — Benkei

I know, you could move to the Middle East. You'd fit right in!

But all one gets in these stories is the same weepy narrative. — Bitter Crank

Very well said Mr. Crank, your post seemed to nail it pretty well.

I've been slowly coming to peace with the NPR narrative in this manner. Boomers are no longer the focus of American culture, because we are on our way out. This is a completely normal progression of affairs, not a conspiracy.

NPR is now aimed at a younger audience, which makes perfect sense from a business perspective. The younger audience is, well, younger. They find consciousness raising pieces meaningful because they haven't been listening to them since 1962. To them, this is all news.

But what I want to know, and NO ONE at NPR will answer this question....

Why don't they play Tommy Dorsey records on the radio anymore???? What the hell is going on????
Oh, and where are my glasses, does anyone know?

The idea that either would simply pack and leave is so fantastical that it belongs in the same book as Harry Potter. Not worth entertaning except as fantasy fiction. — StreetlightX

A huge percent of your posts are of this type, trying to inflate yourself by reducing someone else.

I've already said multiple times that I agree Israelis are not going to leave. If you'd actually read the thread, you'd see you are debunking claims of your own invention.

Much of this thread reminds me of my growing disenchantment with NPR. Endless descriptions of the problems, with limited interest in specific solutions.

So many stories on NPR these days are of the type "Hey, look at this, this is so bad!" Ok, much of it is, agreed. But what do you want to do about it? That requires too much thinking, so it's on to the next story, which has the theme "Hey, look at this, this is so bad!"

And now I'm doing it too. Hey, look at this thread, this is so bad!!! :-)

And since Information is non-physical (e.g. mathematics & logic) everything in our vast current universe could be compressed into a tiny package with no physical dimensions (i.e. occupying no space). — Gnomon

I like this, thanks. Thought provoking.

What you describe may be mirrored to a degree in life. DNA is close to non-existent in relation to the matter it defines.

Perhaps this is cause for me to rethink my use of the word "intelligence". As example, DNA is not intelligence, it's just information, data. Perhaps what I'm attempting to reference is the DNA of reality?

There seems to be endless ways by which humanity could end or at least be severely diminished in the coming century. Do you think it’s all just over-dramatic nonsense or should we be genuinely concerned for our future here on earth? — Benj96

This is the first time we've attempted to create a global civilization this complex. Getting it right on the first try doesn't seem that likely. I predict more of what has already happened, a longstanding pattern of the rise and fall of civilizations.

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Should be replaced with....

Atheism: The belief that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods.

Theism: The belief that holy books and personal experience are qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods.

Both sides share an agreement that human beings are capable, by some method or another, of generating meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods. If that assumption can't be proven, then the entire debate collapses under it's own weight.

Since you have no argument I guess we're done. — Benkei

Sounds like a good plan to me.

In an ideal world, Israel would become an actual democracy and allow self-determination for all people under its rule. — StreetlightX

Which would lead to a Palestinian state. To my understanding, the Palestinians don't wish to be citizens of Israel, even if they were full citizens like any other. They wish to have their own country, just like the Jews wish to have their own country.

To the degree I have an opinion, it would be that the interests of both Jews and Palestinians is probably not well served by either of them having their own state in that part of the world. Israelis are likely doomed to eternal conflict, and a Palestinian state is likely to become just another repressive Arab dictatorship. To me, just one view from far away, both parties seem to be clinging to a land that's not worth having.

It is worth mentioning though that the Arab states themselves are in a complex network of alliances and are by no means united. — BitconnectCarlos

Right. I'm not worried about a united Arab invasion of Israel. It's been proven that won't work.

On the contrary, if I lived in Israel I'd be worried about a collapse of Arab culture in to chaos. As example, how many psychopaths have been born in the Syrian civil war? There are so many Syrian kids who've never known anything but chaos.

It's not clear to me that Israel is tenable over the longer run, but who knows, I guess we'll find out.

I guess I place my hope in grassroots movements; the two groups have to learn to live together, there is no other option. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, there is another option. Victory for one side or another. The Palestinians need only end the Jewish state and they have their victory. To achieve victory and a real peace Israel would need to remove all the Arab nations, and Iran too. Short of that, eternal conflict seems the future, in one form or another.

I see a way out, but agree it won't be taken. Israelis seem determined to choose eternal conflict over real peace, and real security. It's their choice. I wish them luck. They're gonna need it.

For Israel to not be an apartheid state would be one. For it to cease its land grabs and policy of population displacement would be another. For it to stop engaging in collective punishment by means of blockade - another war crime - would be yet another. In fact stopping Israeli war crimes altogether would be nice. Can we agree on this or is resistance to land grabbing, apartheid, and war crimes a step too far for your sensitive soul? — StreetlightX

You've said all this already about a thousand times.

If Israel stops exercising any control over Palestinians, the result of that is a Palestinian state. This is why I keep asking you if that is what you wish to see happen. And, if yes, do you feel that this would improve the situation of Palestinians?

This is not a point. It's a question.

Is Israel guilty of collective punishment? — Benkei

You don't care. So why should I?

We get that you reject the status quo, because you've said that now about 36,000 times. Ok, fair enough, no problem, got it.

It would be helpful to the thread if you could more clearly articulate what you feel the appropriate alternative to the status quo should be.

Do you think the Palestinians should have their own state? If yes, are you persuaded that such an outcome would improve their situation?

The issue here is that it's not just about armies - there's chemical and biological weapons as well. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, which is why I've suggested leaving the Middle East. It seems to me that part of the world is a Biblical scale calamity just waiting to happen. Syria and Yemem come to mind of course, and that could be just the beginning.

Israel has proven it can overcome the strength of it's neighbors. But can it overcome their weaknesses? What if the entire Arab world becomes one big failed state?

would also pose a serious security threat to israel as missiles are now able to penetrate further into Israel and hit bigger population centers. — BitconnectCarlos

Right, but sooner or later those missiles will be better targeted, and able to hit anywhere in Israel. It's just a matter of time. Doesn't controlling the West Bank just put off the inevitable?

Many if not most Palestinians want Israel - as a Jewish governing body - gone entirely. The WB would just be a concession towards that goal. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, I hear you, leaving the WB doesn't really solve the conflict. So what do you picture? An eternal struggle? Does this end only when one of the parties is dead on the floor?

When it comes to the West Bank Israel controls part of it and the palestinians control part of it. They have it organized so that Israel only governs Israelis and the Palestinians govern their own people. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, so what is the nature of the argument?

Palestinians want Jews out and full control of West Bank?

Jews vary in opinion from agreement, to moderate compromise, to full rejection?

If most Jews and most Palestinians could agree on anything, what might that be?

Here's the link to what we're supposed to be discussing.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11201/debate-the-logic-of-atheism

Boring writing style??? Hey, whoever this number guy is he'd better stay off my turf!! I've got a brand to protect you know. He can have the expletives I guess.

If they're going across a border then Israel and Egypt control it, otherwise internally it's Hamas. It is Hamas who is hunting down and executing gays, it is Hamas who is arresting grassroots peace activists in Gaza, it is Hamas who is subjugating women and allowing them no freedoms. There are definitely restrictions on imports and that does make life harder for the Gazans. It's not a good situation but I think both Israel and Egypt have serious security concerns over Hamas. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, that's about what I thought.

I get that Hamas are bad guys, no argument there. But then, isn't that the norm across the Middle East?

I get that if the grip on Gaza was lifted Iran and others would probably fuel the fire by giving Hamas money and arms. But then all of Israel's neighbors have money and arms. And even ALL of them together have never been able to defeat Israel.

What I'm suggesting is undermining one of Hamas's key talking points by giving them their own state. Most of the world would accept this as a reasonable solution. And then, if they use that state to attack Israel, roll the tanks across the border, go house to house, string up all the Hamas leaders, like the WWII allies did to the Nazis. Then leave.

If the next government of Gaza attacks again, repeat the procedure. And keep doing that until they get the point.

The theory here is that so long as the Palestinians don't have their own state, the world will see Israel as the aggressor. This matters because Israel is a very small country.

However, if a Palestinian state attacks Israel, then Israel is reframed as the victim, who is just in defending itself from outside attack.

I'm sure there are counter arguments to this. Would be happy to hear them. I am definitely not a Middle East expert.

Yes, pit the little people against each other, and then rule over the resulting mess. Divide and conquer.

I can't decide. Should I bring popcorn? Or a bazooka? Both??? I'm so confused!!!!

This is you in a nutshell!!! — Mystic

Wait a second, are you saying I live in a nutshell???? Whoa, hang on, let me get my rocket launcher..

I think this is the key factor. The politicians have vested interests in the continuing conflict. — Mystic

Don't forget the media. At least here in the States, a shining city on a hill built from genocide and slavery, the media is a big player in feeding the cultural divides.

It's all about money. Media lives on ad dollars. Ad dollars are based on audience size. Audience size is based on serving the lowest common denominator. Stimulation, stimulation, stimulation, keep us glued to the channel for as long as possible, by any means necessary. The competition is fierce for our attention, which drives most channels to ever further extremes.

There are extremists on both sides and they both work off each other - one side says or does something inflammatory and the worst part of the other side responds. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, I hear you, that is how it works everywhere, the nutzos feed off each other.

We've got a lot of that going on here in America in recent years too. And yes, some politicians deliberately feed the fire, as does the media.

What's the media situation in Israel? Are there hard right and hard left channels feeding the fire for profit, as is the case here?

Jews have also been in the West Bank for thousands of years and I don't think it's fair to ask us to leave. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, fair enough. But is residence the same as being the rulers? As example, the native people of North America were here at least 10,000 years before Europeans arrived. Should the continent be turned back over to their control due to that history? Where do such historical claims end?

The Palestinians in Gaza are not part of Israel, thus they can't be under "apartheid." — BitconnectCarlos

Um, who controls incoming and outgoing traffic in Gaza? Israel and Egypt, right? Are Gazans free to come and go as they like? Is commerce free to go in and out as it pleases?

I honestly am pretty vague on this, education welcomed.

Well, to attempt fairness...

Can you agree that there is a segment of the Israeli population (don't know percent) that has imperialist ambitions for land that has belonged to others for quite some time? Some of those folks (again don't know percent) appear to be religion based imperialists, which seems to make them largely immune to reason and compromise.

I do realize there are also Israeli people (don't know number) who are against this imperialism as much or more than the outside world.

Care to comment?

Lol! This is comedy gold!!! — Mystic

Well, I am Foghorn Leghorn after all, and I've been in the entertainment business for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foghorn_Leghorn

Here's a live video shot of me performing right now in this thread! As you can see, I'm a great teacher to the little ones.

If Israel is apartheid why do Arab Christians do quite well in Israel? — BitconnectCarlos

Well, Israel isn't apartheid in relation to Christians, but in relation to Palestinians.

Here's what I suggest. Release Gaza from the grip. Get out of the West Bank. Allow the Palestinian state to emerge. And it that state attacks Israel, go in with guns blazing and level the enemy. Just as Israel, or any nation, would do in response to any neighbor who attacks.

If Israel is judged too small to defend those borders, admit the mistake, pack up all the furniture, and move to America.