Slashdot Mirror
Israel, Palestine Wage Web War
An anonymous reader writes "A war has erupted on the Internet between Israel and Palestine, alongside the war being fought on the ground in Gaza. A new report claims that a group called the 'DNS Team' has defaced an Israeli Website, with anti-Israel graphical images — one in a series of instances of 'e-vandalism.' This sort of e-vandalism, says the author, is not only an inconvenience for Webmasters, but many of the images contain malware links and 'redirects or Flash links to Jihadist forums or blogs.' However, while the Jihadist forums are registered in Saudi Arabia, they are hosted by companies like Layered Tech and SoftLayer in Plano, Texas. On the Israeli side, 'A fascinating approach over the last few days is being made by an Israeli Website, "Help Israel Win," which provides a download so your PC can become part of a worldwide pro-Israeli botnet. So far 7,786 have joined, already a fairly powerful global computing force...'"
In before shitstorm.
This is a natural extension of war now-a-days. This is akin to saying, "Soldiers Now Using Bullets in War".
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
I will join my PC to a botnet for some dumb online war!
You got the touch!
Lets have a little bit of perspective and not put some web sites being trashed in the same category as bombs and missiles flying around. The world could do with a little less drama and over statements. Honestly, its OK, you are still important.
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Now I've heard everything.
The EULAs require participants of the botnets that lose virtual battles to report to suicide booths.
wow, at first I was going to say your obviously pro Jew however, to be honest just by your own rhetoric you sound more like a extremist very similar to that of hamas(sp)
hatred is negative no matter who uses it, and the fact is truth and history will always come down to a matter of perspective.
Obama will take care of it for us.
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
I wish all wars were web wars. The papers today said the Isralies killed dozens in a UN school, and that nowhere in Gaza was safe.
Go, web warriers! Go away, bullet and rocket warriors. He who lives by the RPG dies by the RPG.
Free Martian Whores!
It could be construed through participation in the botnet, since you are directly aiding in an armed conflict between two foreign powers, that you are in fact becoming an enemy combatant, esp if you look back on the old (now defunct) NSA munitions definitions of software. This happens all the time, but could cause you some difficulties if you need to make an insurance claim on system damage - some insurance companies might consider counter-attacks that damage your files/servers/etc to be acts of war, and outside your policy. Granted this would all have to be tested in court, but particpating in a war as a private citizen is generally discouraged, if not illegal in many cases.
meh
Help Israel win the war by signing up to go to prison!
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
IMO, it's interesting to note the difference between the two. Israel seems to always have its military act together, beginning with the war it fought right after it got its land [back].
On one side, we have what was termed "e-vandalism." On the other side, we have a very planned strategy to do something, although I don't know what yet.
Just an interesting look into the different ... tactics, if you will.
Disclaimer for contextual reading of this comment: I am pro-Israel, anti-terrorism, and I really do think Israel wants peace and Hamas wants no-live-Jew-on-face-of-earth. This is not an anti-Jew post.
When I started reading, I interpreted the above as a joke (albeit in poor taste). I am now thinking it was perhaps more flamebait.
The notes at first seem to be correct on the Israeli side with exaggeration on the Islamic side. They then goes into more extremist positions.
The point to which I take special exception is perhaps a minor one in the mind of many--the "leading contributors..." line for Islamics contains a ridiculous statement--The entire force of Western educational structure developed as a result of interaction between Christian and Islamic theologians/scholars in the 1100s and following. Avicena, though I disagree with his philosophical base, was a clear thinker and prompted a response from many in the West.
Well, while the post was a bit extreme and even funny at the end, I can understand where that guy's coming from. But only if there were a true dichotomy, supporting either/or with no option to remain neutral and no chance of diplomacy or compromise given the states of the two sides at present.
People tend to sympathize with the underdog, and that works well in football or choice of operating system, but it's a lot less practical in matters of global warfare(note: not as in "WWIII", at least not yet, but global because "cyberspace" is involved).
theres also GIYUS (im not gonna link) they have 40,000 members regularly trolling on large forums and newspapers such as Guardian regarding any topic about Israel/Palestine
this been going on for long time
This makes me think of the old Star Trek episode - A Taste of Armageddon, where no actual fighting takes place but a computer determines the casualties on each side and then those number of people on each side have to enter a machine to be killed.
What does that mean?
It's a sort of a seti-at-home kind of thing when you look at it that way... I wonder if in the future we'll start seeing more of that, where there are more than just a small handful of distributed computing projects that you can pick from as to where you want to donate your cycles to.
Wouldn't it be wild to see advertisements for this once it becomes a commodity? Or even to have a management app on your computer to decide what percentage of cycles you are donating to what projects. You get a list, and can fill in boxes or drag sliders to show how much you are donating to protein folding, DRM hacking, pharmaceutical research, global cooking simulations, star scanning, etc. Have a list of hundreds or even thousands of different causes you can easily select and join.
I don't see any reason why this won't come to pass in the next 10 yrs. I'm saving a copy of this post and going to see if I made a good call...
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Well, he is an extremist but he actually hit one valid point, IMHO:
People seem to forget that Israel has been attacked by her neighbors three or four times in the last 60 years. Is it any wonder that they have a siege mentality?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The Palestinian hackers blew themselves up after they hacked in to the Israeli website. Old habits die hard...
I'm a Jew and definite supporter of Israel, but some of your points are frighteningly mistaken.
"The cancer that is Islam"? Come on. Every religion has it's share of crazy fundamentalist quacks reading too much into parts of their holy literature - currently, the fundamentalists of Islam just happen to be a little more numerous and (considerably) more vocal than those of the other major religions. Look back in time - at one point, Christians had a little thing called the Crusades. Hindus in India have been known to form mobs and beat and kill their Muslim neighbors. As for Jews...well, some might even consider the current crisis an example of fundamentalism, though I vehemently do not.
Which leads me the next point: the fallacy that Jews somehow "don't really care that much about religion". What? Sure, they may not go out and scream "TO THE GLORY OF YWHW" before blowing themselves up in a crowded mosque, but that doesn't mean they don't have an incredible fundamentalist and mainstream religious fervor. Watch people rock back and forth in tears and prayer in front of the Wailing Wall and then tell me Jews in Israel "don't really care that much about religion."
"Haven't done shit since 1000 B.C. when they gave up the last of their rational humanistic thought. Sit on patches of oil and get fat." Oy vey. For one, there are Muslims outside the Arab world. For another, back to point one: stop generalizing. Just because a religion has a few (or even a lot) of nutjobs, doesn't mean that the religion itself is to blame.
The rest of your flamebait suffers the same problem. You say Muslims are savages. It would be more accurate to say some some Muslims are savages. It would be more accurate still to say some people are savages.
Such hatred! Gees, no wonder people are dying right and left
Jews: Isreal has the most gender-neutral society in the entire world.
Rank bullshit. perhaps the most gender-neutral in the middle east, I don't think anyone would argue with that, but I think you'll find most European nations (and nations who were settled by Europeans) to be far more gender neutral. In the US, the third in the Presidential sucession is a woman, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
IslamoSavages
Flamebait. Grow up, boy.
Jews: Have the right to a homeland
So do the Palestinians.
IslamoSavages: Wish to indoctrinate the world into the cancer known as Islam.
And Bhuddists sish to indoctrinate the world to Bhuddism and Christians (I'm one) want everyone to accept Christ as savior. Your point?
Jews: Act only in self-defense, strike from afar only at those whose fingers are on the trigger or detonator. Collateral damage is accidental.
Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30
Savages, you say? Seventy dead innocents to kill two soldiers? That's barbaric. Israel should be ashamed of itself, if I was an Israli I'd be at the wailing wall in sackcloth and ashes begging God's forgiveness.
Jews: Don't really care that much about religion.
I see you've not met many Jews. The ones I know are very religious.
Jews: Leading contributors to cutting-edge science and technology.
Gates, Jobs, Torvalds, all Jews? Where do you come up with all this rank bullshit?
Damn it's hard to keep from responding to these damned trolls.
Free Martian Whores!
Nice reference if that's what you were intending to do!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'd say bombing a school and killing 40 children like they did earlier today is worse than that.
Not that I'm supporting the Palestinians here.
They're both sufficiently evil where I can't hold my nose and support either one.
It was something like "Live Free or Die Hard". And it was hosted by that "I'm a Mac" guy. So you know it is factual.
This is so completely NOT like bunches of kids with spray paint messing up building walls.
I live in Israel I know how websites are created here. Once I inherited code for eShop that was destined to be given to the customer soon. Server part had glaring SQL injection vulnerabilities, the HTML/CSS part did not look the same or even correct in not a single browser. But the worst part was the boss who thinks it is OK to ship this to the customer without fixing and charge money for it. I hope our webmasters will learn from what happens now.
your future is already here - http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
it's almost exactly what you describe
Net-criminals have been known to try and make money out of natural disasters etc. before. War can be seen as a disaster too.
What guarantee did the 7786 in this case get that the botnet they've wilfully joined will be used for what they're being told, and not for more common purposes such as sending spam, hosting dirty pictures of big and/or little children, and selling fake medicine with the same advertized effect of making a certain male body part grow?
What if I want to support the Palestinians? Where's the botnet for us?
To be fair, considering what the Jewish people have gone through in the last few thousand years, I'd wager the siege mentality predates the state of Israel.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
There is no winning this war. As much as I support Israel and their right to exist without rockets being fired on them left and right they are the bad guys in this case. They usually are these days if you look at the body count. The Hamas was provoked into breaking the ceasefire. The IDF sent a special forces unit into Gaza to break up a tunnel for smuggeling. They could have done that on the Isrealy side.
But elections are coming up and Baraks popularity (Ehud Barak is a former PM, currently heads the defense department and masterminded the war) has surged. The whole thing could easily backfire as we have seen with the war in Lebanon and the political end of Peres.
The blockade of Gaza for such a long time should be considered an act of war. The whole Gaza strip is practically a prison. And Egypt is not helping either.
Back to the web: The occupation of former Jordanian areas (where the Palestinians now live) is being used by all the nationalistic arab governments of the region to divert public interest away from their corrupt regimes. So there is always a lot of propaganda going on. And that propaganda has moved to the web. There are a lot of very ugly anti Israel webpages out there. With tons of very ugly lies.
Considering the site wasn't linked in the summary or the article, it would make the slashdot effect null, no ? So it looks like the criminal botnets have gone from DNS redirect to DDOS ...
Help Israel Win
Oh noes, will this be the beginning of WWIV?
I blogged about this last year when China wanted to be the first country in electromagnetic dominance. From my blog:
China: HEY USA, ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
USA: What you say?
Taiwan: Somebody set us up the bomb
USA: Why China yelling?
China: CAPS LOCK KEY NOT WORKING. BEIJING NOT YELLING
USA: China yelling at Washington DC. Scramble jets. drop bomb.
semper ubi sub ubi
To be fair, considering what the Jewish people have gone through in the last few thousand years, I'd wager the siege mentality predates the state of Israel.
No doubt. But being invaded three different times isn't very likely to end that siege mentality is it?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Israel has every citizen sign up for the military but that doesn't mean they require everyone to go frontlines and risk their lives. There are so many people in the army that they don't need everyone to be frontline and there are other places where people serve more benefit. It's more like requiring people to take PE up to and through college.
The last 3 comments and "muslim comparisons" of the guy are off in varying ways, the rest characterize the PLO and other violent palestinian orgnizations accurately (not all muslims). At some point Palestinians are going to realize that Jews/Israeli's are Palestinians too, and at that point it will show how stupid all of this crap is.
Fuck random missile shooters.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
It's not like the terrorists themselves dont care about civilians and hide in the most populated areas while launching their rockets at Israel... Oh wait.
This is one of the things that puzzles me. All of the battles launched by the Arabs began with, "We will be victorious and wipe Israel from the map, God willing." And yet they were unsuccessful in 1948 and 1973, and caught off-guard in 1967 when Israel attacked prior to a likely attack by the forces from three Arab nations. Hezbollah and Hamas repeatedly cite their mere survival as God showing them favor (despite the kill ratio of 50:1 or more enjoyed by the Israelis).
I understand the idea that they may perceive these as challenges from God to be overcome, but at some point, someone has to be thinking that maybe these are messages from God telling them that they're not going to win.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
A fatwa has been issued, calling for the immediate murder of "Anonymous coward."
And Bhuddists sish to indoctrinate the world to Bhuddism ...
Of all the religions in the World, Buddhism and Taoism, for that matter, are the only ones I know of that do not have policy of converting people. They're the type of religion you stumble across in a personal spiritual quest and they're more than happy to tell you about it and if you want to partake, it's cool with them and if you don't that's cool too - no pressure either way. And the other thing is that Buddhism is the only religion that does not have a problem with practicing it along with another. Sometimes, I think calling Buddhism a religion is an insult.
I'd be a Buddhist myself but unfortunately, I have no discipline and I like guns.
A lot of people a ready to contribute to a cause they care for.
:)
;)
There was a link on reddit the other day that led to giyus.org which distribute a "community organizing" tool called "Megaphone" which apparently is used to point the community towards pro or anti jewish/israeli articles so that this community can react. I assume by spamming blog or creating a sort of slashdot effect.
This blogger (http://futurenewstoday.blogspot.com/2009/01/israeligirl-violates-digg-tos.html) says that they are using it to artificially increase rankings or submission pro-israeli on sites like digg and reddit.
I don't think it can be considered a botnet in the sense that the software doesn't seem to act on its own. Although I don't know for sure because I didn't want to take the risk to install it. If they really have the nearly 40K users they pretend they surely have the capacity to some damages
All consideration of whether you agree more with Israeli or Palestinian aside, it is not my point.
I just think it's a very astute concept. Apparently the pro-Israeli camps took a page from the russian mob and got a headstart but I would bet that the first one to start an open-source "botnet" project that people can use to rally their own community whether they are mujaheddin or PETA fan will become quite famous. If only I had more time on my hand...
Distribute your open botnet with some basic plugins such as diggburry.py and wordpress-comment.py and it will be a lot of fun.
Not such a good thing if you are British. When bobby snoops your pc and finds out you are supporting the Hammas botnet, they will finger your collar and ask you to help them with some inquiries down at the station.
Careful that no one puts the Hammas botnet software on your pc for you!
This sort of thing could get ridiculously out of hand very quickly.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Take this to its extreme - I imagine election night-like coverage following the "votes" people make with their cycles. Or even better, a game show:
"...and the votes are in for this years' Guam-south African conflict. It looks like...YES, GUAM TAKES IT! CONGRATULATIONS, GUAM! Tell him what he could win, Johnny!"
"Well, Bob, behind one of these doors is a U.N. cease-fire resolution! Behind another, 15.67% of South Africa's land and lasting resentment! Behind the third, a lifetime supply of CHOCOLATE! Choose wisely, Guam!"
Hey that is a good point - I have never thought of that myself. How can you tell what your bot community is doing? Is there a way to tell? What about SETI? Is that a botnet? How do we know what it is doing with all out free CPU cycles - maybe it is a government conspiracy to ... wait wait only kidding.
http://projectleader.wordpress.com
Racist.
3. e-vandalism maybe morph into e-vangelism...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Awesome show, 1 hour daily, you can catch it in the US on many PBS affiliates I believe, and they've been delivering it through BitTorrent for years now, before anybody was doing that.
They interview people that you never see on the corporate media. Today there was this man, Fares Akram, Gaza correspondent for the Independent newspaper, whose father was just killed by the Israeli attacks. And no, he wasn't a terrorist or any other kind of boogeyman, he was a judge working for the PA.
This is the complete opposite of the propaganda you get otherwise.
If you're stupid enough to give control of your computer to anyone, let alone the Israelis, you deserve whatever comes your way.
The fact of the matter is the United States should not be funding this middle eastern civil war. And the Israelis have been oppressing the Palestinians for decades and occupying their land. So there are lots of people on both sides who are being harassed and killed, but only one side has a lot of power and modern weapons, as well as sympathy and support from the mainstream media.
As an American, I think our country should not be giving $3-$6 Billion dollars of taxpayer money per year to Israel to fund their wars. Regardless of which side is right, we shouldn't be funding the conflict. America doesn't owe Israel anything. We fought to save them. It's about time they started trying to get along with their neighbors.
Well put, but no botnet for me. I need my CPU cycles.
so your PC can become part of a worldwide pro-Israeli botnet.
And if this botnet is used in violation of the law (interfering with or damaging other systems), won't the act of donating your system voluntarily make you a co-conspirator?
Have gnu, will travel.
1) Start monetized blogs.
2) Copypasta some anti-Israel content.
3) Refer your blogs to giyus.org for listing on Megaphone.
4) Enjoy 15,000+ page impressions per day.
"There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
The Help Israel Win site is down. But Google's cache of the site is available, so that seems to be the site mentioned.
From the cached page, this sounds like just another attempt to install malware. "How can you help? You download and install the file from our site. The file is harmless to your computer and could be immediately removed. There is no need for identification of any kind - anonymity guaranteed!" There's no indication of who's behind this, and the only contact point is a GMail address.
The domain is registered anonymously through some Register.com front organization in Portugal. It's currently not resolving at all. DNS is on a Register.com server.
Probably had nothing to do with Israel at all.
Ah! Back home again.
And look at everything which has happened while I was away! Miss a few news cycles and Gaza winds up in flames. I wonder if the timing of this even was deliberate. No. Actually, I don't wonder that at all.
The whole situation in Israel and Gaza looks to me like the result of a long and slow mind-programming effort, largely through the use of religion, to annihilate everybody of Semitic blood lines. Jew and Muslim alike.
One possible scenario I see unfolding. . .
The propaganda war being waged by Israel while it bombs Gaza is seen for what it is; (nobody seems to be buying it except those who already owned it), and the world stands well back while Israel is attacked with far more than just home made rockets. The Zionist-owned puppet leaders in the West respond by going to war against the Muslim world, (more so than already), and the destruction of humanity is jump-started.
Destruction of 94% of the world's population. That appears to be the goal, starting with the Semites.
Isn't it weird how the Zionist movement in it's early days used coercion and underhanded tactics to move Jewish communities to one convenient location? All eggs in one basket. Isn't it also weird how some of the more powerful Zionists weren't even Jewish?
I've been telling my Jewish friends for years to stay the heck away from the 'promised land'. I can't see how this can possibly end well.
To get a snippet of some of the thinking circulating in the darker corners, read Dave McGowan's essay with attention to one Dr. Colin Campbell and his advice on the matter of Peak Oil. (Take a look at the list of institutions he's been invited to lecture at.)
-FL
I would laugh so hard if this was actually an American led movement to unearth all those extremists that use this sort of thing to help propagate more hate...and then shut them down.
As soon as you make your PC a botnet zombie, it will (at least) start sending V1agr4 spam all over the net. Most probably, it will be used to attack whoever the botnet overlord wants.
Botnet overlords just don't care sh1t about the war.
No it isn't
The other side was firing rockets and mortars into Israel for a while now.
At best I say a pox on both their houses.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I wished this sort of crap would stop.
I'll be the first to say that I dislike the entire notion of the US supporting Israel. Israel never needed to be created and certainly doesn't need the U.S.'s help to exist -- if it should exist, it would exist under its own power. But with all that said, it doesn't mean "I hate Jews."
I know a lot of Jewish people and every single one of them have one thing in common -- they are not all the same!! Some think supporting Israel is important, some do not. Some will have a ham sandwich for lunch with you and some will not. Your own cultural and/or ethnic identity, whatever is may be, is not of "one mind" so why does anyone else expect this to be true of Jews? The same goes for anyone who thinks the people of the U.S. are just like Bush?
I say down with Judaism. I also say down with Christianity, Islam and every religion -- especially those that believe in invisible beings that created us and tell us how to live our lives. The evidence for Zeus is every bit as valid as the evidence for "God." Why do people have to believe in stupid stuff like that anyway?
There will always be reasons and excuses for one person to want to kill another. We don't need religion for that. But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous. So down with all of it I say... or... let them all kill themselves and leave us out of it.
Let's not forget that Mercury is a company that was headquartered in Israel before it was taken over by HP. It still has a very large Israeli presence.
Mercury is the owner of Loadrunner. A tool which, by its very design is military in application, and I've heard rumors (I've not confirmed) that Loadrunner was developed as a military weapon at its inception.
If Israel wanted to wage real "electronic warfare" on the Palestinians, I'd think there wouldn't be much left for Palestine to access. More likely is that Palestine isn't as dependent on computing, so unleashing a massive DDoS attack would have very little real impact.
Think of Gaza as basically the South Philly of the Near East. It is a tiny place, densely populated. By provoking a retaliatory attack on their own tiny, densely populated city, the Arabs sealed the fate of innocent civilians. There is no way to wage war in this area without hitting civilian targets. It's not as if there is some big "military/political" sector separate from some "civilian" sector. If you expect Israel to be nicer / more careful after this most recent provocation by the Arabs and the Hamas leadership, you are not paying attention. Israel is saying the line has been drawn and crossed, and they aren't going to back down.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Joke's on them. Allah is Jewish.
6. End up on the no-fly list
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
# rm -rf /
I cannot get into the Help Israel Win website (server not found). The DNS Team acting again?
Yes, that's what the grandparent said.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Unfortunately, you can't just say 'Down with religion!' because religion has taken up residence in a very vital human activity; culture and community. People will fight to the death to keep their tribes.
In my own experience, this has been demonstrated to me time and again (though I don't know that I understand the reasons - just that they must exist); that nearly every Jew I've met is strongly in favor of the Jewish state. Maybe there is something to that.
All that said, Israel should stop killing recklessly. 550 Palestinian deaths to 5 Israeli deaths is so lopsided that it has to be stopped. The solution to the situation is actually pretty simple; it's money. Once the non-country of Palestine isn't made up of mostly the desperate poor, with a few warlords manipulating them, then you'll see peace. Alas, no one is likely to pony up.
[Ego]out
An important thing for US readers to keep in mind is that the US mainstream press very rarely ever reports anything bad about Israel (I remember the US bulldozer girl, what others can you recall?). To a great extent, British press is much the same way.
,,,I suppose you could say that I am anti-Israel, but only to the degree that I feel that too many US leaders have thought that whatever happens to Israel would have some immense impact on the future of the US. I generally hope people "over there" don't resort to killing each other, but if they do it's really not the US's problem.
Anytime you have armed conflict, bad things happen because that's the way humans are--but in the US media, most of those "bad things" are consistently not done by Jews, even though the Jews there have superior weapons and numbers.
-------
I myself suspect that eventually the tide of world opinion will turn against Israel, for the same reasons it turned against South Africa's apartheid regime. People (in both these examples of countries) who wish to exclude "the undesireables" have to be mean to do it, forever... and others (worldwide) who do not live in a similar situation, come to understand the opinions of the besieged less and less as time goes on.
~
That's so cool, where do I sign up to turn my computer into a zombie controlled by a shady Command Central? Does that cost anything or is it free?
Dont forget the botnet could be used as a social engineering tool and send out phishing email to everybody @yourmilitary.mil.fu . Get all these people to click on a phising webpage hosted somewhere on your botnet. Hit the right personnel and you could land yourself some valuable information.
And besides, screw military. What about hospital networks, school networks, utility networks? You think those are all somehow on the public internet? Even if the command channels aren't, a large DDOS could bring down their email at minimum.
If you think "cyberwar" is just "log into a unix shell and type 'rm -rf'", you aren't being creative enough. Put yourself into a more evil mindset for a minute and apply all the scams people now use on the intertubes and then add a twist of global-intertubular-war.
in all cases they would have lost had it not been for help by a much more powerfull ally thousands of miles away. But in any case, currently their old enemy is the best chance, aka egypt. I'd like Egypt to step up and realize that Gaza should be taken over by them and order brought in. I don't like the current goverment in egypt for their human rights position but they have done a much better job then Israel at containing extremist muslim groups like the muslim brotherhood which is ancestor to hamas. Of course Egypt doesn't want the problem and so this will never work.
The same goes for anyone who thinks the people of the U.S. are just like Bush?
Yes you are.
Because, clearly, Hamas lobbing rockets and mortars into Israel's civilian areas is such a peaceful, friendly way to behave. Israel is clearly wrong for doing anything to try to protect their own mothers, brothers, uncles, girlfriends, etc. ~
If your neighbor was firing his shotgun into your yard, at your wife and kids, would you just sit there?
No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
We don't need religion for that. But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous. So down with all of it I say... or... let them all kill themselves and leave us out of it.
Right because Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot didn't really kill all that many people compared to say the Spanish Inquisition.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
for those interested, the YWHW was intended to reference the name God gives himself when speaking to Moses... it should read, YHWH (yod he waw he)- unless his transliteration is seeing H's as waw's/vav's (w and v roughly interchangeable here). the name YHWH comes from a root for the verb "to be" and basically means "the one who exists"
It is just another face of the same sort of problem -- leaders recruiting believers and turning them into armies to do their will. There are lots of ways to exploit the emotions of people in order to get them to do the will of others. Religion is the worst of them and it is essentially as much of an outright lie as the tooth fairy.
in all cases they would have lost had it not been for help by a much more powerfull ally thousands of miles away
Umm, Israel prevailed in 1948 with very little help from the outside World and in 1967 with almost no help from the United States. Most of Israel's weaponry in the early years came from France, not the US.
But in any case, currently their old enemy is the best chance, aka egypt
Best chance of what?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Christians had a little thing called the Crusades."
Let's get this straight. Do you think that Christians handed over those countries to the Muslims? They were being knocked over left and right by Muslim armies. They were massacring pilgrims going to Jerusalem. They destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchr. Yeah - Christians started the Crusades, but as an answer to Muslim actions.
I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
The solutions presented by both sides so far are ridiculous:
a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution)
b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
Both sides are idiots, hard headed and are in serious need for an adult conversation.
As a side note to the GP regarding extremist Muslims (or as I like to call them douche bags), if they read Quran they'll stop this my god is bigger than your god bull, here's a quote:
Al Baqara (002.136)
Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
P.S.: It's refreshing to see a post like yours on Slashdot :)
If you can't mod them join them.
It's a sort of a seti-at-home kind of thing when you look at it that way...
You mean someone's trying to find out if there's intelligent life in the Middle East?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Uh, they posted video of mortars being fired from that school last week. Was it currently being used? We have no way of knowing, but that's how all intelligence works.
Point being the elected government of Gaza was using a UN non-military building as a base of operations to launch attacks on a civilian populace.
According to the Israelis what happened was small arms fire coming from the direction of the UN school which in their opinion made it worth firing at. In short, according to the latest news reports, it appears that two Hamas fighters are dead at the cost of some 30+ kids and their care takers being killed as well. The sad thing is that many lives could probably have been saved over the last few days if the Israelis hadn't embargoed all sorts of medical equipment which has been piling up at the border for months. If Israel shot it self in the foot with the invasion and bombardment of Lebanon back in 2006 it is now shooting it self in both feet with this latest raid on Gaza. It is an awsome manifestation of the unshakeable US/Israeli belief that conflicts like this one are best resolved with the lavish over use of firepower but in the long run it won't do anything to end Hamas' resistance efforts. Even if Hamas is "cynically using civilians as a human shield" like the Israelis are claiming it still won't help Israel's cause very much in the long run. All the world will remember is the dead kids. I am no friend of Hamas but no matter how hard you try you won't succeed in making the sheer galactic stupidity of what Israel is currently doing in Gaza sound like a good idea.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
So in the summary, the Palestinians are accused of e-vandalism, then it finishes with a call to join a pro-israeli bot-net.
Complete and utter hipocrasy, which leads my bullshit filter to tell me that the so-called anonymous contributer is pro-israeli, using an unwitting kdawson to try and garner support by the slashdot crowd.
Fuck war. I just got to a peaceful country after living through years of civil war and the effects on the average person are a thousand times worse than you'll see on the internet/TV/newspapers. NO-ONE involved in ANY war has any moral credence. Cyber-recruiters using people's ignorance are just as much a part of it, too.
The Israelis show the world they don't deserve one square meter of the land they were given.
Given that jews have been victims of genocide i find it surprising that we allow (nee, FUND) them to persue one of their own.
Settlement, Apartheid, Gaza "open air prison camp", Ghettos, restriction of movement.
The israelis will not cease until 100% of palestinian land becomes part of greater israel. Then they will continue through syria, Lebanon and their other neighbours.
Seriously. Fuck Israel. It's actions make me sick.
I have an idea. The president of Israel and the president of Palestine should play a game of chess. Whoever wins, wins the conflict. And then the whole world can have some peace and quiet.
Of peace. Seriously, there is no chance in hell that Israel will manage peace by directly because their is no trust between the two party and won't be for a long time.
Today's conflicts are won by public opinion.
Now is the time to be active and voice Israel's side to the world.
http://www.giyus.org/
I think it's a good idea for any political organization to do this.
Judging by results on Reddit, Barack Obama's campaign had a similar idea.
Futurist Traditionalism
The very first act of Israel as a nascent state was to attack Egypt. And there had never historically (before '48) been a State of Israel, all they had was vague mutterings of a "promised land". Where was this promised land - Palestine ! Who promised it ? The imaginary guy in the sky. Fuck worrying about intelligent design, what about the Israelis, murdering people to preserve a homeland that they basically promised themselves. There is a good reason why the diaspora happened - because they are a bunch of trouble makers and always have been. If it wasn't for what happened during WW2, they would have had their asses handed to them years ago. They've been playing the victim for far too long IMHO. Even christ freaked out because they used the temple as a branch of the local savings and loan.
I don't care what religion anybody subscribes to, but I do object to them starting fights every time you turn your back.
Allah is Jewish.
Actually, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons, all worship the same God, they just disagree on who was the last prophet.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
> And since when is someone defending their land from an invader a terrorist?
The first thing you do when you study a new topic is you find some working definition for your terms. In most cases, the working definition for terrorist is a person who is using terror for political or military objectives. Strikes against civilian targets is a common technique to do that.
Terrorism is also, of course, a buzzword. Washington was somewhat dishonorable by then-British standards, though they used different words for it, since he didn't line up in an open field muzzle-to-muzzle with redcoats when he could help it. He did not, however, kill loyalist civilians in the marketplace.
Even though islam comes close with 1,2 billion dead, not a single religion has ever killed anywhere near the amount of death dealt out by the leaders of atheism. By the leaders of socialism. By "the will of the people". By "social justice".
Some billion people total were killed by atheists in the last 100 years. Several hundred million merely for their faith (confucianists in China for example) by these atheists. From Berlin to Hong Kong to East Timor millions have been killed by people looking to "eradicate" religion.
And islam comes close to atheist ideologies in deaths caused by religious persecution. But it took muslims a millenium to kill almost the amount of people the "socialist" atheists killed in less than 100 years.
Some ideologies are genuinly peaceful. And some are not. Amongst the peaceful ideologies you will find multiple religions and some atheists and amongst the massacres you will find religionists and the large mass of atheists.
So unfortunately this whole "it's god" is bullshit. Yes some gods like allah demand rivers of blood, but so does the "will of the people, free from god" as illustrated undeniably by recent history.
The problem is, quite simply, that some people feel themselves better than the rest. Feel themselves superior to others. And frankly, even though I consider myself atheist, there are plenty of atheists that I don't consider good company. Atheists are certainly not tolerant of christians in America and neither are the atheists of china tolerant of the remaining religious peoples there. Standing in the camp of atheists feels almost as dirty as defending hamas.
Mod parent up!
The current problem in Israel and Palestine is that the violence has hardened the population to the point that the most extremist people in both groups are in control of goverment actions.
We need moderate Israelis and moderate Palestinians in charge, so that they can finally hammer a two-state solution that brings peace to the region.
Sadly, due to the ever increasing spiral of revenge, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
No sig for the moment.
Does that make you an 'enemy combatant'?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I wished this sort of crap would stop.
wow, pot, kettle, black. Your very post is the kind if unintelligible drivel that's blatantly hypocritical that I wish people would shut up and read a book or something because they need some education.
First you point out someone for being an intolerant fool (intolerant of Judaism, which was more likely a Troll to incite some response) while you turn around and claim "down with religion" and an equally intolerant fool who probably believes in their own Agnostic/Atheist faith, but refuses to accept others of different faith.
If you want to ask a question, why don't you ask why people can't fucking let people live the way they want to live without the persecution of others for their life style, assuming they're not harming others in the process. You know these kind of people, because you sir, are one of them. Someone who refuses to accept the idea that someone might have some sort of spiritual belief, a belief you do not accept, but instead of understanding and tolerance these people, you'd rather try to control and eliminate them so they think... just... like... you.
Well, I can tell you. You're questions will never get answered until you can open your own eyes and start accepting people for who they are instead of denouncing them, should they have a different belief than you.
Arrogant fool.
Hezbollah and Hamas have had totally different results against the IDF. Israel more or less moves in and out of Gaza at its own free will, while the last incursion into Lebanon the IDF met very heavy resistance from a massively outgunned Hezbollah and besides blowing a lot of things up didn't achieve much else. Based purely on a military level (removing questions about terrorism from the discussion) Hezbollah are almost as impressive as the IDF is when it comes to what they can do with so few people. Hamas seems to have only one method of fighting - suicide bombers. Hezbollah on the other hand is quite at home fighting a conventional battle too.
Wait...
You claim you can find an insurance policy that cover your files or server so completely that they would need to invoke the "act of war" clause to deny you coverage for damages caused by hackers ?
I'm curious to see who would actually offer that kind of coverage.
I mean, coverage against flood or fire I can believe, but coverage against hacked password,software security holes and DDoS ???
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shhh!
Great, now I have to post Middle-East comments on here? God damn it, how much longer are people going to keep arguing about this?
3. e-vandalism maybe morph into e-vangelism...
priceless
Atheism is not an idealism. It is the absense of religious ideology and more specifically, the absense of belief in things like gods and fairies.
"If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers? Any harm that comes to someone as a result of your criminal actions is your fault."
If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team storms it and shoots the 3 robbers along with everyone else inside the bank, then yes the SWAT team would have a LOT of explaining to do.
Your analogy would be SWAT being given the green light to kill anybody in the vicinity of a bank robbery without reason and if someone questions this would have the blood of those killed on their hands. Very poor analogy.
Interestingly enough, I (a "lapsed" Catholic) had a friendly discussion with one of my Jewish friends back in early September, and he mentioned that you don't need to actually believe in God to be a Jew. He said he didn't, but still considered himself Jewish. Surprised the crap out of me. I always thought that Judaism was a "religion", but apparently it is more of a shared culture than anything else. He was saying that many of his friends, and even his friends' parents do all of the rituals, keep kosher, etc. but are either agnostics or atheists. There's apparently provision in the Torah for people who are "doubters" (I forget the exact terminology he used). This is different from Catholicism, being Muslim, or Protestantism, where the "believing" part is a prerequisite.
You mean someone's trying to find out if there's intelligent life in the Middle East?
Of course there is! It's called "Haifa".
Please. Learn of what you speak. It is possible to not believe in something for lack of evidence. Atheism is the refusal to believe in things of this sort of unprovable nature. You probably don't believe in the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster and for a very good reason I am sure. If that reason is because the very idea is far-fetched and without sufficient supporting evidence, then it is time you turn that same filter on your own religion so you can see it the way atheists see it. It is all well and good for you to reject nonsensical beliefs of others, but if at the same time, you cling to your own similar beliefs, then you are the black pot.
Atheists, on the other hand, see religions as equally stupid. There is no "faith" or worship or rules or dogma. Atheism is the absense of those things. It must hurt your mind to consider what nothing is like.
Palestine and Israel. Modern day Syria and Jordan are occupying over 70% of 'Palestine'. Yet, the Muslums rain down hatred on the smaller Israel and proclaim how everything is the fault of the Jew. The Palestines rain down rockets and mortors with the intent to inflict massive civilian death, while Israel uses tactical weapons to minimize civilian death. Israel telephones targets, sends out flyers and detonates 'Sound Bombs' to warn civilians that a military target situated in a populated area is about to be hit. Hamas then forces women and children into these buildings, then parades the bodies around when the cameras come by. Heck, they've been caught robbing graveyards of 3 day old children, so they could have a body to parade around. Then they claim the moral high ground. When was the last time a Jewish suicide bomber attacked a school bus, pizzeria, hospital or marketplace?
Muslum insurgency in the Philipines has Muslims killing anyone who opposed being subject to Sharia law. Do you think they give a rip about Palestine and Israel?
India and Pakistan - the Muslums have been declaring war on the Hindu inhabitants of India for nearly a hundred years. Do you think they give a rip about Palestine and Israel?
How about the Chechen Rebels in Russia, attacking a high school? Do you think they give a rip about Palestine and Israel?
How about the Taliban in Afghanistan? Do you think they give a rip about Palestine and Israel?
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_in_the_Muslim_world#Current_conflicts
Mod parent up...even as an atheist myself, this puts on a whole new perspective.
because they are a bunch of trouble makers and always have been
And I'm the one who gets a troll mod? Got any other bits of racism that you'd care to share with us?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Atheism is not an absense of belief in things like gods and faries. It is a belief in the absense of things like gods and faries.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Hezbollah are almost as impressive as the IDF is when it comes to what they can do with so few people
Take the kid gloves off the IDF and I don't think Hezbollah's results would have been as "impressive"
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Fuck them all, let's make the middle east a parking lot.
And its not like the civilians help hide the terrorists and thus support their cause...oh wait
Except that there is no god, only men and countries. Men and countries making deals with other men and countries. Men and countries writing propaganda on slashdot telling them that god says they won't win.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
It is a SEVERE war crime, Perfidy to do what those two militants did. You are expressing outrage at the wrong side. Those two Hamas Militants caused the deaths of 68 civilians by engaging in Perfidy, their families should be mourning and begging for forgiveness for the acts of their kin.
Those militants didn't use "human shields", they went home. By your logic, if Hamas sent suicide bombers to the home of the Israeli prime minister, and killed his entire extended family in the process, would the PM be guilty of using human shields? Of course not, that's nonsense - but that's what you are spouting.
NEARLY EVERY SINGLE CIVILIAN CASUALTY IN GAZA WOULD be AVOIDED IF THE MILITANTS WORE UNIFORMS AND AVOIDED CIVILIAN AREAS, requirements of a militia under the laws of war.
THERE IS NO PLACE FOR THEM TO AVOID CIVILIANS, YOU FUCKING JACKASS. Gaza is packed with people - there is no place you can go to and be away from civilians. Nowhere.
And to put your bullshit to bed, Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on the Egyptian air force, because Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran.
So by Israeli logic, Hamas is PERFECTLY JUSTIFED in FIRING ROCKETS INTO ISRAEL in response to the blockade of Gaza.
Yeah I hate those sneaky, cheap ass pallies with their bubble and insta.....er wait...what were we talking about again?
Since when is Palestine a state? And for that matter, it is not Palestine with whom Israel is waging war. Israel is attacking Hamas terrorists. Not civilians. Not the Palestinian Authority. Not Fatah.
Your right. Every religion has the extreme nuts that take things out of context. however in the case of Islam the nuts are the ones who want peace. the Koran is VERY clear about there being no peace until all have been converted. It commands that Jerusalem be taken then Rome. most of the savage verses are repeated multiple times in different wording to be sure that none can be taken out of context. The koran is not cryptic the way that christian and jewish texts are. it is very straight forward.
You are also right that most (all) religions have a dark history. however most move on. Christians had the crusades. which was aimed more at other types of christians than muslims. But they grew out of that. The core message of christianity, and judaism, and buddhism, and most other world religions is one of peace, and tolerance. They are sadly abused often. But islam starts there. to abuse its message would be to offer peace to the infidels.
a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution)
b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
If only there was some kind of old border that would keep both sides more content and willing to speak to each-other.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
That whooshing sound you heard? It wasn't an airplane.
Go Plano! Oh wait...
Actually, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons, all worship the same God, they just disagree on who was the last prophet.
I respectfully disagree.
The Christian God is Triune, and this "last prophet" is actually the Christian God. The fact that Jews, Muslims and Christians disagree regarding Christ means that they have differing opinions regarding the essential nature of God.
Muslims worship a God which is not triune. Therefore, the Muslim God cannot be the Christian God.
I refuse to take sides in this issue. Even if Israel is the democracy and free society, I cannot support a state or culture who justifies their own existence by religion -- from a text full of superstition and outdated values -- rather than objective reason. They can do it with pure humanistic reason, I know they can, but until they drop the religious aspect of it, I refuse to support Israel.
In before "hurrr you're a troll" or "hurrr flamebait" because I said an opinion someone doesn't like.
I am also Jew. While the Israelis may be too hard-headed sometimes, saying that their position is to exterminate the Palestinians is a bit over the top. If they really wanted to do that, they could have done it already. They do have the technical capability to do that, though not the desire. And if there is any Israeli group with at least a moderate level of public support whose position is to exterminate the Palestinians, I have yet to hear of them.
Meanwhile, it seems that the publicly stated position of Hamas is to kill all of the Jews everywhere - even Hitler was not so ambitious. And it seems that the people of Gaza, with full knowledge of this position and as free of an election as can be arranged in the area, elected Hamas to lead them. What are they do to with these people? I sure don't know. How do you have meaningful negotiations with an opponent who seeks nothing less than the death of your entire race? I can't think of anything better to do than pretty much what the Israelis are doing now.
But I can think of lots of better things for the Palestinians to do. Abandon the goal of killing all of the Jews and set up as reasonable and prosperous of a community as they can with what they have right now. If you must fight, make every possible effort to fight only against the soldiers of the other side. If they demonstrate the ability to have some sort of stable society somewhere, I think there'd be much greater sympathy for their desire to have a legitimate homeland. I think that Israel itself has shown that having just living as your primary goal leads to a much better life and a better ability to fight than having slaughtering the other side no matter what happens to you and your side as your primary goal.
I don't reply to ACs
What a crock of crap, seriously. Religion is a mask for this offensive, as it has been for offensives of the past. Theism bring a depth of culture to a people, as does atheism - history notes this MANY times over, go google a few!
The issue here is that people are people, good and bad. That's it. I, myself, am a pacifist atheist, and I consider myself to be 'good' in the Christian sense (as that's my own cultural upbringing). Do us the favour of NOT castigating atheists as harbingers of evil. The evil acts of the few (who happen to be in power) belittle those who follow them blindly and frequently in an innocent capacity.
You sir, are not a true atheist, but clearly an angry one, if you're one at all.
If you're going to lump all the non-religious movements together, then you should do the same with the groups acting in support of some religious cause. Looking at it from that perspective, atheism per se has led to far less violence than religion.
Otherwise, if you want to classify the groups based on their actual motivation, then you should only count those who were killed in the name of atheism, or because of their non-atheistic beliefs. Political and social movements that just happen to have atheistic leaders should be grouped separately based on their goals. Again, the movements supporting specific religious beliefs and personality cults tend to dominate when it comes to violence, compared those populated by freethinkers.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Honest question: are jews hated because they're a "race" or because of their religion?
by country and name list of terror sites:
http://internet-haganah.com/haganah/index.html
Like the crusades never happened? Niemals vergessen!
Evil people do evil things, irregardless of religion.
From an Atheist to your front door,
Anonymous Coward.
You call the Israeli Labor and Kadima parties extremists? Seriously? Have you never heard of Shas, UTJ, and the other settler and ultra-Orthodox parties?
I know it sounds nice to say "both sides have too many extremists", but if you visit Israel it quickly becomes apparent that Israel isn't run by extremists. People inside Israel live normal lives when the wars stop, while groups like Hamas dedicate their time and effort to making sure that, for the Palestinians, the war never stops.
So it turns your computer into a TV?
Lumping each of these atheists into a single category is a lousy basis of forming a relationship. Atheism has no central dogma. It is like drawing nasty generalizations about dog-lovers, hockey players, or computer programmers: it is a logical fallacy based on limited experience.
Even if they didn't believe in gods, these "atheistic" murderers still followed a different form of religion that allowed them to carry out their malign schemes: nationalism, fascism, and other forms of state-worship.
To paraphrase Sam Harris, none of these regimes suffered from the problem of having "too much" skeptical inquiry and rational discussion. Those ideas are the hallmarks of modern, responsible atheism, though detractors (like the parent) have led some modern atheists to differentiate themselves by using the labels "bright" or "free-thinker."
So yeah, "it's god" still works pretty well for differing values of "god."
I think adentists are responsible for more death and destruction than everything else combined. People who are not dentists have murdered billions of people throughout history.
Wrong. That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
This is different from Catholicism, being Muslim, or Protestantism, where the "believing" part is a prerequisite.
That's cause Judaism is also considered an ethnicity, so it's as much about blood as about beliefs. Even the strictest denominations of Judaism will accept a hardcore athiest as a Jew if his mother is Jewish. It's just his level of Judaism that will be questioned. In the same vein even a heretic or someone who converts out is always considered a Jew. Believing is only a prerequisite for being an observant Jew, and even then there are about a zillion definitions of belief.
open source modern art: laser taggi
Out of interest them, would you draw a distinction between an absence of theistic belief and a belief in non-theistic ontologies.
How would you define each?
(For my opinion, I would be happy taking atheism as being the absence of any belief in supernatural ideas, to do otherwise would presuppose that we have a theistic starting point to diverge from)
http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/index.htm
Note these gems:
"The aim of the Israel activist point scorer is to try to make as many comments that are positive about Israel as possible, whilst attacking certain Palestinian positions, and attempting to cultivate a dignified appearance."
"Point scoring works because most audience members fail to analyse what they hear."
"Point scoring is the correct method of communication to use when the audience is likely to be only partially engaged."
It seems to me that they understand the Internet way better than most people.
What they're doing is no different than what any political party does, whether using a printing press, phone calls, MySpace, carrier pigeons, spray paint, or orgone waves changing neurochemistry.
This is RealPolitik(tm), and it's how you get support for your cause in this day and age.
The internet trolls have taken up the cry, too -- the ex-GNAA group INFOTERROR supports Israel:
http://www.infoterror.com/ (NSFW, goatse on page)
First you have to realize that there legitimately are three positions to take with respect to God:
1. Affirm existence
2. Deny existence
3. Fail to affirm/deny existence
Atheism is often used to refer to both 2 and 3, but properly speaking it should be #2. Furthermore, type #3 atheism never got anyone killed. Type #2 atheism contains the pop culture, Richard Dawkins, goose-stepping, fundamentalist variety that does nobody any good. It also includes some decent folk, but it's where you find the crazies.
It's also worth pointing out that atheism of the #2 variety is essentially a religion. It has a central doctrine about God and espouses it without proof. That works for me.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
We don't call it a religious belief if you deny the existence of fairies or unicorns, so why is it any different with god?
The burden of proof is on the believer. An atheist doesn't have to prove there is no God, the believer has to prove that there is. I've met no atheists that have said with 100% certainty that there is no god, simply because it cannot be disproved. Atheists just think there is not enough evidence to support the proposition, and the probability of there being such a being is very low.
I'm sure there are atheists who are 100% sure that god does not exist. But I've never met one. In fact, I bet if you took a poll among atheists, you would find that very few state that there is no god as a matter of fact.
Please don't lump Hindus with other lunatics. Read your history write. India - Hindus - is the only country where Jews were not persecuted. If Hindus are killing Muslims in India, ask where did these Muslims come from? Please read, understand, think before you post.
I wished this sort of crap would stop.
I'll be the first to say that I dislike the entire notion of the US supporting Israel. Israel never needed to be created and certainly doesn't need the U.S.'s help to exist -- if it should exist, it would exist under its own power. But with all that said, it doesn't mean "I hate Jews."
I know a lot of Jewish people and every single one of them have one thing in common -- they are not all the same!! Some think supporting Israel is important, some do not. Some will have a ham sandwich for lunch with you and some will not. Your own cultural and/or ethnic identity, whatever is may be, is not of "one mind" so why does anyone else expect this to be true of Jews? The same goes for anyone who thinks the people of the U.S. are just like Bush?
I say down with Judaism. I also say down with Christianity, Islam and every religion -- especially those that believe in invisible beings that created us and tell us how to live our lives. The evidence for Zeus is every bit as valid as the evidence for "God." Why do people have to believe in stupid stuff like that anyway?
There will always be reasons and excuses for one person to want to kill another. We don't need religion for that. But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous. So down with all of it I say... or... let them all kill themselves and leave us out of it.
So it's okay because you hate the religious because they're all alike? I'm confused.
> I never have watched Star Trek, don't really like the show.
How do you know you don't like it?
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but why is it that whenever Muslims are criticized this way, an entire army of apologists and propagandists pounces upon the criticizer with accusations of bias and bigotry, but when Jews, Christians or Hindus are attacked in this way, it's the same apologists who cheer the attackers on? All this even though the one major thing that Christians, Jews, Buddhists , Hindus and even minority Muslim sects like Ahmadiyyas have in common is that they all either have been or are being persecuted by the Sunni-Shia Muslim hegemony (Jews in Iran, Hindu minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Christians in East Timor, Buddhas of Bamiyan).
Methinks some kind of Stockholm's syndrome is at work here.
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
Flying Spaghetti Monster wags his noodle in your general direction.
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
Muslims worship a God which is not triune. Therefore, the Muslim God cannot be the Christian God.
From your response I can tell you are a Southern Baptist who has been exposed to "The Mormon Question" or know someone who has. It saddens me to see you so naively misled. Using the doctrine of the Trinity as a bright-line distinction between Mormons and Christians (or Muslims and Christians in this case) might be the kind of comforting safety blanked that lets you rest easy, but sadly it has no basis in fact.
The fact is that there's no such thing as the Trinity in the Bible.
"The formal doctrine of the trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament." - Harper's Bible Dictionary (Protestant Source)
"The formulation of 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century... Among Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (Catholic Source)
The Bible's teaching on God's nature is ambiguous. Sure, Christ says he's "one with the Father", but then he also prays that his disciples will be one in the same sense of the word, which seriously jeopardizes subsequent metaphysical gymnastics required to invent the "one in three, three in one" formulation. At best the Bible is compatible with the Trinity, but it most certainly doesn't require it or preach it.
Oops.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Precisely. GP post is an absolute load of nonsense, and of course fails to cite any sources for his/her diatribe.
The majority of "atheist"-caused deaths which are presumably being referred to were motivated by a desire to obtain and maintain political and social control, not to 'eradicate religion' because of its ideological conflict with atheism. The fact that the perpetrators were from ideologies which were also atheistic does not mean that any of those deaths are attributable to atheism. For example, the Soviet Union was not in any sense motivated by a desire to champion atheism as an ideology: it was motivated by a desire to maintain state control, and the church in Russia was regarded as a potential threat to state control.
In contrast, a great many people have been killed by religious groups specifically in the name of religion, i.e. as a deliberate attempt to impose and enforce a particular religious belief for its own sake.
Read Pynchon.
Israel offered to give Gaza to Egypt.
Egypt didn't want it.
Not that I blame them, of course.
The Palestinians are just pawns for the Arabs, who are only posturing as anti-Israel to quell their own internal radicals. Well, now they are pawns for the Persians, which just makes the whole thing more complex.
Sure, Muslims and Jews historically don't get along, but neither do Arabs and Persians. So now it's a three-way battle.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Wrong. That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Damn it; damn it; damn it: We have words; can't we please use them correctly?
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That's what the goddamn word means. Agnosticism is the belief that one has no knowledge of God or his/her/its existence. Look at the damn word roots.
By definition, atheists are not agnostic, because they do claim knowledge: They assert that God does not exist. So the set of atheists and the set of agnostics are disjoint. They are also of course both disjoint from the set of theists.
OK? That's how it works. Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true; theists believe that the statement "God exists" is true. The end.
(Don't be offended: Calling atheism a belief in no way belittles it, and as a statement by itself is not equivalent to calling atheism "another religion." Beliefs in nonexistence can be quite justified. In math, we have theorems dedicated to showing nonexistence. And in real life, the belief that, say, purple unicorns do not exist is probably correct! But it's still a belief. That's what the words mean.)
I lived in Israel for a year, have relatives there, this does not qualify me as an expert, but I have an opinion.
My opinion is that the conflict between Gaza Strip and Israel is artificial. I believe that the countries that share their borders with Israel: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and those that are very near Israel, let's say "a rocket's flight": Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, this countries in between them have so much unused space, that given the amount of help that Gaza gets from them, it would have been cheaper simply to relocate the entire Gaza population into any of those countries. There is so much unused territory, that rationally speaking, the continuation of this conflict makes no sense. So what I think is happening, is that many of these bordering countries are interested in the continued conflict around them. It is really a perfect way to maintain the state of alarm, to push forward religious agenda of promoting Islam around the world and also very importantly, it is a great way to create more kamikaze fighters, who will not hesitate to strap a bomb to themselves and kill some heretics and go to the Muslim heaven (you know, the 72 virgins and such.)
So I actually think that Israel is just a convenient way of achieving the above goals, if tomorrow all citizens of that country disappeared, the conflict would have to continue. There would always be a way to continue it, it is always easy to come up with other conflicts. Iraq has Sunnis and Shiites - here is a perfect example of why it will make no difference whether Israel exists as an entity or not, there will be conflict because it is profitable for many involved parties to maintain it.
My point is that this conflict in the Middle East will not stop no matter what happens with Israel itself. This conflict is really about control of oil, control of money, control of people through religion, promotion of idea of Islam and so on.
You can't handle the truth.
If "theism" is a belief in a god or gods, then what is "atheism"? When something is asymmetrical, it is without symmetry. If something is amoral, it is without morals -- which is, please note, different than being immoral. The prefix "a-" simply means "without, or lacking". Ergo, in its simplest form, atheism is "without a belief in a god or gods".
It's certainly true that some atheists take a more positive view and assert that a god or gods cannot or do not exist. But at its root, atheism does not require this assertion -- simply not having a belief is sufficient to be classified as atheist.
This gets twisted around a lot in theological arguments; the atheist will sit back and sneer that the theist is the one making the assertion ("A god exists.") and is therefore carrying the burden of proof. The theist will counter that the atheist is also making an assertion ("A god does not exist.") and is thus just as burdened to prove his claim as the theist.
The reason theists like this argument so much is because they realise that they carry some burden of proof, because they acknowledge they are making an assertion about the nature of reality. Yet they also find it difficult to present any objective evidence to back their claim. This puts the atheist at an advantage, until the theist uses the above argument. Suddenly the atheist is faced with an impossible situation -- how do you prove something doesn't exist, especially when the something in question is a god?
No matter what the atheist says, the theist can claim that the god somehow manipulated the observation or outcome. And thus, the theist has now placed himself on superior ground in the debate, for while the theist may be able to dredge up a few interesting things the atheist can't explain, there is nothing the atheist can say which cannot immediately be explained away by the theist as some whim of the deity.
It is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst to consider both of these stances equal in terms of burden of proof. There are people who genuinely believe that Reptilians from other planets walk among us and have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments. Should you encounter such a person, I suggest you don't engage them in dialogue, but if you did, you might ask what their proof is. Would you feel it fair if the Reptile Believer countered that you should have to prove there aren't Reptilians? Do you consider yourself some sort of active disbeliever in Reptilians, or just someone without even a passing interest on the topic?
I'm not trying to say which side is correct here, as both can make compelling arguments, but clouding the issue with incorrect definitions does nothing to advance the debate.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Here we go again...
Atheism is not a religion and therefore there is no leader of atheism. And there have never been any killings in the name of athiesm.
Also list me the "leaders of atheism" you are implying too? because i think you need to check youre facts there big boy...
Now the same cannot be said about religion, there have been a lot of examples of people doing horrible things all in the name of religion.
The burden of proof is on the believer.
Burden of proof swing both ways. The burden of proof "I believe fairies exist!" is the same as the burden of proof "I believe fairies don't exist!" The default position should be: "I have no belief about faeiries one way or the other."
That is scientific skepticism.
Atheists just think there is not enough evidence to support the proposition, and the probability of there being such a being is very low.
Some atheists have that mentality, but the loud ones are actually quite evangelical in their proactive claims of God's non-existence.
I'm not attacking atheism or atheists, mind you. I've got no beef with either one in general. I'm just annoyed with the trendy neo-orthodoxy of atheism that treats acceptance of the proposition "It is a fact that God does not exist" as though it were the starting point.
It's not.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
For what it's worth, you can be racist and still have a grain of truth.
As I've said elsewhere on this thread, I identify as culturally Jewish, but was raised in a religiously Jewish household. And in spite of (or, perhaps, because of) all that, I don't support Israel; not it's creation by UN mandate and not its current policy of war. Not that I support the Palestinians (or anyone else) attacking Israel, either... 50 years after Israel's creation, the Middle East is between a rock and a hard place and no one is willing to budge.
So while I 100% agree that smoker2 is more than a tad bit racist, I also agree that divine intervention should not be a qualification in granting real estate to a group of people...
-Trillian
To not believe in something is not, in itself, a belief. A belief is a positive term, not a negative one. You can't say that not being a dentist is a profession, or not collecting stamps is a hobby. Therefore, you cannot say that not accepting a belief is in itself a belief.
Spoken by someone who doesn't know their history. I'm getting tired of this schtick about "religions kill everyone, religions cause wars, the crusades are the worst conflict the world has ever seen, blah blah etc." In the last 100 years athiests have killed more people than probably every religious war COMBINED. Certainly way more than the crusades or the current middle east conflicts combined. As evidence, I cite Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Kruschev, Castro, the current Chinese government, and most especially Mao Tse Tung. And I'm sure you could find many others among the cast of characters inhabiting all the socialist, communist, or fascist nations that made athiesm their official religion during the last 100 years.
And no, Joseph Stalin being baptized as an infant, and/or Adolph Hitler being dragged to a few church services before he was ten do not make them Christians.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
that's the very secular city right?
3 heart-felt cheers for secular jews!
Now get out there and vote!
How would you define each?
:-)
Not being terribly familiar with the word "Ontology" I wouldn't.
I was merely trying to state that belief(!X) != !belief(X). If I am unsure whether X or !X, then I am !belief(X). However, that does not mean that I am belief(!X). Athiesm is belief(!god). Agnosticism is !belief(god). The words are well defined a-theos: without god. a-gnosis: without knowledge.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Despite the fact that your post is complete and utter bullshit, shouldn't you adjust those numbers on a per capita basis?
I suspect if you look at victims of murder throughout human history, the person responsible was usually not an atheist.
And should we count murders committed by God in the death toll for the believers? That flood killed (n-2)/n of the human population, a far higher proportion than even the most committed atheist has ever come close to achieving.
Cain murdered 25% of the human population after God rejected his offering... Pol Pot dreamed of blockbuster numbers like that!
Actually, I saw something on one of the news channels that kinda pissed me off. Some Pro-Israeli group had bought TV time nationally
Since Hamas have had national TV time promoting them for years thanks to most news media, it's odd you'd be upset about the concept now.
Israel is just trying to get in their side of the story.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You seem to be taking a stance that you don't like Hezbollah therefore they are stuffed at what they do. That's just as erronous as someone claiming that the IDF is hopeless just because they don't like Israel. The IDF has never used 'kid gloves' in its operations. It can't afford to. Most commentary on the last incursion into Lebanon suggest that the IDF met far stronger resistance than it ancitipated, it is only biased opinion that carries the line that the IDF didn't have as easy as a campaign as they wanted to because they were playing nicely.
Note that saying Hezbollah's military campaign was impressive is an entirely different thing to saying that I support Hezbollah - I don't. Unprovoked rocket attacks and incursions are what justifies the IDF's hard response in Lebanon and now in Gaza.
The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. You can't shift the burden of proof to the negative argument, because the negative cannot be proven. It's impossible to disprove the existence of fairies. It is possible to prove they exist, assuming you can find a live or dead fairy carcass.
In the case of god, what we have is a claim being made by believers that their god exists. They have to prove their case. Atheist or agnostics don't have to disprove it.
You are correct that the agnostic position should be the default one. But after you examine the evidence for a claim, you can judge the probability of that proposition being true. If the probability seems low enough, you can safely say that the claim is most likely not true given the current evidence.
Atheism is not an idealism. It is the absense of religious ideology and more specifically, the absense of belief in things like gods and fairies.
It can also refer to the active suppression of religious ideology, as had been done in the countries mentioned by the GP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
Yes, Haifa is very secular, but it's not just Jews. It's a roughly half/half Jewish-Arab city.
otherwise they would be using chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons to exterminate every man, woman, and child in the area. Not to mention they would be setting up death camps to exterminate millions of arabs more efficiently. Since they aren't doing these things, they are using kid gloves.
I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
Now a Jew would just keep lunching into work-time and finish that post. Then deduct the extra time, claim it as a tax break and knock out another crappy comedy script staring Ben Stiller...
Israel bombs the hell out of them and the Palestinians shoot a few rockets back and deface a couple websites.
Let's see how you deal with eight years of rockets randomly landing around you, at any time.
You wouldn't put up with it. You'd demand something be done. Israel is now doing it - in retaliation.
They're being suppressed by Israel who is systematically cutting off all food, water, and medicine into the region
I'm not aware of the definition of "repressed" where one sends over truckloads of supplies. I guess you must buy a different dictionary.
I'm not particularly pro-Israel, nor am i jewish. But I realize it's only rational that if you attack someone for years they may well eventually fight back - and I think Israel is being too cautious about the whole thing out of some misguided fear of people who already hate them liking them less. I just can't see justification for a group randomly firing large explosives into civilized territories primarily targeting civilians, from anyone.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... nuke it from orbit?
A suicide bomber is merely a poor country's F-16.
Wrong. An F-16 is all about precision, accuracy, being able to take out any targets desired no matter how hard to reach as quickly and efficiently as possible.
A suicide bomber is rolled into one, a chemical/biological weapons program and a madman leader. It doesn't really care who it kills, military or not - just as long as there are as many bodies as possible. It's not about going after hard targets, just the softest possible with the largest body count.
Not to mention of course that the suicide bomber is purely an offensive weapon. If Palestine was really after parity with Israel in fighting they would target military bases with the rockets but they send them to large towns instead...
Nothing anyone has ever done or ever will do justifies response by suicide bombers.
If suicide bombers are really the answer to larger forces with better technology, why was the use not widespread in past wars? Even in war of the U.S. vs. the british you didn't see anything like this from the under-equipped U.S. forces.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Religions don't demand rivers of blood. And have you not read any history? Confused Christians have plenty of blood on their hands:
- the Crusades
- the Inquisition
- the Holocaust
- centuries of colonialism and slavery
That doesn't mean Christianity is awful or Christians are horrible people. The same applies to Judaism, Islam and atheism. Religions should be examined based on their scripture, not the actions of supposed followers.
Furthermore Hindus are the biggest supporters of Israel outside of the western world. You'd think that this would foster some mutual understanding...
Apparently not.
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
Well that's not really true...
Hint: Muslims did not build the Kaaba. The "appropriated" it.
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
http://www.freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=106
Therefore, you cannot say that not accepting a belief is in itself a belief.
What is a positive term, and what is a negative one? In my mind belief has to do with the perceived truth or falsehood of a statement, and "God exists." and "God does not exist" are both simply statements which may or may not be true.
Perhaps it does make sense to differentiate between "positive statements" and "negative statements." But this introduces a dualism, and I'm not sure how all statements should be classified under this scheme; that inclines me to dislike the idea: it seems to introduce an unnecessary distinction.
Also, one final point: In the sentence I quoted, you equate "not accepting a belief [in God]" with atheism. But the set of people who do not believe the statement "God exists" (i.e., the complement of the set of theists) contains both the set of atheists and that of agnostics.
Disbelief in God is easily supported. The atheist should simply reply with "I have no sensory, analytical, logical, epistemic, or other evidence that God does exist. In addition, all arguments for His (Her/It/Whatever) existence have been proven false time and time again, while arguments against His existence have, many times, proven quite strong. Until you provide an argument for His existence that has merit, the disexistence of God remains the most likely choice to me."
Precisely. GP post is an absolute load of nonsense, and of course fails to cite any sources for his/her diatribe.
Well, it's not *absolute* nonsense, there is a valid point being made even if it goes to far in actually blaming atheism. And he shouldn't really have to cite sources for the deaths caused by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
The majority of "atheist"-caused deaths which are presumably being referred to were motivated by a desire to obtain and maintain political and social control, not to 'eradicate religion' because of its ideological conflict with atheism. The fact that the perpetrators were from ideologies which were also atheistic does not mean that any of those deaths are attributable to atheism.
The majority of all deaths ever were motivated by a desire for power, control, land, resources. Philosophy, religious or political, is used as a justification or a method to gain the support of the people being sent to war. I mean you don't think the Crusades were really about Christianity, even though that's what the Kings told the knights and the footmen? Was the Inquisition really about weeding out heresy, or was it about wielding terror as a method of social control?
All those leaders I mentioned self-identified as atheists, and persecuted the religious, and slew millions in the names of their political philosophies. We are all wise enough to realize that this truly was in name only, and that their true motivations were to acquire and hold power.
Yet not in the cases where the leaders self-identified as religious?
That's the valid point being made. Religion doesn't cause war any more than non-religion does. Lust for power causes war, and that's a trait that is not unique to any philosophy. As proven by the fact that the many of the largest body counts of the last century, the largest body counts of human history, belonged to those of non-religious philosophies. And it wasn't their philosophy that was the problem!
The enemies of Democracy are
I also agree that divine intervention should not be a qualification in granting real estate to a group of people...
What "divine intervention"? Divine intervention may have been the motivation for certain Jews moving to that region (although not all of them, particularly after the holocaust) but the fact remains that there was a substantial Jewish population living in the area when the UN partitioned it. The Arabs refused to accept the partition and decided to contest it militarily. Israel soundly defeated them on the field of battle and we've been living with the consequences ever since.
Religious motivations may have encouraged some people to move there in the first place but I don't think the UN vote to partition the land was based on the Hebrew God descending from the heavens and stuffing the ballot box.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Jews are hated because they can have money.
Pretty much every single religion has prohibitions against making large amounts of money, and very strong inducements towards charity. Christianity espouses poverty, while charity is one of the Pillars of Islam.
It all started very early in the whole hatred of Jews story? Basically, whenever someone needed money, they would go to a Jewish person with money and take out a loan, usually for a business. When that business started making a profit, the Jew would ask for payment.
That's usually when the borrower "finds religion", accuses the Jew of something horrible and gets all their newfound friends to run the Jew out of town on a rail. After all, "everyone knows" that the Jews killed Jesus, right?
So, just as with every other religious pissing contest in the history of the human race, it all comes down to money.
Jew can have it; Christians can't, Moslems have to give it away and they both hate the Jews because of it.
Oh yeah...and unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism doesn't have any foolishness about "Turning the other cheek", so when you piss them off, they beat the living !@^# out of you. That tends to piss off Christians and Moslems too.
[End Of Line]
The Palestinians are just pawns for the Arabs, who are only posturing as anti-Israel to quell their own internal radicals.
Ding ding ding! Give the parent a cookie.
If it wasn't for the distraction of "Palestinian suffering" the Arab leaders might actually have to answer some tough questions at home. Nothing better to distract a populace from your own corruption and oppression than to blame it all on some external (real or imagined) enemy.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that adult conversation will only come about once every side has bled too much for the current state to continue. Yes, this means that Israel will have to bleed just as much as the Palestinians.
I don't know how that will happen, but it will have to be something where both sides cry uncle. Judging from what hasn't made either side cry uncle, I can only shudder at what that might be.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson,
This isn't being done by the Israeli government. Perhaps it's being done by *some* Israeli's. There's quite a big difference there.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
We all worship the God of Abraham. Jesus said to worship this God. It's the same God even if there are disagreements about Him.
Oh and the last Christian prophet was of course John the Baptist. ;)
The enemies of Democracy are
Not even a mechanical "I'm sorry for your loss"? You go straight to the cynical talking points?
As for what is said of Hamas, well I'm quite sure they have done their share of bad things. But I know this:
In 2006 Israel said the same thing about Hezbollah. Alright, they're double plus bad, too. Then the family of a Lebanese friend got bombed, in an area where there's never been any Hezbollah, ever. They also bombed the Beirut power station, causing one of the biggest oil spills in the mediterranean, ever. I don't suppose little Hezbollah militants were skinny dipping in the oil tanks, were they?
The only excuse for their behaviour I'm hearing from the Israeli government is that Hamas did it too. It's a very weak argument. But let's accept it. And then what? Seriously, guys? What you're saying is that ... sure you're killing children, but Hamas does it too.
That's it?
You're comparing yourselves to a supposedly terrorist organization. Way to go. Moral high ground! Well there's actually a huge difference, Hamas' measly home-grown rockets have killed only a few people in those past few weeks. Israel, with its high tech equipment, has killed over 600. I'm not sure how this is a positive for the "good guys", though.
Can you just explain to me what that line is, and how Israel expects Hamas to step back? What is the endgame here? You're right that there's no way to wage a war in that area without collateral damage. But that also means that there is no way to wage a war without making combatants out of everybody - and that just leads to genocide. Do you really want to go down that road?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
People tend to sympathize with the underdog, and that works well in football or choice of operating system,
Gee, I can't think of anyone who sympathies with Microsoft Windows's declining market-share. *wink*
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
From your response I can tell you are a Southern Baptist who has been exposed to "The Mormon Question" or know someone who has. It saddens me to see you so naively misled.
You're very off base. I'm not Southern Baptist. I'm not even American.
Here's the deal: Muslims claim Jesus was just a man. Christians claim that Jesus is God. Therefore, the God of Islam cannot be the God of Christians (because a regular man obviously cannot be the one and only God). QED. No need to invoke the Trinity.
Any religion which rejects Jesus as God is automatically incompatible with Christianity. Reducing the role of Jesus to that of a prophet contradicts the New Testament and the Christian concept of salvation through grace.
http://www.freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=106
> The Arabs refused to accept the partition and decided to contest it militarily. Israel soundly defeated them on the field of battle and we've been living with the consequences ever since.
Israel had occupation agenda from day one. Otherwise, why can't they say that they are ready for a total withdrawal from all occupied land for complete(written) peace agreement with all the neighbors. If they say anything like this, it would give them some element of credibility rather saying craps like "promised land" and "Arabs attacked us and lost so we can kick out every Palestine out there out of their home"
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
You are wrong. Theism is the belief in at least one god. The prefix a- is a lack of the root. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God (one way or the other.) Polytheism is the belief in more than one god, monotheism is the belief in one god. And -ism is a belief or doctrine. Atheism, as a word, is not the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of a belief. Of course, culturally, atheism has been equated with a belief that there is no god, but your mistake is that you think an absence of belief is the same as the belief in the absence of a god. It's simple logic: "If I believe in a God, then I think that the existence of a God is possible," does not infer "If I do not believe in a God, then I think that the existence of a God is impossible." If you are going to split hairs, you might as well do it correctly.
Any religion which rejects Jesus as God is automatically incompatible with Christianity.
If you'd said that in the first place I wouldn't have argued the point. That's just true from definition. But you brought up the Trinity. That's a different matter entirely, because the location of the Trinity within Christian orthodoxy is a controversial topic.
Whether or not you are aware of it, this identical argument (that any one who rejects the Trinity isn't really worshiping the same God as the true Christians) is a lynch-pin in the Baptists explaining why Mormons are an evil devil cult rather than a different branch of Christianity.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
That is just wrong. In cultures where the notion of a supreme being has never been considered or is otherwise not a notion that enters their culture in the slightest, where then do these people fall? This 1,2,3 category system presupposes a certain exposure to the notion. I simply do not accept the notion or the premise.
It is only to the "believer" that it would appear to be an issue of being in favor of or against, affirm or deny. Even option 3 insists on a presupposition on the notion.
In any case, the rejection of an idea is not a religion any more than not liking football is a sport.
> If it wasn't for the distraction of "Palestinian suffering" the Arab leaders might actually have to answer some tough questions at home. Nothing better to distract a populace from your own corruption and oppression than to blame it all on some external (real or imagined) enemy.
This is the key point. Palestine people have suffered because of these family dictators called Arab leaders(who are absolutely controlled by US). But its strange that people take these Arab leaders stupidity as an excuse for Israel to do every inhuman act and occupation against people of Palestine.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
http://ingaza.wordpress.com/
The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.
With you so far.
You can't shift the burden of proof to the negative argument, because the negative cannot be proven.
That's a total non sequitor. Just because you can't prove the non-existence of faeries doesn't mean you get to assume they don't exist until someone does. There's no logic there at all.
Go back to your first statement and stick to it. The one making the claim has the burden of the proof. Any claim.
If your claim is "God exists" or "Faeries exist" you have a burden of proof. If your claim is "God doesn't exist" or "Faeries don't exist" you're still making a claim and you still have the burden of proof.
The fact that it's harder to proof a negative (hard, not impossible) doesn't result in some kind of Celestial Logic Fairy compensating by easing the burden of proof.
In the case of god, what we have is a claim being made by believers that their god exists. They have to prove their case. Atheist or agnostics don't have to disprove it.
Agnostics don't. Some atheists do. If you take the weak atheist position ("I don't believe in God") you have nothing to prove because you're not making a claim. If you take the strong atheist position ("I believe God does not exist") than you've made a claim and (see your original point) you get the burden of proof that comes with that claim.
If the probability seems low enough, you can safely say that the claim is most likely not true given the current evidence.
I agree with you here too, but you're contradicting your earlier statements. If an event has an extremely low probability that *is* reason to believe it is false from basic probability theory.
Define event G to be "God exists". If you ascertain that P(G) = .01 (just for kicks and giggles) than it's a matter of simple algebra to find P(~G) = .99 and simple logic to deduce that ~G corresponds to "God doesn't exist".
So yeah, if you find that the chance of God existing is very low you've got ample reason to assert the positive claim that He doesn't exist, but you're doing so by addressing your burden of proof, not by default.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
You correctly reflected the elected govt of Palestine's (Hamas') solution - but I don't think you fairly reflected Israels elected government's solution by saying extermination. (And you can't say a tit for tat soln by some radical jew seriously represents a solution proposed by Israel's side).
Otherwise, I'd have called your post refreshing too - but unfortunately your unfair comparison fails to make it such.
> You call the Israeli Labor and Kadima parties extremists? Seriously?
Wasn't here any illegal settling(i.e kicking out Palestines out of their home) under any of these ? Wasn't there any illegal occupation under these people ? for me, it qualifies them to be called as extremists.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Israel and Palestine Governments must step-in and give incentives (for e.g. free health care, govt jobs, free public transportation etc ) to Inter-Faith marriages between Jews and Arabs.
I hope this will create win-win proposition for future generations of Israel and Palestine people.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
Unfortunately, illegal settling takes place under nearly every Israeli government. That's why it's called "illegal": it violates local law. The Israeli government isn't like the American one; it's not divided into branches that get held by one majority party each.
Kadima (center on The Situation, center-right economics) and Labor (left on both, but not far enough to the Left to be morons) are not extremist parties, but they often have to form governing coalitions with extremist parties because Israel's parliamentary system is too democratic: it literally takes less than one percent of the vote to win one of the 120 Knesset seats. And it only takes 10 or so seats to become a jackass little kingmaker party that goes for one coalition or another based on who will give you the most special privileges.
Also, Israel doesn't have a civil service as we understand the term here in America. They have "state employees". The sheer laziness and corruption of those in a month people would, from what I've heard, give the American media scandal fodder for a year.
So yes, settlements continue to be built under governments led by mainstream, moderate parties like Kadima and Labor because no single political party has the power to stop them: that would require at least a supermajority of the Knesset by a single party and a complete clean-out of Israel's executive branch of government. Well, that or a peace deal with the Arabs.
Did you hear the story about the jewish kid that asked his father for 5 dollars.,
Father: " 5 DOLLARS!!! I can't believe you want 4 dollars. What do you want 3 dollars for?
I correct myself, Wikipedia indicates that the Knesset has a 2% electoral threshold for a seat. That remains extraordinarily low compared to many countries, and compared to most with stable coalition governments.
I have the power to post on different articles on /. at the same time! /.'ers at the same time globally!
I have the power to post from many different IP addresses from all over the world simultaneously!
I am a master of disguises-I can look like three dozen (or more)
Hah! My AC fu is better than Yu!
Maybe they will stop killing each other and learn that it is so much easier to just insult each other online to settle their differences, while simultaneously downloading pr0n.
http://xkcd.com/350/
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
That's not the problem. The majorities on both sides are willing to negotiate. They are just not able to keep the lid on their respective radical factions.
We have ours in the USA as well. And we can't control them either.
Have gnu, will travel.
Won't somebody please --PLEASE-- think of the Anonymous Cowards!?
Christians believe in a trinitarian God where God the Father, God the son (Jesus), and God the spirit (also called the holy spirit/holy ghost) exist in a quantum entangled state. The founder of Christianity (Jesus) is said the have been the biological and spiritual son of God, the father.
Muslims believe in a non trinitarian God with Mohammad as his prophet. They believe that Jesus's claims and the trinitarian view of God are false.
Jews believe in a non trinitarian God. They do not believe either Mohammad's or Jesus's claims, and they believe that the trinitarian view of God is false.
Mormons believe in a Godhead, three separate beings united in purpose with God the father at the top, then Jesus, then the Holy Ghost. They do believe Jesus's claims of divinity, but they believe that after he ascended into heaven that the Church became corrupted.
To say that these four religions believe in the same God demonstrates a gross lack of understanding. While the differences may appear to be superficial, they have profound theological implications, that have been expounded upon through the centuries. Those differences also are what define these four religions as separate, independent religions, and to say otherwise belittles all of them.
It should be noted that I am a Christian of the Pentecostal denomination.
There is a system for subverting the system and you should use that system!
b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
MSM is bad for you (and everybody else), Israel is not trying to genocide them.
How can I tell? Because they wouldn't need more than a few days to completely obliterate every square inch of Gaza if they wanted to even if they were only using conventional weapons and there would be absolutely no need to send in any ground troops.
Does Gaza still exist? *Check* Ok, issue settled.
That said it's refreshing to read a Muslim unafraid to disrespect Hamas and all the rest of the hyper-violent "muslim" assholes.
RantingKitten did not use the word incorrectly. He just used it in the traditional sense, not how it is understood by most people today. A better choice would have been agnosticism; however, this does not make his choice of language incorrect. Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism. The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists. The word atheist eventually became ambigous due to its popular use in the active rejection of god. For this reason, the word agnosticism was used instead to describe atheism as it was understood in the "traditional" sense. For example, if you are agnostic you are also atheist, in the traditional understanding of the word because you do not affirm or deny the existience of god(s). Not affirming it is enough to be understood as atheist (traditionally). However, if you claimed you were atheist (when infact you are agnostic) to Joe Plumber today, he would understand it as the active rejection of god. So agnostic = atheism, but only in an academic way.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Nice to see someone who has a clue about military law actually post on Slashdot.
You are wrong. [...] The prefix a- is a lack of the root.
It's always possible. But I think I'm right. Anyway, I'd always parsed it, (a-the)-ism as opposed to a-(the-ism). What's the "order of operations" for combining prefixes and suffixes into words? I'd learned the former in this case.
but your mistake is that you think an absence of belief is the same as the belief in the absence of a god.
I do grasp that; actually I thought that distinction had been half the point of my earlier post (and even more the point of my second post on this subject, in reply to aaronfaby). Our disagreement isn't over logic, just over what the words mean -- the subject of the previous paragraph of mine in this post. Using my original definition, atheism and agnosticism are disjoint (as I argued in my earlier post; that logic is sound, if we accept that definition). But if we instead use your definition, then agnosticism is a form of atheism. (If you claim no knowledge of God or whether it exists, then you do not have the belief that God exists). Maybe that's correct -- that agnosticism is a form of atheism -- but again, I'd learned otherwise.
Fair 'nuff?
Y'know what, before I finish, I might as well consult the OED. (I hesitated here, because I don't want to turn this from a discussion into an argument to be "won," and appeal to authority has always irked me. But here goes...) And it seems that the OED's definition is more like the one I'd used:
atheism (n): Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.
That sounds like a "positive term," to use aaronfaby's words.
Alright, I'll bite.
I've responded earlier and included a quote from Quran that basically says as a Muslim you have to respect all God's prophets and that all his prophets are equal.
Here's another Surat for you (the whole thing so it's not a snippet out of context):
Al-Kafiroon (109):
109.001
Say: O disbelievers!
109.002
I worship not that which ye worship;
109.003
Nor worship ye that which I worship.
109.004
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
109.005
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109.006
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
That hardly sounds like no peace until all have been converted to me.
Look, all religions have a dark history because humanity has a dark history. Look at what's happening in the world _today_ in the name of god, religion, freedom, peace, oil or whatever.
Stop the hatred, it's getting old.
If you can't mod them join them.
Mods: Parent is the best post on this subject. Better than mine to which it responds, in fact.
Even my posts, I now realize, are a little off. I'd been using "atheist" to mean "strong atheist." This is in fact disjoint with agnosticism, but it's not necessarily true that agnosticism implies "weak atheism" as I'd deduced. That last part is logic I'll need to think about.
Anyway, there's lots of crap out there on the web put there by dogmatic theists and atheists of various sorts, but this page is a reasonably good explanation.
>Can you just explain to me what that line is, and how Israel expects Hamas to step back?
I don't know how many times Israel offered a truce if Hamas would kindly stop lobbing rockets and mortars into populated areas, but the number of rockets was in the 6000 range. While Hamas was negotiating a truce, they were also digging a tunnel with the purpose of kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Israel doesn't expect them to "step back." Israel expects them to die, and die some more, until maybe, if they happen to step back to the extent that Israel takes notice, maybe the punishment will stop. Maybe not.
>Do you really want to go down that road?
Not I. I do not seriously believe it is in my power to affect this situation.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Fair enough. My understanding of agnosticism is that it is the lack of belief specifically because of a lack of evidence (as opposed to a general lack of belief)
Wikipedia has some interesting definitions under atheism:
Practical atheism
In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.
Theoretical atheism
Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods.
These seem to describe the two different but similar views we share. Ultimately, I think either definition is acceptable culturally, and the more that I think about it, if we were to split hairs your view probably would technically be better. If my view were correct, that atheism means the lack of belief (therefore the a- is modifying the belief and not the presence of god), then polytheism should be more than one belief in god, and not the belief in more than one god. Of course, polytheism is the single belief that there is more than one god, thus, to be consistent, your definition of atheism would be more appropriate. Interesting, thanks for the insight.
I can't believe this silly rant!!
Everyone knows unicorns are PINK
Well, it depends on how you word it, really. If you compare officially theist regimes to officially atheist regimes, the latter are way ahead in murders over the last couple of centuries.
Everyone but you is telepathic.
Grow up. You need Americans need Israel. You know why? Because, without Israel you would not have an ally there. You need Israel because you need someone for the Arabs to hate aside from you.
I hear people screaming themselves to an early grave - again - over this issue, and I am beginning to feel that it is hardly worth the effort.
I feel quite convinced that if we can imagine asking all Palestinians, Israelis, Syrians, etc whether they want peace, even if it means giving up the claims to land and other tangible item all sides have, there would overwhelming support for it. So the question is - who is, on all sides, that keep this atrocity going on and on? If we could capture them and get rid of them, peace would happen naturally. more or less. That's the theory, at least.
Only idiots keep holding on to old grudges - and yes, that includes grudges over who massacred innocents last. I'm not saying it would be easy to put these thigns aside, only that it is possible; and I think a majority on both sides want that. The real criminals are the leaders on both sides, who don't have the greatness to let go of their pet hates and grudges; they live their lives far from the pain and horror they put their own peoples through in the name of "justice" or whatever lie they live behind.
Take the US's military funding out of the IDF, and I don't think the IDF would be as "impressive".
Hi. I am the Internet. I am a communications medium. People use me to communicate with one another on an unprecedented scale.
I am a "read/write" medium. That means that a lot of the times people can add-on to the creations of others. Sometimes they can even completely erase the communications of others. This is OK, and is not war, but just another form of communication. Granted, I appreciate it when everyone "plays fair," and there are many people (like Slashdot moderators, wink, wink) that help keep things fair for everyone.
I take offense when people refer to communication as war. There are many people who work for many militaries who use me to communicate (sometimes they are pretty angry). That is OK with me, as long as they play fair. This is not war, but communication.
Some might even think about it as a kind of grassroots diplomacy. Wouldn't it be great if more people could talk with those who their government tells them are the "enemy?" More communication usually tends to alleviate misunderstanding, which can lead to resolution or conflict (aka peace).
Please stop referring to what I do as war, I find it inaccurate and distasteful.
A positive term asserts a positive, or a truth. For instance, calling someone a physicist asserts that they study physics for a living. A negative term asserts an absence of. My point is this. If you don't believe in bigfoot, we don't call you an a bigfootist. If you don't believe in UFOs, we don't call you an aUFOlogist. Why does belief in a god get special treatment?
That's a total non sequitor. Just because you can't prove the non-existence of faeries doesn't mean you get to assume they don't exist until someone does. There's no logic there at all.
You're going about this all wrong. The negative claim (fairies don't exist) cannot exist without the positive claim (fairies do exist) being made first. You can't say that you don't believe in god unless someone first makes the claim that god does exist. The claim and burden of proof both fall on the "god exists" camp.
Go back to your first statement and stick to it. The one making the claim has the burden of the proof. Any claim.
The claim is that god exists, not that he doesn't exist. Person A says to Person B, I believe god exists. Here's why. Person B says, your evidence is not sufficient enough to support your claim. Person B is not making a claim. He is rejecting the claim made by Person A based on lack of evidence.
To say that these four religions believe in the same God demonstrates a gross lack of understanding.
Sure the dogma is different, but the root of all four was Abraham.
Those differences also are what define these four religions as separate, independent religions, and to say otherwise belittles all of them.
Perhaps it's a little flippant of me to say that 'only the last prophet is different', but as a broad generalization, I don't believe that it's wrong. However any discussion of religion is fraught with challenges. For example you describe Christianity as belief in the Holy Trinity, but as you likely well know, even within the Christian churches, there are profoundly different views on that doctrine. Even your denomination has a branch that rejects it altogether. Of course you might not consider such people as Christians (or Pentecostal for that matter), but hey, that's one of the things wars are fought over.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Hey. My personal beliefs aren't something I am trying to push, and I think I was clear to say that both theists and atheists can make compelling arguments for their respective sides. But to define "atheist" in a way that automatically makes the theist superior is an intellectually dishonest tactic -- that was my only point.
I think theology as a field of study is perfectly respectable and it doesn't matter which side of the fence you happen to believe -- there are many theologians who are devout, and many who are just as expert in the field but are atheist. A comprehensive understanding of the material doesn't imply a belief one way or the other, just as there are many who are fascinated by cryptozoology who don't necessarily believe in cryptids but find the lore of importance to our culture. Theology itself is a legitimate field of study regardless of whether or not theism is correct.
Citing my credentials in this area is pointless, because I'm not here to argue for one side or the other. I am quite capable of defending theism or atheism, as I'm capable of defending any side of a debate whether or not I, personally, agree with that side. My only point was that atheism has a clear definition, as has been argued by dozens upon dozens of theologians and philosophers, and defining it dishonestly gets us nowhere. Atheists are not immune to this criticism either, but that wasn't the topic of discussion at this time.
So, would you kindly just chill.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Who started the war? Jews, Christians, Muslims? It doesn't matter which religion started the war. All wars are started by the rich and powerful, to gain more riches and power. They use religion to motivate and scare the poor into fighting for them. That doesn't make one religion worse than another, it makes them all bad. Religion is bad because its an instrument to keep the masses ignorant and to manipulate them. Sure, religion can be used for good things too, and good and bad things also happen without religion, but the point it, people shouldn't let themselves be blindly guided by religion, because religion can and will be abused by politics.
assignment != equality != identity
well, it's late, and I reread the Oneness Pentecostalism article, and 'rejects it altogether' is certainly too strong of a statement, but that's kinda my point; religion is a tough subject. We should focus on what we share in common, rather than what separates us; perhaps there will be fewer wars if we do.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Fine, replace god with intelligent being/energy state/thought form that created the universe/keeps it running/ etc. etc.
SO basically, what you are saying, is you like Jews, but you'd be just as happy if the only country on Earth which gives them safe haven, was left to its enemies?
Personally, I agree, but allow me to play, ahem, devil's advocate. The theist's reply to this is usually something along the lines of "So you think God doesn't exist?"
The atheist then says "No, I just don't see any reason to think he exists."
"So you're saying he doesn't exist."
"I'm saying I just don't believe he does."
"Which means you think he doesn't."
"Well, come on, there's a difference between 'I'm convinced God doesn't exist' and 'I'm not convinced God does exist', right?"
"Either you believe God exists, or you don't."
"Yeah, but.. well, no.. I mean I'm not convinced. I see no evidence for God."
"Oh ho ho! So you're not really atheist. You're more like agnostic."
"No, agnostic would mean I believe the decision cannot be made. I'm saying it can be made, but there is no evidence for it so I'm defaulting."
"Defaulting to disbelief."
"More like nonbelief."
"So you're saying you think there is no God."
This goes on for a while, in my experience. The atheist tries to explain that he's more or less an innocent bystander willing to be convinced but hasn't yet, while the theist tries to say that the atheist, in his lack of belief, is making an assertion. Neither side gets anywhere.
You and I are, really, on the same page. But it is very easy for the theist to misunderstand, and it's very easy to see the theist's point of view on this topic.
Y'see, there is really no other serious subject of which I'm aware where neither side can "prove" themselves. Before, I made the analogy of Reptilians because it's absurd, and it was meant to demonstrate a point, but we can all have a good laugh because the concept of Reptilians is so far-fetched as to be ridiculous. But the notion of a supernatural entity is deeply rooted in our culture and society, and cannot be dismissed as easily as Reptilians. To a theist, "God exists" is virtually axiomatic and has been for thousands of years; to him, it's so self-evident that he does believe that the onus of proof is on the atheist for saying otherwise.
I'm not saying the theist is correct in this. But when you're dealing with such a deep-seated belief that transcends hundreds of societies and civilisations, all of which have had some notion of supernatural beings, simply saying "I see no evidence and I've yet to be convinced" sounds hollow... to a theist.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
no, you can't argue like that. knowing what the words in ancient greek mean does not allow you to dogmatically impose this meaning on modern english.
While perhaps somewhat liberal, Democracy Now! has a great in depth style of reporting, and deals with non partisan issues like this in the most honest way possible.
I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
And you wasted valuable lunch-break writing that paragraph.
The solutions presented by both sides so far are ridiculous:
a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution)
b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
You've correctly enunciated the Arab agenda since before 1948.
However, your accusation against Israel is unfounded. If Israel wanted to wipe them all out, it could do it in seconds. They haven't, so your argument is little more than propaganda.
Jordan killed more Palestinians in a week during the seventies, than Israel have in the last 60 years.
Either you are not telling the truth, or Israel isn't trying hard enough.
It would be nice if you could base your views on some facts, rather than what you have heard.
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
If I was a nutjob fighting a country supported by the world's most powerful countries and I avoided annihilation I might consider it a sign of God on my side. By the same token the Jews have been persecuted for hundreds of years, is that not God sending a message? Oh course not because what you are saying is ridiculous .
It is a common belief among many fighters that if you do not fear death, you are invincible - at least against those that fear death. This is the basis of terrorism. In some ways the theory is applied to nearly all martial arts.
http://www.shadowhand.com/essays/five_f.html
In fact, after years of post traumatic stress your ability to produce fear when required simply shuts down (like the movie death wish). So, the natural affect of post traumatic stress is to turn you into a fearless combatant (possibly prone to violent psychotic episodes).
this isn't new, this is the last and most dedicated land battle of WWII, sixty years of indoctrinated hatred. They cannot lose, because they are prepared to die, they cannot win, because they are vastly outclassed, disorganized, and underfunded.
The political dillema is that they are embracing genocide, even though their enemy may not want to commit it, nor are all of their people ready to die. They are proving that terrorism (a lack of fear of death) is indeed an effective political tool on a global scale.
I guess you could try to arrest the volotile refugees, but Isreal hasn't got the resources for that, and it would still be a political shit-storm.
But you know that's just my opinion.
An ironic example as the crusades started as responses to attrocities committed against Christian Arabs by Islamists.
And yet there seems to be quite a few fundamentalist atheists, who are just as annoying as every other type of fundamentalist.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I thought it was supposed to be the islamists. Well they are too.
Do you realize that Israel's unfavourable opinion has reached 70% in Western Europe? Even in the US it's now around 40%. Bullshit on Youtube and Twitter won't fix it.
Hammas 'tis but a scratch' will definitely lead to a glorious victory. So they'll loose some arms and legs, so what?
The stupid idiots got their land, got into power, all they had to do was live in peace. All they had to do to prevent this war was give up. Would they be any worse? Using diplomacy would have gotten them much further, perhaps with their limbs intact.
I don't know if they are manipulated or not. What I know is that when the US was whacked (world trade center, remember?) the bombed the hell out of Afganistan. When the British were blitzed, they fought back, didn't they?
So how does it end? "Oh running away? you yellow bastards, come back, I'll bite your legs off..."
Since when did the French Resistance shell German villages?
Why is there a debate? there is no proof of God or any deity whatsoever. In this case, absence of proof is so prolonged that we might as well accept it that there is no God.
If God existed, there would have been some evidence by now.
The problem with scientific skepticism has long been discovered, and is trivially simple :
most things in the world are not explained by the current state of science. Worse, as Godel discovered : even maths does not explain all properties of numbers.
Worse : it will never explain all properties of numbers.
Worse : it is not possible to "unite" science. There is no way to derive physics from maths, there is no way to derive chemistry from physics there is no way to derive biology from chemistry and physics and there is no way to derive psychology from biology.
Oops.
The huge problem with the current state of science is that it's fundamentally incomplete, and cannot be completed, not in a finite amount of time, nor even in an infinite amount of time. Even though, yes, we're making quite a few advances in a few areas, fundamental science is stuck, and has been stuck for close to 50 years now.
Therefore anyone who "only believes what is proven" believes ...
nothing at all.
An atheist believes that No god exists, whereas a theist believes in their god(s) but believe that other religions' gods do not exist. Agnostics believe that maybe some god exists but you can't know so you might as well just bury your head in the sand and not ask the question.
You will find that over the years the military funding of the IDF from the USA has actually dropped significantly as a proportion of total IDF military expenditure. These days the IDF is quite self sufficient. For a country in their position full self sufficiency would have been very high on the agenda.
Wow. The one time I forget to sign in and people actually pay attention.
What? Are you fucking kidding? Every Arab state in spitting distance converged on Israel the instant they declared independence and you want to suggest that they started it? Mod down this fucking troll, please.
You're going about this all wrong. The negative claim (fairies don't exist) cannot exist without the positive claim (fairies do exist) being made first. You can't say that you don't believe in god unless someone first makes the claim that god does exist. The claim and burden of proof both fall on the "god exists" camp.
Oh so the second claim is right ? Who decides the sequence of claims ?
It has long been established that, for a baby, belief in a God, the "first claim" that does not need proof, is simply the one (s)he learns from his/her parents.
You even run into this problem yourself.
The problem with christianity and science is simple : they grew together. Science, as it exists today, will never disprove the notion of a Christian God that works through miracles.
It will disprove many other religions, due to the fact that they can easily be shown to make claims that can easily be disproven. You could take allah for example. The quran's inheritance laws are mathematically inconsistent :
[4:11] GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female. If the inheritors are only women, more than two, they get two-thirds of what is bequeathed. If only one daughter is left, she gets one-half. The parents of the deceased get one-sixth of the inheritance each, if the deceased has left any children. If he left no children, and his parents are the only inheritors, the mother gets one-third. If he has siblings, then the mother gets one-sixth. All this, after fulfilling any will the deceased has left, and after paying off all debts. When it comes to your parents and your children, you do not know which of them is really the best to you and the most beneficial. This is GOD's law. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.
[4:12] You get half of what your wives leave behind, if they had no children. If they had children, you get one-fourth of what they leave. All this, after fulfilling any will they had left, and after paying off all debts. They get one-fourth of what you leave behind, if you had no children. If you had children, they get one-eighth of what you bequeath. All this, after fulfilling any will you had left, and after paying off all debts. If the deceased man or woman was a loner, and leaves two siblings, male or female, each of them gets one-sixth of the inheritance. If there are more siblings, then they equally share one-third of the inheritance. All this, after fulfilling any will, and after paying off all debts, so that no one is hurt. This is a will decreed by GOD. GOD is Omniscient, Clement.
This is a dead mistake. How do you divide the inheritance of a man with 3 daughters, a wife and 2 surviving parents ? (most combinations are inconsistent, this is just one example)
3 daughters : 2/3rd of inheritance
Mother : 1/6th
Father : 1/6th
Wife : 1/4th
Sum : 5/4th.
Now this sum is a major oops, isn't it ?
The fact is the bible is very consistent with science. One example is the differing values of pi that are mentioned in the bible, they are acknowledged to be approximations :
according to Solomon the value of pi is "about 3". According to the scriptures following the pentateuch, it is "divided closely to how 22 is divided to 7", which is accurate enough to erect complex buildings.
As such the bible acknowledges for example, both the value of measuring, the possibility of improving upon previous data, and acknowledges that not all that is in the bible are exact figures. They also explicitly leave room, and encourage christians, to improve upon the values and details specified. (but within the rules that human life is sacred, leading to the stemcell debacle, the abortion issues, euthanasia, ...)
There is an entire theory about agriculture in the bible, that one, too specifies rather explicitly that more research is needed to cultivate "other lands". At another point the desert is mentioned to b
And if there is any Israeli group with at least a moderate level of public support whose position is to exterminate the Palestinians, I have yet to hear of them.
Actually there was such a group, called Kahana, and they were outlawed
The evidence for Zeus is every bit as valid as the evidence for "God."
Really? I can find lots of evidence for God, including personal experiences of myself and others. Where is the evidence for Zeus?
But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous. So down with all of it I say... or... let them all kill themselves and leave us out of it.
Then why are so many of the nastiest examples either unconnected with religion (fascism, ethnic nationalism, etc.) or overtly atheist (stalinism, Khmer Rouge, the nastier Maoist groups etc.)?
Religion is far more of a motivating factor for good than for evil. Even rational (i.e. not theophobes like Dawkins) atheists will admit as much.
I'm always surprised how so many americans seem to approve of how Israel and the U.S. handle things down there. I'm from Europe, and most people I know have great difficulties to understand why the U.S. can still honestly support Israel. Out of acts of desperation, a few minor groups launch crappy missiles towards israeli settlements, damaging a house or hurting one person; as a response, israeli anihilate 30 or more palestinians. It goes like that all the time.. no matter the cost on the israeli side, the damage on the other side is always so much greater. Apart from that, let's not forget the (illegal) creation of new settlements, not following previous contracts about the separation of the land, and generally being a total bully to the palestinians, making their lives even more miserable. All of this generates even more hate, thus forming the next line of people willing to die for their country - and so on. The problem is self-made.
I have always been annoyed by the "Look back in time" argument. Why would looking back in time at one religion help anyone understand what is happening TODAY with another religion and its followers? Each time someone brings up this argument, the golden rules of decent debate are broken. "Hey, look, aren't a lot of the followers of this religion very violent because of the way thir religion lets loose of manipulation, or for literally pushing them to violent behavior? Oh, yeah, your religion did this and that 1k years ago" WTF?!
"Just because a religion has a few (or even a lot) of nutjobs, doesn't mean that the religion itself is to blame. " - well, you tell me then, who/what is it to blame? Some people are savages. For a strange reason, a lot of them are muslims.
If "theism" is a belief in a god or gods, then what is "atheism"?
It's still an -ism, a belief that the world is a-theic, or non-deical. The stance without proof for either side is called agnostic, or not-knowing (not-believing would be a better description).
If something is amoral, it is without morals, which is, please note, different than being immoral. The prefix "a-" simply means "without, or lacking"
The prefixes "a-" and "-n" have the exact same meaning in Indo-European languages. That's why every European language uses a different proposition for the negative: a- on- un- in-, to name a few.
Linguistically, there is no difference between amoral and (i)nmoral, and the morphing of -nm- to -mm- is called consonant assimilation, I believe.
Ergo, in its simplest form, atheism is "without a belief in a god or gods".
Not necessarily. By that logic, pantheism would encompass all religions, because it merges pan- (= all) with -theism (= believe in God). Instead, it is an -ism (= belief) about pan-theos (god(s) in everything). So, in the very same vein, atheism is a belief in a-theos (there is no god).
But at its root, atheism does not require this assertion
See above. This is false. Not asserting anything is called agnostic.
This gets twisted around a lot in theological arguments; the atheist will sit back and sneer that the theist is the one making the assertion ("A god exists.") and is therefore carrying the burden of proof. The theist will counter that the atheist is also making an assertion ("A god does not exist.") and is thus just as burdened to prove his claim as the theist.
And both are correct.
It is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst to consider both of these stances equal in terms of burden of proof.
Why? They both assert something that is inherently unprovable.
There are people who genuinely believe that Reptilians from other planets walk among us and have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments. Should you encounter such a person, I suggest you don't engage them in dialogue, but if you did, you might ask what their proof is. Would you feel it fair if the Reptile Believer countered that you should have to prove there aren't Reptilians?
Yes, if you wish to disprove his argument you must. Until you have proven him wrong, the only thing you can assert is that you do not believe his statement and go your merry way. But be aware that by dismissing his statement, you have not proven him wrong.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Agnosticism is the belief that one has no knowledge of God or his/her/its existence. Look at the damn word roots.
Atheism is saying: "Since there is no evidence whatsoever of the presence of a god, there is no reason to hypothesize on there being one."
Agnosticism is hypothesizing that there might be one.
What you are talking about is merely the reaction of atheism towards theism, without theism, everyone would be atheist, yet no one would even think about the statement "God does not exist". In other words, this question arises only because some people believe that God does exist.
No, that's totally wrong.
I *am* an atheist, and I do believe that no gods or "higher beings" or whatever exists, but I do NOT claim KNOWLEDGE.
I merely apply Occam's razor and arrive at a conclusion that I consider the best working hypothesis I've got.
(That being said, you're also oversimplifying the linguistic background. I suppose it's comparable to the word "hacker"; it's got a definition (as in e.g. "Alan Cox is a well-known Linux kernel hacker"), but most people use it in a different way. "Atheism", too, has a certain definition, namely a lack of belief in gods; most people, however, use it in a more restricted sense, meaning a belief in the lack of gods (notice the symmetry, BTW?). Since language is defined by how it's used - linguistic prescriptivism is dead, Netcraft confirms it -, people aren't technically WRONG, neither about "hacker" nor about "atheism", but that doesn't invalidate the original definitions of the words, either, especially if others keep using them that way.)
"Why do people have to believe in stupid stuff like that anyway?"
People don't HAVE TO believe. But they HAVE THE RIGHT TO believe.
To believe in a God is not stupid. It is just human.
The Jewish bible has God telling Abraham that his children (the Jews) will be constantly oppressed.
Why does belief in a god get special treatment?
I get your point, and I sympathize with it, but that's not my argument!!
First, notice this logical distinction:
The belief that there is no god is not the same as the absence of a belief in god. The former is indeed a belief. And, importantly, using my original definitions, atheism is the former, not the latter. This distinction is the core of the argument of the last paragraph of my post to which you are replying.
However, I realize now that there are some flaws in the definitions I'd used originally. To begin with, I'd conflated belief with knowledge (Belief without knowledge had just seemed nonsensical to me, and knowledge without belief even more so. But you can make the distinction). And secondly, I'd used atheism to mean strong atheism. This together with my conflation of belief with knowledge meant that this also implied gnostic atheism. Whereas you seem more concerned with weak atheism. See this page for a decent explanation. For more, see my conversation with BountyX; he brings up some very good points.
But the Palestinians actually selected the Hamas, on (get this) LOCAL ISSUES! Yes, hard as it may seem to believe, but they selected them on the basis of their various welfare plans (like free Hospitals and stuff), and because Arafat's Party (Al-Fatah) was corrupt. The fact that the Hamas is a Jihadist oragination is of secondary importance to the Palestinians.(heck, even the Fatah party are Jihadist! You folks know that very well...) The people selected them because of their agendas, that suited the people, and because the other folk were corrupt and wasting their tax-money. Isn't that what people in Democracies do? Do you want them to vote for a Party that had grown fat on the people's hard earned money? Because the Hamas would still have been fighting the Israelis, no matter whether they were in power or not. So don't blame (and punish) them for voting in a party that suited them, that would best serve them, that was the lesser of the two evils. You wouldn't like to be told who to vote for, would you?
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
Since my original post ended up being modded +5 Informative, I'd like to make some corrections lest my original post mislead people and create some small amount of incorrect wikitruth.
My definitions were correct, but some of the logic that followed was not. For instance, agnosticism and atheism are only disjoint in the common usage, but logically there is actually room for overlap. There are basically two reasons for this and other logical errors that I made:
1. My definition of atheism is the colloquial definition in modern usage. However, in more precise academic terms, what I refer to as "atheism" is really "strong atheism." By contrast, you really can argue that weak atheism is "not a belief."
2. In some of my arguments I'd conflated knowledge and belief. This made sense to me, but really you can have belief without knowledge ("faith?") or, more arguably, knowledge without belief ("cognitive dissonance?") (The exact logic of this I'll need to think about more). This means that, in my arguments, "strong atheism" was also "gnostic atheism," though in fact "gnostic atheism" is really a stronger belief ("I believe that there is no god and I know this to be true").
Even my posts, I now realize, are a little off. I'd been using "atheist" to mean "strong atheist." This is in fact disjoint with agnosticism
Correction: It's only disjoint if you conflate belief with knowledge. If not, then you can have agnostic strong atheism ("I believe that there is no god but I do not know this.")
Actually - the Old Testament as a lot to say about Israel and it's unfaithfulness to God being the reason for the wars. Generally it meant they had a secular government that were ignoring him.... Kinda like now perhaps. ;)
no, you can't argue like that. knowing what the words in ancient greek mean does not allow you to dogmatically impose this meaning on modern english.
Fair enough. I shouldn't have argued in that manner. But my definitions are correct in the modern colloquial sense (see the OED). However, they're not the academic definitions; see my corrections.
Therefore anyone who "only believes what is proven" believes ...
nothing at all.
I think that's a good point, but you're only rejecting epistemological certainty. As long as you're willing to live without certainty, you don't necessarily have to accept God or anything else without proof. This makes room for atheism as a rational belief system, but also reduces all of science to faith (where "faith" is defined as "believe in something based on good reason, but without certainty")
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Over 7,000 people have registered to participate in a botnet attack against another country ?! This can't be legal and these people should be arrested, period. I hope they realise that the other side will be able to discover their ip's and counter attack... And then who will save them ? Users....ah cripes....
End of Line.
You're going about this all wrong. The negative claim (fairies don't exist) cannot exist without the positive claim (fairies do exist) being made first. You can't say that you don't believe in god unless someone first makes the claim that god does exist. The claim and burden of proof both fall on the "god exists" camp.
Your claim that you need to argue that something exists before you can argue that it doesn't exist is manufactured hogswash to try and shift the burden of proof onto the theist camp. If you have to try and set up conditions at the start of a debate where your opponent has to do more work than you do that's a pretty good indicator that your argument itself is pretty weak.
In actual logic there's no reason at all that you have to argue for something to exist before you can argue against it.
Person A: Here's a definitino for God. [Provides a definition.]
Person B: So do you believe God exists?
Person A: Nope. I just think it's an interesting concept.
Person B: Well, I think God doesn't exist. [Provides reasoning.]
You see how it was totally unnecessary to say God exists before arguing that He doesn't? All that is necessary is a definition so you have a concept to argue about.
The claim is that god exists, not that he doesn't exist. Person A says to Person B, I believe god exists. Here's why. Person B says, your evidence is not sufficient enough to support your claim. Person B is not making a claim. He is rejecting the claim made by Person A based on lack of evidence.
You are either deliberately employing sleight of hand to try and build your case, or you simply haven't grasped the distinction between strong (positive) and weak (negative) atheism. Here are the definitions again:
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism. Historically, the terms positive and negative atheism have been used for this distinction, where "positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
So, if Person B understood logic and was honest, this is how the conversation would play out.
Person A: I believe in God. [Presents reasoning.]
Person B: I find your reasoning unconvincing, so I fail to accept your conclusion. I do not believe in God. (WEAK ATHEISM)
Person A: So you believe God doesn't exist? (STRONG ATHEISM)
Person B: Not necessarily. If I wanted to make a positive claim that God doesn't exist (STRONG ATHEISM) I'd have to build an argument to do so. I don't feel like doing that. So I'm just going to observe that your reasoning is weak, fail to accept your conclusion, and be content with disbelief regarding God (WEAK ATHEISM) rather than belief that He does not exist (STRONG ATHEISM).
You might also notice that I'm saying "fail to accept" rather than "reject". This is also basic logic. If an argument is invalid (e.g. the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises) or unsound (e.g. some of the premises are not true) than you can reject the argument. You can not, however, reject the conclusion. You can simply say that the argument didn't prove the conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be true by some other reasoning.
For example:
1. The American flag is red, white and blue.
2. All flags with the color red in them are constitutional republics.
C. America is a constitutional republic.
Premise 2 is obviously false so the argument is unsound. But if you were to conclude that because the argument is unsound the conclusion must be false you'd be making your own logical error. So if someone presents an argument from God and you observe that the argument doesn't work you can't automatically assume the conclusion is false (STRONG ATHE
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
And I suppose you figure the Zionists are using the Piece of Eden to control people's minds too, eh?
Piece of Eden?
Well now! There's a new one for me. Not even in Wikipedia. Guess I'll have to go digging to figure out your reference.
That being the case, when you say mind-control, who are you suggesting that it's (presumably not) directed at? Jews or everybody else?
-FL
Do you know why the government of France, Spain, and Germany were against the Iraq War?
First, the then government for Spain, that of neofascist Aznar, actively supported the invasion in spite of 80+% of the population opposing it. If your information is so wrong about commonly available facts, what can we expect from your unverifiable claims?
Second, I along with another million people demonstrated in the streets against that war. You can make up all the shit you want about Chirac's ulterior motives, but our government obeyed the vox populi. It's spelled d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y.
In any case, considering the amount of money tricky Dich Cheney's Halliburton's made in that war (hundreds of billions), the sums that would have resulted from the alleged Saddam connections would have been chump change. Why not fault them for that?
It means atheism is only rational under a feelings-based version of "certainty".
Pure "Mathematical logic" does not allow for atheism, as pointed out before. But then, "mathematical logic" doesn't allow for any conclusions about the real world whatsoever.
All the other positive sciences, those that at least attempt to be correct falls under "description of what you can repeatably cause", and that's the source of the "truth" statements from physics and/or any other positive science. Even most of astrophysics can be observed in controlled experiments here on earth (e.g. an event horizon can be generate for extremely short periods of time and studied)
And yes, you can be quite sure that you cannot cause God to react to you in a repeatable manner (though any serious scientist would have to admit there are many historical and contemporary claims of God performing miracles). But that's the heaviest claim the positive sciences let one make. They can certainly not support a "God does not exist" nor a "God exists" claim.
Of course, treating science like this would put religion and climate science on the same truth level. We have certainly not adequately verified we can repeatably change the climate, so the only sources for climate science data is the past. And with religion ... the situation is ... exactly the same.
(I'd love that climate scientists would use the information theory to improve their treatment of data, force algorithms to be developed against partial datasets, and then test them by having them complete the data sets. Nobody seems to be doing that, even though computer intelligence clearly shows that using all available data leads to nonsensical conclusions)
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/01/06/2009-01-06_from_her_lips_to_gods_ear_the_fury_of_a_.html?page=0
""May God exterminate Hamas!" screamed the woman in crystal-clear understanding that the terrorist band's reckless, inhuman actions had brought death to her child."
"All the world knows that Israel would give up the fight in the event Hamas stopped firing and agreed to verifiably disarm." Unfortunately, not "all," as evidenced by some of the comments here.
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
Stop whitewashing the Reptilian problem!
it's sad that a rediculously large amount of atrocity in the last few centuries has been because of 'sibling rivalry'
Except it is much more complicated than you portray. Look both words up in wikipedia.
You are portraying "strong atheism" and "weak agnosticism". Sorry, but the words have come a long way from their greek and french roots.
Two sides that really deserve each other.
It's very sad.
That is just wrong. In cultures where the notion of a supreme being has never been considered or is otherwise not a notion that enters their culture in the slightest, where then do these people fall?
Obviously if you've got no notion of theism you fall outside the spectrum of beliefs about God entirely. I coudl see why you'd want to call such folks "atheist", but unfortunately the term is already in use. You'd have to call them "nontheists" or something to avoid confusion. That would add a fourth option. There's no problem with that. The three options I provided are the three positions you can take on theism. For, against, neutral. Being unaware of theism obviously means you can't take a position on it, so it'd be off the chart.
Where's the problem here?
In any case, the rejection of an idea is not a religion any more than not liking football is a sport.
You can prove anything by analogy. Let's get back to some actual definitions.
Theism: Positive belief that there is a God.
Weak Atheism: Rejection of theism - makes no positive statement about God.
Strong Atheism: Not only a rejection of theism, but in addition makes the positive statement that God does not exist.
Now let's define religion: A system of belief that makes claims about the supernatural which can not be substantiated by science.
So according to that definition weak atheism is not a religion, but strong atheism is.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Until the security fence went up, thousands of people in Israel were killed by suicide bombs over the past ten years. This week is lopsided only if you ignore history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Casualties
Palestinians:Israelis (victims under age 18)
Dec '87 - 2000: 3.67:1 (16.88:1)
2000 - 2004: 3.37:1 (5.5:1)
2005 - 2007: 15:1 (27.75:1)
-- "Oh. This guy again."
Surely the key driving force is the past 60 years of atrocities?
Religion, ethnicity, large walls, and other things that draw a clear dividing line between the peoples obviously intensify matters, but it seems to me that the key factor is that the two side hate each other passionately, because they have a history of hating each other passionately, and have in the past given each other many reasons to do so?
Also, don't assume religion is key as to why they fight over this particular patch of desert. The Israelies won't let the Palestinians leave, and I doubt anywhere else would take them anyway.
An invisible scanning shield to stop Hamas rockets from reaching targets - and instead intercept them like US Patriot missiles intercepted Sodom's Scud missiles in the Gulf War?
Would it take too much rocket science?
First, as others may have cited: Jews seem to be the only ones actually standing up for Palestinian rights.
Only Jewish scholars, includiing Israeli Jews, are the ones who have done an incredible job exposing Zionazi atrocities against Palestinians. Edward Said, Chomsky, Zinn, Avi Shlaim, Illan Pape', Shlomo Sand, Uri Avnery, Neve Gordon, Amira Hass, the late Israel Shahak, Finklestein, and many other Jewish scholars and journalists are ones that have done the bulk of the work on behalf of Palestinians.
Also, I hold many American Jews in high regard for their standing up for the disenfranchised here in the USA;
their work in civil right, unions and labor, etc... go far beyond what many other ethnic groups have dones.
But Jews are NOT really represented by the Israeli government.
Though talking-points posters have some insightful and salient points with regard to the history of the Jews and the making of their nation, I think he misses the mark when he tries to delineate the problem by rooting it to their "relationship to the non-jewish world".
The history (and mythology) of their persecution as a culture (racially they are semitic, as are arabs) is little different than other cultures throughout time.
To imply that any other separatist group would resort to the same mentality as the Jews in building their homeland is specious. It is when your history or mythology is propagandized by your government to justify actions that take from others because you are told you are "chosen" that you begin to court evil by giving power to a few zealots who feel entitled.
I have never been to Israel, but I know that there are many there who disagree with their leadership. Like other nations, the Israeli government does not seem to reflect the will of the people. That is because the government is a sock-puppet for the USA; even knowing that the USA cares naught for Israel apart from its strategic value in the mid-east.
The talking-points posters speak of their (jewish) feelings prior to and after 1948, but fails to note the land grab that ensued and the bad will it created. Fact is, nobody in the West gave a shit about arabs; they were nazi sympathizers and had no power of their own. Building up a beholden proxy was the order of the day.
I will refrain from delving into the history of the Israeli State and their past actions, but given a bottomless pocket (our tax dollars) and a vision of a nation-state whose future growth demands the taking of land and resources from their neighbors; the reasons they use to justify it are completely moot, but are designed to play into fear and pride.
I am not an historian and can stand corrected, but I feel two decades of this propaganda and the gift of western arms is what led to their neighbors sentiments (and justifiable fears) and the 6 day war.
And its been a clusterfuck ever since. What is telling is how the Israelites, as a persecuted people, are quite capable of persecuting others. How they can rationalize their situation into a myopia that prevents them from seeing the incredible imbalance of percieved threats. A nuclear power, with the best equipped army (our $ has bought them) in the region vs stone throwers. A death toll of 4 being comparable to 400. An 18 month siege that has resulted in the creation of a ghetto (Gaza) equal to, or worse than, any from which they might have fled. (Remember Shabra and Shatilla? - spelling notwithstanding)
It can only lead one to conclude that every Israeli government, since it's inception, has never wanted peace on any terms but their own; the proof of this has been their continued disregard for the treaties they have signed onto in pursuit of their vision for a Greater Israel.
"If you cannot change their minds, you can change their behavior". Well, of course. But being the main antagonizer, the thief of lands, the leveler of towns, the hoarder of water, the builder of walls, etc... is a sure-fire way to change behavior only for the worse.
Since this is apparent for even the most simple-minded to see (including myself) then one can only conclude that, like the destruction of Iraq, it is by design and intention; propaganda notwithstanding.
resist propaganda
One must be careful when citing "credible news sources". Look carefully, and you might realize that those "credible news sources" mesh with your own concept of reality. Anything that threatens your concept of reality will automatically be "incredible". People are funny that way........
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
There's a third option: Somebody needs to supply Hamas with Jets and Bombs do they can do equal damage to Israel.
I shouldn't post in this thread, but... You make it sound like charity isn't a mitzvah in Judaism. Now, all mitzvot are supposedly equal, but I would say that charity is more important than remembering to wash your hands and say a blessing before you eat. Liturgy would bear this out. There is a pray that is said between Rosh Hashana, the beginning of the liturgical year, and Yom Kippur, the day of judgement ten days later, that talks about how God uses this time to decide what will happen to people during the new year, and that onlly Penitance, Prayer and Charity can change the judgement. I will also note that 'tzedakah' (charity) and 'tzadik' (righteous) are similar for a reason in Hebrew. I wonder how anyone can think Jews don't give charitably after going to just about any hospital or place of learning in the country and looking at the names of the buildings. I will further note that in order for charity to be truly righteous for Jews, it is supposed to be given in secret, so that you aren't just doing it for the praise of others. Finally, I've never understood what any of this has to do with Israelis (who may or may not be particularly observant) in general or the Zionists (who were socialists and avowed atheists) in particular. It's not like all Jews around the world are Israeli, or even support the Israeli government in it's race to the moral bottom with whatever nutroll comes along to pick a fight. Though this lack of support is lamentably hard to see sometimes, what with all the Likud cock-sucking our (Christian!) Congresspeople do here in the US at the drop of a hat. I once had to explain to my 6th grade class that no, not all jews hate arabs, and not even all israelis hate arabs, despite the shorthand the US media uses to describe all Middle East conflict as a 'religious war'. I guess 'there isn't enough water to go around and everyone's grandpa shot at everyone else's grandpa and it's really in the Arab governments' best interests to never solve this conflict because it distracts from their horrible treatment of their own citizens and the way they keep the palestinian refugees in their own territories in camps 60 years later and oh yeah it was also a useful proxy battlefield int he Cold War and now it's gone on so long everyone is likely to remain pissed' is to difficult to explain to the US public. Of course I also had to explain, to my Humanities class in high school no less, that no, Jews did not worship Jesus. No not even a little bit. Yay US public school education in the south.
snig
The inquisition killed 2000 persons. It was more a thought control system through the use of fear than the slaughter people think it was. Inquisition worked much the way the KGB did.
Now witch hunts killed between 40000 and 60000 people but they were in 90% of the case performed by secular (civil) courts. Inquisition tried very few witches and most of the time didn't kill the witches it tried.
That isn't a comprehensive summary either. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of a deity is inherently impossible to know or prove.
That's why some people consider themselves "agnostic theists"
An atheist OTOH can use the scientific method and reductionism to support his lack of belief.
From a mathematical perspective both are irrelevant, as you have to at least start with Axioms.
I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
And you wasted valuable lunch-break writing that paragraph.
I don't know about you but it doesn't take me that long to type a sentence shorter than 20 words :)
You've correctly enunciated the Arab agenda since before 1948.
Glad we agree on something, although I wouldn't say it's before 1948 and wouldn't slap a cross borders "Arab" label on it.
However, your accusation against Israel is unfounded. If Israel wanted to wipe them all out, it could do it in seconds. They haven't, so your argument is little more than propaganda.
Jordan killed more Palestinians in a week during the seventies, than Israel have in the last 60 years.
Either you are not telling the truth, or Israel isn't trying hard enough.
It would be nice if you could base your views on some facts, rather than what you have heard.
Really? why don't you look at history and do your research before accusing me of spreading propaganda and lying? Tell me that the Sabra and Shatila massacre wasn't about extermination.
Sure, Israel could wipe Palestinians off the map, but look at the global uproar that resulted from the 300-3500 slaughtered in Sabra and Shatila, you think they'd do it even if they have the technical capability to do so? I think not.
You can point fingers all you want (from either side) and say "but look at what they did!", which is exactly what's been going on and exactly why this war will never stop until everyone lets bygones be bygones.
I've stated my position clearly, I believe both sides need to grow up. They both have enough blood on their hands to shame a nation for eons.
If you can't mod them join them.
+1.
"Almost the entirety of Egypt's Muslims are Sunnis." - wikipedia
So finally that explains to me Egypt's reluctance to assist Palestinian refugees.
Spot-on!
Yes, but the fact that the Jewish faith does NOT consider money or the possession of money to be inherently evil rankles everyone else. Every other faith on the planet encourages you to get rid of as much as possible, as fast as possible.
Preferably to the church of the faith in question.
And because the Jewish faith has not only managed to keep money, but also successfully integrate it into their secular and religious existence without any overt conflict, it drives other faiths quite barmy. Often homicidally so.
[End Of Line]
There is no such thing as "impossible" unless you're speaking of math or science, and even then, we don't know if anything's necessarily impossible or not. As to the whole down with religion thing, that has very little to do with the conflict. Yes, Israel was created as a home for the Jews, but the conflict comes from the displacement of Palestinians in the process, not any religious differences that the two groups might have (which don't apply to this dispute anyway, since Palestinians are not part of a single religious group). Also if you want to get rid of religion, then you have to stop humans from thinking. Humans have always wondered about their origins, creation, and what comes after. Science has yet to fully explain these things and humans are also an impatient species. Even if you somehow manage to erase all religions from the face of the Earth there will still be those who believe in a higher order.
The solutions presented by both sides so far are ridiculous:
a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution)
b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
Actually, it's more like:
[[For another, back to point one: stop generalizing. Just because a religion has a few (or even a lot) of nutjobs, doesn't mean that the religion itself is to blame.]]
A particular religion, no as each and every religion has their nutjob, as once you starts to curtail rationalism with 'blind faith' which is the basis for religion, then there is no easy way to separate 'normal' religious people with nutjobs..
Now it's time for us to step in like we did in South Africa. Boycott any product coming from Israel. And kick them out of the Eurovision song festival. It's not like Israel is part of Europe anyway. We are civilised.
My grandfather hid jews in the cellar of his Amsterdam shop in the second world war. How can people who have suffered so much turn 180 degrees and become the suppressors themselves? Put up concentration camps (Gaza) and security fences on land that does not belong to them?
The Hamas are no sweethearts, but given the circumstances, what do they have to loose? If Israel follows all UN resolutions, and the Gaza harbour and airport functions again, then the Palestinian middle and working class will kick out Hamas. Israeli hardliners love Hamas and Hamas loves them, because otherwise they would die.
Give land and work to the Palestinians, then they will become addicted to wealth like us, giving up the wish to become a martyr, because they have too much to loose.
You tarnish an otherwise reasonable post by saying down with Judaism and every other religion, since you betray your ignorance of religion. You don't have any appreciation for religion. You don't know why Jews believe what they believe, or why any other religious group holds to its beliefs, yet you condemn them all in a blanket fashion. Such blatant provincial ignorance from a haughty atheist. As a religious Jew, I have strong religious differences with religious Christians, but I also have respect for many Christian beliefs and the right Christians have to their beliefs. I also have huge problems with Arabs and Muslims due to the immense amount of Jew-hatred produced by the Arab/Muslim world (that often turns violent), and additionally I have strong religious differences with Islam, but even then I also have respect for many Islamic beliefs as well as the right of Muslims to practice their religion - as long as they do not unjustly threaten others in the process. I feel sorry for you due to your excessive narrow-mindedness and inability to appreciate beliefs divergent from your own.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Reading the post, you would get an impression that all Palestinians are Jihadists. This is a slight of hand often used to implicitly understate and twist the gravity of what is happening. And what is happening is mass murder of civilians based on their ethnic group. There is a name for that, but I will not utter it.
(NT and XP were developed by Microsoft Israel).
So, Windows is a Jewish conspiracy now? Godwin?
I know Windows is an unmitigated pile of crap, but to blame an entire religious group is pure bigotry. Now, SCO and Mormons...
Belief in a god creates a kind of mental and emotional vulnerability in the minds of all believers. To enable someone to believe in something that is unprovable, irrational and without proper evidence also enables people to believe in other things that are unprovable, irrational and without proper evidence. It generally impairs rational thought even if belief in a god is the "only exception" to good sound critical and logical thought.
Mod Parent up!
Everybody was so busy with their (incredibly insightful and important) Israel/Palestine Sucks debate, they didn't consider that it's a scam.
I'm an Israeli, and I've never heard of this thing before. AFAIK, it wasn't reported in any Israeli news source - and they love to hype misguided "patriotic" ventures such as this one.
Hamas doesn't even need to pick a peaceful means of resolving disputes, they can continue to be a militant resistance. They just can't act like crazed lunatics.
Israel has chosen a violent solution to their problem: Hamas Rockets. They didn't ask, bribe, etc., they are bombing. Violence is acceptable in international disputes.
The problem with Hamas is that they are crazed thugs. They used to "retaliate." If Israel took out one of their important people, they launched a wave of crap at Israel, and the tit-for-tat system caused a someone uneasy truce... Israel would occasionally take out a major Hamas person, and Hamas would blow up a pizza shop/disco hall... or Hamas would see a target of convenience and hit Israel, who would counter attack. That lasted for years.
The problem is that Hamas decided that they were not interest in generally tranquil relations with the occasional period of innocent deaths, they needed a real war with Israel, so they adopted a policy of continual rocket attacks. Instead of waves of attacks when they had some invented cause, they would rocket daily. Eventually they would strike a nerve with Israel, Israel would attack, and they would get the war they needed. They needed a war because they wanted to be the big bad resistance, a crown that Hezbolah grabbed in 2006.
But Hamas has become the crazy thugs of the area, just attacking daily. They aren't looking for anything other than death and destruction, or there would be some sort of meaningful methodology to what is going on.
Except part of your statement is flat-out wrong :
while arguments against His existence have, many times, proven quite strong
This is false. Any rigorous argument against the existence of God would run stuck. Additionally you could reject all contemporary claims and only accept that a lot of books, and of course a very old, very well preserved book, describes God, lots of old structures were made for God. And of course there is ample evidence that God-assisted events like the Exodus did indeed happen.
If you further continue your rejection, one could say "but old, well-preserved books are the only reason we have to postulate that the Roman Empire ever existed". I fail to see what answer an honest man would have to this argument.
So in positive science you're stuck. In historical argument you're stuck. In mathematical logic, you're especially stuck. Exactly what sort of reasoning are you going to use to justify your "God does not exist" claim ? "Lately (and we mean in the last 100 or-so years) there's been a lot of philosophical and political figures claiming this is true" ?
Theology is held to a higher standard because Christian theology shames people in order to make them comply with a higher standard of behavior than atheism.
People want to sin, as the bible states, and they don't want to receive blame when the inevitable happens and the consequences become clear.
They want a world without consequences. And they blame "God" (and I really mean the one, Jesus Christ) for not providing them with such a world.
They don't want to go to church on sunday and reflect on their actions, so as to improve them before they become disasters. They don't want to confess to a priest, and they certainly don't want anybody's advice about how to fix things they've broken. They want someone else to fix those for them - a job the state has gladly taken, of course in return the state expects exactly what the devil expects for the same job : their soul. Their fundamental ability to distinguish between good and evil. By fixing all immoral deeds, the state makes people amoral. In practice amoral people cannot seriously be distinguished in their actions from immoral people.
Fixing other people's problems without them asking for help first, forcing other people to behave morally by overwhelming force ("taxing/stealing 'for the poor'") is a fundamentally flawed course of action that's being pushed on every last human being for 150 years now. It does not bring good, it brings evil. This very same force is responsible for communism, including the atrocities committed in it's name.
There is this little detail called "history" which provides ample evidence of the existence of God. Or, to put it another way, it provides the same evidence as exists for, just to take a random example, the fact that some french folk stormed some ugly building in paris 120 years ago.
You're incorrect. Agnosticism has no central dogma. Atheism does.
There is more to a "positive" statement than simply the lack of the word "no", you know. Non-existence of something is obviously a positive statement, one that requires proof.
Amen to that...
Who cares if God exists? Even if He does it's obvious he's a slacking layabout. Best to move on as if He wasn't there.
As for killing people in His name, everybody should know by now religion has no more useful purpose than as a political tool.
"doesn't mean that the religion itself is to blame"
Yes, it is. As long as various religions propagate the lie that there is a soul, and a 'better world' out there somewhere, and that 'better world' is our true home, and that this world is a holding pattern in existence, then any barbarism committed against people is permissible because the flesh is, when all is said and done, irrelevant.
So yes, my mistaken friend, religion itself is to blame.
Lazy... not coward.
The problems are in twos...
1 The bible.
2 The Choran.
1 One says to kill because God gave you "land".
2 The other one says it also...
1 People believe.
2 People enact...
As if God would give two cents for "land" you weirdos.
What sad idiocy.
Any rigorous argument against the existence of God would run stuck.
Really now. I suggest you take a modern philosophy of religion class. Natural and moral evil, the multiplicity of gods of different religions, Occam's Razor, and a variety of others point towards the nonexistence of God.
Note that I personally am a semi-ambivalent Jew. The Kierkegaard argument, that belief in God is justified because it allows a leap of faith and, therefore, a strengthening of spirit, holds quite a lot of water to me - nonetheless, it still doesn't provide any proof of the existence of God, merely that such a belief is a useful thing to have.
Additionally you could reject all contemporary claims and only accept that a lot of books, and of course a very old, very well preserved book, describes God, lots of old structures were made for God. And of course there is ample evidence that God-assisted events like the Exodus did indeed happen.
If you further continue your rejection, one could say "but old, well-preserved books are the only reason we have to postulate that the Roman Empire ever existed". I fail to see what answer an honest man would have to this argument.
So in positive science you're stuck. In historical argument you're stuck. In mathematical logic, you're especially stuck. Exactly what sort of reasoning are you going to use to justify your "God does not exist" claim ? "Lately (and we mean in the last 100 or-so years) there's been a lot of philosophical and political figures claiming this is true" ?
Even if these structures and books provided enough evidence for the existence of God at some point (and there are a number of problems with such a claim, not the least of which that there are few if any corroborating accounts of many of the same events, and that these "old books" from different religions either differ or flat-out contradict each other in several respects) They still do not provide evidence for His continued existence.
Consider, my friend, the words of Nietzsche's madman:
God is dead.
Fighting within their means and resource, Hezbollah and Hamas did pretty good. Israel didn't defeat Hezbollah fighters and most of those who were killed in the war were Lebanese civilians targeted by the Israeli cowards. They destroyed buildings and civilian target.
Resilience and defiance by Hezbollah and Hamas will eventually destroy Israel. Israel is digging its own grave and Zionist knows it.
'A fascinating approach over the last few days is being made by an Israeli Website, "Help Israel Win," which provides a download so your PC can become part of a worldwide pro-Israeli botnet. So far 7,786 have joined, already a fairly powerful global computing force...'" Hmm or we can get a few million from 4chan join up and raid the SHIT out of Israeli web sites for the lulz. Just imagine, once again 4chan will be ridiculed by FOX News for raising hell.
I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
That's not the problem. The majorities on both sides are willing to negotiate. They are just not able to keep the lid on their respective radical factions.
We have ours in the USA as well. And we can't control them either.
As evidenced by the fact that they ran the place the last 8 years. :)
Hiya - I'm the guy who wrote the parent. Just did it anon...for some reason.
I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
The solutions presented by both sides so far are ridiculous:
a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution)
b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
Both sides are idiots, hard headed and are in serious need for an adult conversation.
As a side note to the GP regarding extremist Muslims (or as I like to call them douche bags), if they read Quran they'll stop this my god is bigger than your god bull, here's a quote:
Al Baqara (002.136)
Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
P.S.: It's refreshing to see a post like yours on Slashdot :)
Thanks! There are some truly beautiful and inspiring lines in the holy books of (almost) all religions. Its a shame they get lost among the drivel, misreading, and misunderstanding.
One niggling issue, though: I don't believe there's any mainstream support in Israel for extermination of the Palestinians. In fact, the reason I support Israel in this whole thing is precisely because they don't have such a position, while Hamas has stated time and again that they would like nothing more than to wipe every last one of us (Jews, that is) off the face of the Earth. In a way, you might even call my support of Israel self-preservation. :)
I'm a Jew and definite supporter of Israel, but some of your points are frighteningly mistaken.
"The cancer that is Islam"? Come on. Every religion has it's share of crazy fundamentalist quacks reading too much into parts of their holy literature - currently, the fundamentalists of Islam just happen to be a little more numerous and (considerably) more vocal than those of the other major religions. Look back in time - at one point, Christians had a little thing called the Crusades. Hindus in India have been known to form mobs and beat and kill their Muslim neighbors. As for Jews...well, some might even consider the current crisis an example of fundamentalism, though I vehemently do not.
Which leads me the next point: the fallacy that Jews somehow "don't really care that much about religion". What? Sure, they may not go out and scream "TO THE GLORY OF YWHW" before blowing themselves up in a crowded mosque, but that doesn't mean they don't have an incredible fundamentalist and mainstream religious fervor. Watch people rock back and forth in tears and prayer in front of the Wailing Wall and then tell me Jews in Israel "don't really care that much about religion."
"Haven't done shit since 1000 B.C. when they gave up the last of their rational humanistic thought. Sit on patches of oil and get fat." Oy vey. For one, there are Muslims outside the Arab world. For another, back to point one: stop generalizing. Just because a religion has a few (or even a lot) of nutjobs, doesn't mean that the religion itself is to blame.
The rest of your flamebait suffers the same problem. You say Muslims are savages. It would be more accurate to say some some Muslims are savages. It would be more accurate still to say some people are savages.
if israeli jews were not religious fanatics they would just let the 1947-refugees back in and give the people occupied in 1967 a citizenship. then there would be no conflict.
As what concerns violent fanaticism you don't have to join the martyr brigades for that as an israeli. you just join the army. there you can kill many more without any consequences for yourself.
people sympathetic with the Machpela murders or the Rabin assassination are still numerous.
I, by the way, am one of those people you mentioned who rock back and forth in frenzy at the temple wall.
Wow you have been watching your FOX and your CNN all right
and you're doing an awesome job repeating. I'll buy you guys
flu shots.
Thank you for responding and for your original post.
I might have been a bit harsh, but things like the Sabra and Shatila massacre and this recent conflict leads an observer like me to believe it's really that bad.
I just hope everyone can let bygones be bygones and work together for a better tomorrow :)
If you can't mod them join them.
Heh - God willing, right? The very thought.