War, what is it good for?

[Jamiet99uk]

The Israeli side does not want peace. If Israel wanted peace they would scale back the ILLEGAL settlements.

Instead the current Israeli government delights in widespread murder.

Perhaps you have not read through this forum. Bert, Oct, and myself have all agreed that the illegal settlements are wrong.
Our claim is simply that they are not justification for a terrorist attack. Is that too far to go?

I have also said that I disagree with Hamas's attack.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Glad you realised your original statement was a complete falsehood.

Are you going to apologise for lying?

Or are you going to accept that you were misled?

It wasn't a falsehood. I actually stand by the original statement I made: "The Palestinian side walked away from the Clinton peace talks after getting almost everything they wanted." The Palestinians said they agreed to the peace agreement in principle, but they didn't actually agree to anything at all and were agitating for conditions that were obviously never going to be included in a final agreement (e.g., right to return). Even if the deal wasn't truly fair, it was realistically the best Palestinians were ever going to get. I'm not just making it up, you can take Bill Clinton's word for it if you like: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

What I apologized for is that, in my effort to make the point that Israel isn't 100% responsible for every bad thing in the Israel-Palestine conflict, I highlighted a point where the Palestinian side clearly shares the blame. It would have been fairer for me to, at the same time, also highlight how Israel also shared the blame in this case. Jamie hit many of the relevant points in his snarky retort, but could have gone even harder if he had wanted to (there were many negotiating shenanigans from their side).

Jamie, however, has no problem telling just one side of the story so really an apology wasn't in order. It's not like he rushed back to revisit the evidence that Al Shifa hospital was 100% being used by Hamas soldiers lol. He and Orathaic seem to have unfalsifiable views about Israel's culpability that make discussing this issue with them seem a little pointless. For anything bad that happens the only possible explanations for them are (i) Israel did it directly, (ii) Israel caused it clandestinely, (iii) okay Israel didn't have anything to do with it, but Zionism is inherently colonial and genocidal so no matter what it's their fault.

[MajorMitchell]

I am reminded of the circumstances that followed the seizure ofJerusalem in 1099AD.
The evidence of the last ~70 years supports the proposition that neither side, Israeli & Palestinian genuinely want any peace that treats their protagonist with equity, too many both sides want a decisive victory that crushes their opponents.
At the core of either side's instrangience lie fundamentalist religious beliefs that are incompatible, so perhaps the only fit people to live there are athiests?

I am reaching a stage where a ruthless extermination of all the human inhabitants, the total destruction of Jerusalem and creation of a controlled wildlife wilderness reserve has considerable appeal as a long term solution.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I am reminded of the circumstances that followed the seizure ofJerusalem in 1099AD.
The evidence of the last ~70 years supports the proposition that neither side, Israeli & Palestinian genuinely want any peace that treats their protagonist with equity, too many both sides want a decisive victory that crushes their opponents.
At the core of either side's instrangience lie fundamentalist religious beliefs that are incompatible, so perhaps the only fit people to live there are athiests?

I am reaching a stage where a ruthless extermination of all the human inhabitants, the total destruction of Jerusalem and creation of a controlled wildlife wilderness reserve has considerable appeal as a long term solution.

Yikes, you had me nodding my head in agreement until the last paragraph. It's disgusting you'd even say that.

I love Israelis and Palestinians. The world would be a much worse place without them. Jerusalem is a spectacular city even if you aren't religious.

Israelis and Palestinians aren't the first neighbours in history to have a seemingly irreconcilable disagreement over land - in fact, that has been the norm over most of human history. Of course, peace might not be possible for a generation or more. And a hot war between Israel and Iran, if it came to pass, would be a global disaster. But "kill them all" is obviously the worst-possible solution.

Moreover, much of the natural environment would actually be quite sparse and low quality following your proposed genocide.

[CaptainFritz28]

I am reminded of the circumstances that followed the seizure ofJerusalem in 1099AD.
The evidence of the last ~70 years supports the proposition that neither side, Israeli & Palestinian genuinely want any peace that treats their protagonist with equity, too many both sides want a decisive victory that crushes their opponents.
At the core of either side's instrangience lie fundamentalist religious beliefs that are incompatible, so perhaps the only fit people to live there are athiests?

I am reaching a stage where a ruthless extermination of all the human inhabitants, the total destruction of Jerusalem and creation of a controlled wildlife wilderness reserve has considerable appeal as a long term solution.

No. This is evil. This is injust. Do you have ANY idea how many innocents there are on both sides? You have taken the extremes and applied them to all. Even if you are joking, you have a very sick sense of humor. You forget an important option.

Both Judaism and Islam as they exist today stipulate that the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea belongs exclusively to members of their own religion.
Athiesm fails to address this, as it revolves around each individual gaining as much as possible at the expense of others. This leads to tribalism and then backstabbing, which is very similar to what we have now but worse. It's great fun in Diplomacy, but in the real world it means people die.
Why? Because Athiesm places no inherent value on human life. The only reason one would want someone else to live is to benefit themselves.

The only religion that places inherent value on the individual, does not give certain material privileges to its own members, and to the contrary commands them to sacrifice their own wants for the needs of others is Christianity. Christians believe that the greatest commandment we have received from God, other than loving God Himself, is to love others, no matter who they are, as if they were ourselves.
In fact, Christianity goes a step further. It stipulates that not only should we love those who do good to us, but that we should live those who wrong us, simply because to love them means to show kindness, compassion, and grace, which are inherently good. It doesn't mean justice is not done, but it does mean that everyone, including those who have done evil, are treated with love. Love in this sense is not romantic, nor sexual, but purely sacrificial. Why? Because Jesus loved us enough to experience one of the most brutal deaths ever, simply to save us.
This is why the great majority, by far, of charities, hospitals, and humanitarian aid organizations are Christian, or were founded by Christians. This is why so many Christians go off to far corners of the world to give help to those whom no others will help. It is all out of love.

That is what the Middle East needs. It is, in fact, what the world needs.

[Jamiet99uk]

Athiesm fails to address this, as it revolves around each individual gaining as much as possible at the expense of others.

This is a bizarre and false statement.

I believe you may be thinking of "capitalism".

[Jamiet99uk]

Atheism is simply a complete lack of religious faith, a state of non-belief in gods.

That's all. Atheism doesn't have commandments or advocate for a specific way of living.

We just don't think God exists. That's it.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

"Why? Because Athiesm places no inherent value on human life. The only reason one would want someone else to live is to benefit themselves."

Maybe we should have a separate off topic thread on morality and atheism :)

[Octavious]

There is no doubt in my mind that MajorMitchell's comment was an expression of world weary despair at the mess of the place rather than the proffering of a genuine opinion

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

There is no doubt in my mind that MajorMitchell's comment was an expression of world weary despair at the mess of the place rather than the proffering of a genuine opinion

I was just miffed that MM singled out middle eastern folks - you'll have to put us all in the ground if greed, bigotry, and tribalism are capital offenses.

[CaptainFritz28]

"Why? Because Athiesm places no inherent value on human life. The only reason one would want someone else to live is to benefit themselves."

Maybe we should have a separate off topic thread on morality and atheism :)

Good point. It came up elsewhere, so I responded in kind, but that would be fitting for a separate thread.

[CaptainFritz28]

Athiesm fails to address this, as it revolves around each individual gaining as much as possible at the expense of others.

This is a bizarre and false statement.

I believe you may be thinking of "capitalism".

Yeah, that too :)

I should have explained that better, my apologies. I jumped from a premise to the conclusion without providing all the premises in between.

My point is to say the following:
A belief in which God created the world, and created humans, such as Christianity, gives inherent value to humanity, as we are a creation of God, and made in His image. The Bible states this in Genesis 1:27.

A belief in which there is no God removes this basis for inherent human value, and instead shifts one's value to how well they can be of use to society. If only the fittest survive, and we have the instinct to survive, then our primary goal is to be the fittest for survival, even at the expense of others surviving. Take, for example, the Nazi party's killing of people with disabilities. This was because they did not place inherent value on the individual. The idea that the Aryan race is better than the Jewish race as well was based on evolutionary ideas that some are further evolved and thus more valuable than others. Communism also did the same, just on a larger scale. If a people group was deemed "less evolved" then they ought to be wiped out. Same with slavery. This was rooted in the idea that Africans have less value than white people, simply because they were "not as evolved" as white people.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that every Athiest is a racist, a communist, and a Nazi. Not at all, many are very nice people. However, Athiesm provides no safeguard against racism, communism, or Naziism. There is nothing inherently involved with Athiesm that says "this is wrong" like there is in Christianity. That is the point I'm trying to make.

If you transplant Athiesm into the Middle East, you get the same thing you have now. That's because there is no inherent moral structure telling Hamas not to be terrorists and telling Israel not to commit war crimes. Only with Christianity do you solve these problems.

[CaptainFritz28]

There is no doubt in my mind that MajorMitchell's comment was an expression of world weary despair at the mess of the place rather than the proffering of a genuine opinion

I certainly hope so.

[CaptainFritz28]

That's all. Atheism doesn't have commandments or advocate for a specific way of living.

That is my point. Because Athiesm doesn't have a moral structure, it is left up to the individual to determine their morals. That leads to anarchy, which is just as bad if not worse than what we have now in the Middle East.

For proof, I cite the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions, Argentina, the USSR, Cuba, Paris, Portland, Chicago, LA, San Fransisco, Baltimore, and every other time Athiesm has been historically implemented as a governmental standard.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Athiesm fails to address this, as it revolves around each individual gaining as much as possible at the expense of others.

This is a bizarre and false statement.

I believe you may be thinking of "capitalism".

Yeah, that too :)

I should have explained that better, my apologies. I jumped from a premise to the conclusion without providing all the premises in between.

My point is to say the following:
A belief in which God created the world, and created humans, such as Christianity, gives inherent value to humanity, as we are a creation of God, and made in His image. The Bible states this in Genesis 1:27.

A belief in which there is no God removes this basis for inherent human value, and instead shifts one's value to how well they can be of use to society. If only the fittest survive, and we have the instinct to survive, then our primary goal is to be the fittest for survival, even at the expense of others surviving. Take, for example, the Nazi party's killing of people with disabilities. This was because they did not place inherent value on the individual. The idea that the Aryan race is better than the Jewish race as well was based on evolutionary ideas that some are further evolved and thus more valuable than others. Communism also did the same, just on a larger scale. If a people group was deemed "less evolved" then they ought to be wiped out. Same with slavery. This was rooted in the idea that Africans have less value than white people, simply because they were "not as evolved" as white people.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that every Athiest is a racist, a communist, and a Nazi. Not at all, many are very nice people. However, Athiesm provides no safeguard against racism, communism, or Naziism. There is nothing inherently involved with Athiesm that says "this is wrong" like there is in Christianity. That is the point I'm trying to make.

If you transplant Athiesm into the Middle East, you get the same thing you have now. That's because there is no inherent moral structure telling Hamas not to be terrorists and telling Israel not to commit war crimes. Only with Christianity do you solve these problems.

I'll start a new thread with this as the basis. A young Christian encountering thoughtful non-believers online is truly a cannon event and one worth repeating.

[CaptainFritz28]

This is a bizarre and false statement.

I believe you may be thinking of "capitalism".

Yeah, that too :)

I should have explained that better, my apologies. I jumped from a premise to the conclusion without providing all the premises in between.

My point is to say the following:
A belief in which God created the world, and created humans, such as Christianity, gives inherent value to humanity, as we are a creation of God, and made in His image. The Bible states this in Genesis 1:27.

A belief in which there is no God removes this basis for inherent human value, and instead shifts one's value to how well they can be of use to society. If only the fittest survive, and we have the instinct to survive, then our primary goal is to be the fittest for survival, even at the expense of others surviving. Take, for example, the Nazi party's killing of people with disabilities. This was because they did not place inherent value on the individual. The idea that the Aryan race is better than the Jewish race as well was based on evolutionary ideas that some are further evolved and thus more valuable than others. Communism also did the same, just on a larger scale. If a people group was deemed "less evolved" then they ought to be wiped out. Same with slavery. This was rooted in the idea that Africans have less value than white people, simply because they were "not as evolved" as white people.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that every Athiest is a racist, a communist, and a Nazi. Not at all, many are very nice people. However, Athiesm provides no safeguard against racism, communism, or Naziism. There is nothing inherently involved with Athiesm that says "this is wrong" like there is in Christianity. That is the point I'm trying to make.

If you transplant Athiesm into the Middle East, you get the same thing you have now. That's because there is no inherent moral structure telling Hamas not to be terrorists and telling Israel not to commit war crimes. Only with Christianity do you solve these problems.

I'll start a new thread with this as the basis. A young Christian encountering thoughtful non-believers online is truly a cannon event and one worth repeating.

*canon :D

[Jamiet99uk]

Athiesm fails to address this, as it revolves around each individual gaining as much as possible at the expense of others.

This is a bizarre and false statement.

I believe you may be thinking of "capitalism".

Yeah, that too :)

I should have explained that better, my apologies. I jumped from a premise to the conclusion without providing all the premises in between.

My point is to say the following:
A belief in which God created the world, and created humans, such as Christianity, gives inherent value to humanity, as we are a creation of God, and made in His image. The Bible states this in Genesis 1:27.

A belief in which there is no God removes this basis for inherent human value, and instead shifts one's value to how well they can be of use to society. If only the fittest survive, and we have the instinct to survive, then our primary goal is to be the fittest for survival, even at the expense of others surviving. Take, for example, the Nazi party's killing of people with disabilities. This was because they did not place inherent value on the individual. The idea that the Aryan race is better than the Jewish race as well was based on evolutionary ideas that some are further evolved and thus more valuable than others. Communism also did the same, just on a larger scale. If a people group was deemed "less evolved" then they ought to be wiped out. Same with slavery. This was rooted in the idea that Africans have less value than white people, simply because they were "not as evolved" as white people.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that every Athiest is a racist, a communist, and a Nazi. Not at all, many are very nice people. However, Athiesm provides no safeguard against racism, communism, or Naziism. There is nothing inherently involved with Athiesm that says "this is wrong" like there is in Christianity. That is the point I'm trying to make.

If you transplant Athiesm into the Middle East, you get the same thing you have now. That's because there is no inherent moral structure telling Hamas not to be terrorists and telling Israel not to commit war crimes. Only with Christianity do you solve these problems.

Do you realise that, for example, people who follow the Jewish faith also believe that God created the world?

You appear to be equating Jews with Nazis.

Are you an anti-semite?

[Jamiet99uk]

So much nut-casery in those recent Fritz posts, I can't even.

[Jamiet99uk]

And before anyone jumps on me, look at the argument he is using:

1. Only Christianity provides the correct "inherent moral structure".

2. Anyone who is not Christian does not have the correct moral structure.

3. Examples include Atheists, Nazis and Communists.

4. Another example is the Middle East where there are Muslims and Jews fighting because they lack the correct moral code.

Ergo he is suggesting the Jews have no moral code (or, the wrong one)....like the Nazis.

Wow.

[Jamiet99uk]

So it's not actually about belief in God.

This is now about Fritz's wild assertion that only Christians believe in God in the correct way, and that Atheists, Jews, Nazis, Communists and Muslims are all in the "wrong" camp.