Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, a journalist in Afghanistan, has been arrested and condemned for downloading articles on the internet that are critical of Islam.
Kambakhsh, a student at Balkh University and a journalist for Jahan-e Naw (New World), was arrested in October 2007 after material he downloaded was deemed to be offensive to Islam.
Shamsur Rahman, the head of the court, told Reuters news agency: "According to... the Islamic law, Sayed Perwiz is sentenced to death at the first court.
"However, he will go through three more courts to declare his last punishment," he said.
I would say right now that Islam is an evil and atrocious collection of obsolete myths that is a threat to human sanity and safety (along with Christianity and Judaism, the other Abrahamic afflictions), but I better not—somebody reading it in the wrong place might get arrested.
- Log in to post comments
good grief. it wasn't some sort of educational material was it?
How selfless of you.
And suddenly I'm reminded of that picture of the Islamic protester holding a sign that said "Behead those who say Islam is a violent religion!" And this is happening in Afghanistan too... a country that we supposedly "fixed" with our war on terror. Just goes to show you what kind of atrocities our leaders are willing to ignore to make their policies look good.
Sometimes you just want to snatch people up and shout "Are you fucking insane??"
But ... I already know the answer is yes.
Similarly insane things happen in the west, and even in western courts (but for different reasons).
It's so weird hearing about something like this, and instantly knowing it's crazy, and wondering just what sort of severely altered state of consciousness everybody was in to let it happen.
But it's actually pretty easy: You take a wacky starting premise, you extend it ridiculously far, you don't check your results anywhere along the way with the real world, and you end up in freako land.
This is why religion (among other altered mental states) is so dangerous. It predisposes you to get wrong answers, and not to notice.
That picture is photoshopped. The original isn't much better though--it says "Behead those who insult Islam."
How was he to know what the articles said before he downloaded and read them?
I thought the point of 'Operation Enduring Freedom' was to remove religious extremists like these?
Weren't the religious extremists removed by religious extremists though?
How else is it going to maintain its status as "the fastest growing religion"?
I wonder who shopped the poor guy? Who was spying on him? How much spying goes on there?
What a crap State. What a crap religion.
"Remove" the religious extremists? Hell-we helped create these groups, and our current "allies" in Pakistan are deeply embedded with the wackiness.
Hank:
Sometimes? Yes. I have been experiencing this urge more and more frequently over the past several years. It's nearly a daily occurrance now. o_O
Had any kind of normal political development been allowed to take place in those countries, I'm sure religion would not have the powers it does.
Speaking of insane religious extremists, how 'bout that Phelps clan? Yikes!
What can you say about a superstition where the men think it is admirable to get together in groups and stick their asses in the air and bang their foreheads on the ground - a sort of sodomite circle jerk.
You've got to love the vagueness of the term "offensive to Islam". You could twist that around to mean just about anything.
According to this story:
http://cpj.org/news/2008/asia/afghan14jan08na.html
the "offensive material" is an article which claimed that Mohammed was no champion of women's rights. (Imagine.)
You might think that our time spent in Afghanistan is wasted, but read a little further. The story suggests that the real reason Kambakhsh was arrested is that his brother, also a journalist, is speaking truth to power. Apparently he's been arrested on mostly-fabricated charges in order to convince his family to keep its collective mouth shut. You gotta give those mullahs credit: they've learned their Bush-doctrine lessons well.
Heath Ledger, 28, found dead in his NYC apartment? Oh dear...
If you think someone is going to hell anyway, why would you worry about how long the trip takes? Religion is just the excuse though. It's probably not a coincidence that he's a journalist.
When one feels threatened by criticism to the point of administering death in order to avoid said criticism, it's obvious something just ain't right. Hmmm... wasn't Jesus sacrificed to a blood-thirsty god?
>
Not to wander too far off topic here, but I have actually encountered a few kind and loving Christians pointing out that Mr. Ledger deserved to die as a result of his role in Brokeback Mountain.
PZ's right, though. Religion is a horrible affliction which leads people to abandon reason, logic and common sense. And, to say that someone deserves to die for insulting someone's chosen mythology is so fucking backwards, it's terrifying. What we need is to get it into these god-soaked heads that if they are so offended and put off in this sin-infested world, perhaps they should fall on their swords and beat that rush to the eternal afterlife.
Note the choice of words;
Shamsur Rahman, the head of the court, told Reuters news agency: "According to... the Islamic law, Sayed Perwiz is sentenced to death at the first court.
"However, he will go through three more courts to declare his last punishment," he said.
That's judge speak for "I know what I've just ruled is FUBAR, but the law doesn't allow me any other option at this stage. Luckily the system will process the case through several more stages where someone will have the opportunity to reduce it to a token judgement".
hey, leave judaism out of it. Mentioning it in context with the other two ignores the fact that they are ripoffs in every sense imaginable. Judaism values literacy and science as few other religions do.
Thanks for that link, Billy. I didn't see that before I posted. It all makes sense now.
Yeah, I heard about Heath Ledger. It's a damn shame, but at least The Dark Knight is done filming*.
*yeah, yeah, I'm an insensitive clod.
Mooser: religious extremism is "normal political development". Secular democracy is the aberration.
Offensive huh. Their "almighty" god cannot stand to be insulted by a "puny" human? Thats fairly pathetic. As the oldest of five kids, I can tell you I was held to a higher standard by my mother on countless occasions. I was not permitted to seek retribution for merely being offended.
But then, Religion isnt about god, its about the very earthly power of men.
I know these are intended as kinda rhetorical/ironic statements but:
Bob LYou've got to love the vagueness of the term "offensive to Islam". You could twist that around to mean just about anything. Ah, I see you're beginning to catch on.
and MH I thought the point of 'Operation Enduring Freedom' was to remove religious extremists like these? More like securing the Caspian Sea oil pipeline now that our pet religious extremists are no longer playing ball.
Damned good point, Enkidu.
50. Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!
51. With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.
52. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
-Aleister Crowley's Book of the Law.
Time for us to go on the offensive. These bastards have been indoctrinating everyone within reach for thousands of years (Abrahamic religions), and should we ever speak up and say they are wrong, we're suddenly offending. If they want us to offend, let's go ahead and offend their sensitive sensibilities. Take your fucking self righteous chosen people bullshit with you to your grave, along with that 2000 year old supposedly nailed megalomaniacal bastard, and that praying 5 times a day because you fear some jealous wrathful deity that at the same time is watching over you, waiting for you to fuck up. Wow, these fuckers sure have some strange beliefs. Oh, let's go on fasting for a month so that our sins are forgiven (but killing someone who disagrees with us is not a sin, so no worries), or we can't eat pork, must chop part of our masculinity off, must wear hats, bang our heads against walls, the ground, have to drink someones blood and flesh, sacrifice animals to appease some asshole of a deity that will fuck you over if you accidentally mess up.
The funny thing is these are just the Abrahamic religions, imagine how crazy and wild the rest of this shit around the world is. Drinking milk from the same rat infested bowl you fed your temple rats with because they resemble your god, going up on top of a mountain for weeks to meditate and attempt to achieve a perfection that only apparently some fat bastard a couple thousand years ago has accomplished. It gets even more fun, like drinking a ceremonial fermented beverage via saliva from the skull of your deceased great grandfather while gnawing on the fleshy little bits of his arm you saved because there's a drought.
HumanisticJones and Wes:
-Original
-Photoshopped (or Gimped. ;) image
Also: This and this.
These are for educational purposes, of course.
PZ, you would of been burned at the cross a long time ago.
I could be killing people here!
The way people react, it's sometimes surprising to find out you--and the rest of us--aren't.
Not to wander too far off topic here, but I have actually encountered a few kind and loving Christians pointing out that Mr. Ledger deserved to die as a result of his role in Brokeback Mountain
Are you kidding me? It's those kind of people who make me wish there were a hell.
Check it out:
. .
V
___
I call it "Portrait of Mohammed as a Woman"
Enjoy.
How was he to know what the articles said before he downloaded and read them?
This reminds me of the movie Z. P. G. where the protagonist was reading information on child birth (uncontrolled birth was outlawed) when he was caught and questioned. He said something along the lines of, "I wanted to see how much of this filth was available for people to access."
No doubt his university will protest this and stand up for intellectual freedom, right? Right?
Sayed Perwiz. Take out the "erwi" and you have PZ. Turn the "W" upside down, take the "y" from "Sayed," then the "er" from the leftover "erwi" and the "S" from Sayed, and what do you have? PZ Myers. I think my point is clear.
QED, bitches.
"Coming to a country near you....." Huckleberry wants to add more "God" to the US Constitution.
Stuff like won't be far behind.
hey, leave judaism out of it. Mentioning it in context with the other two ignores the fact that they are ripoffs in every sense imaginable. Judaism values literacy and science as few other religions do.
Dude, you are smoking crack. Orthodox Jews are every bit as bad about science as muslims. Most of them don't cater to evolution, and actually getting them to attend public university is a miracle in its own right. The only learning that's treasured by Judaism is memorizing the "wisdom" of the scriptures.
There's plenty of secular jews, and modern jews, and non-orthodox jews who don't have a problem with science -- but guess what? That's cuz they're farther away from the fundamentals of their religion. Maybe there's a general cultural appreciation for science in the jewish community (can't bring myself to 'jewry') in the US, but I don't think that has too much to do with the religious roots of Judaism.
#32"PZ, you would of been burned at the cross a long time ago."
Would HAVE. I'm sorry. Drives. Me. Batshit. Crazy.
Josh, spare yourself some future grief by utilizing the fool-proof contraction woulda.
I think we could quite easily make a long, long list of Jews who are equally idiotic about made up fairy tale deities slavering over where they put their private bits. Just because a religion produces (or excommunicates, or chases off) someone of value and intelligence doesn't make the religion good. And Judaism is a religion, just like all the other fucking stupid religions.
Looks like a few others have already said it better than I.
Judaism values literacy and science as few other religions do.
Surely you jest, Asher Elbein, because the last time I checked they still believed in an invisible sky daddy. That's real scientific for you.
I used to live in Afghanistan, I could tell you that crap like this didn't happen before the 1980's. It was just convenient for Pakistan and the west to prop up these extremists for their political gain. I believe it was the NSA Advisor for Carter who told the religious extremists in a refugee camp in Pakistan that they'll take over Afghanistan from the Soviets because "God is on your side" (then the US gave them 3 billion dollars worth of weapons in the next decade). Afghanistan has Shariah law now because of the fact that the west has supported the idiots who are in power now. And, the laws will be here to stay because no one will dare say anything against religion.
But remember guys, those are the extremists. The majority of those who believe the exact same things as these nutcases are sweet and kind and more moral and get to see their granpappies when they die because of religion.
So religions themselves aren't bad per se. Apparently, it's just those who believe in 'em that are.
It seems to me that the major reason that most American Jews are viewed as being less anti-reality than other religious folk is because they don't take their religion seriously.
The major religious text is explicitly stated to not be taken literally. How many other religions have gotten even that far?
So what's your point Brownian, let's all finally declare, for the 3756th time that religions are the worst evil, shake all these God-soaked heads up a bit, get them all to agree with it, and the problem is solved. Easy no ?
What do ya know? Another expert on Judaism chimes in:
"hey, leave judaism out of it. Mentioning it in context with the other two ignores the fact that they are ripoffs in every sense imaginable. Judaism values literacy and science as few other religions do."
"Dude, you are smoking crack. Orthodox Jews are every bit as bad about science as muslims. Most of them don't cater to evolution, and actually getting them to attend public university is a miracle in its own right. The only learning that's treasured by Judaism is memorizing the "wisdom" of the scriptures."
There's plenty of secular jews, and modern jews, and non-orthodox jews who don't have a problem with science -- but guess what?
There's plenty of Orthodox who don't as well. Most of them, in fact.
I once worked with an Orthodox fellow, Hat, earlocks and all, who did his thesis on isotoperases and had no problem with evolution.
I'm sorry, but as half my family is quite orthodox, including Rabbis, the only one here smoking crack is you. I suppose some people, when they see muslims get ripped, feel they are being fair by ripping Jews in return. Are the Orthodox all angles? No, and you're no prize either.
By the way, any orthodox Jews flying planes into skyscrapers lately?
"That's cuz they're farther away from the fundamentals of their religion."
You don't know a fucking thing about the fundamentals of Judaism. And for starters, the Haredi (ultra -Orthodox) are comparative new comers as that movement didn't get started until the 18th century.
" Maybe there's a general cultural appreciation for science in the jewish community (can't bring myself to 'jewry') in the US, but I don't think that has too much to do with the religious roots of Judaism. "
How would you know?
DrBadgerI used to live in Afghanistan, I could tell you that crap like this didn't happen before the 1980's. It was just convenient for Pakistan and the west to prop up these extremists for their political gain. I believe it was the NSA Advisor for Carter who told the religious extremists in a refugee camp in Pakistan that they'll take over Afghanistan from the Soviets because "God is on your side" (then the US gave them 3 billion dollars worth of weapons in the next decade). Afghanistan has Shariah law now because of the fact that the west has supported the idiots who are in power now. And, the laws will be here to stay because no one will dare say anything against religion.
Carter is a quite outspoken Christian, so was Regan. I wouldn't be too surprised if Charly Wilson considers himself a good Christian for all his debauchery. This Afghanistan mess is the result our would be theocrats playing out their sick fantasies on some hapless little country.
If you're a loser/sociopath who can't function in society, the easiest thing to do is become a Islamic religious fanatic.
Instantly, people will listen to your insane ravings.
You can pretend to be morally superior to half the planet and to all women.
You can hold people in contempt of your special book and sentence them to death.
Instant power! Attention! Superiority!
At this point, Islam should be deemed offensive to itself and tossed onto the ash heap of history.
I'm sorry, but the metaphysical doctrines of Judaism are no more friendly to science than any other religion believing in a personal god. It's true that Judaism as a culture has produced some of the greatest scientists in history, but the same could be said for Christendom as a culture. Christianity and Judaism - and Islam - as systems of belief are filled with useless and dangerous rubbish.
All I can say is that these countries need more people like Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, people who risk their lives in order to enlighten things from the inside.
They are the real heroes, the revolutionaries of our time.
And why is it that we don't have more Americans protesting the war in Afghanistan? Clearly it isn't doing anything as our allies are just as bad as our enemies. A useless war to prop up a corrupt regime.
Yes!
Wait...you're being facetious, aren't you?
I haven't a clue what to say to these types. It's the moderates that have the potential to one day wake up and say, "Waitaminnit?! What the hell am I defending?"
Hey, it could happen.
I haven't a clue what to say to these types.
Try the direct approach.
Explain to them that religion is an artifact. Religion poisons everything.
Then hand them The God Delusion or God Is Not Great, and tell them it'll be on the test.
It's the moderates that have the potential to one day wake up and say, "Waitaminnit?! What the hell am I defending?"
Which would work if the moderates were defending the extremists, but they aren't. They defend their understanding of their religion.
@#57, the problem is that the moderates still believe what the extremists are fighting for, they just aren't acting on it.
@those who think Judiasm doesn't belong with Islam and Christianity... consider that Islam once brought out the world's leaders in science. Astronomy, medicine, math, philosophy, and much more survived the dark ages because the Muslims actually studied them. Just because you believe in evolution or are good at science doesn't make you any less crazy for believing in superstition. There may not be many of them, but there are jewish extremists and with the superstition still going strong in the "moderates", it doesn't take much for extremism to spread and rational thought and science suppressed.
the problem is that the moderates still believe what the extremists are fighting for, they just aren't acting on it.
No, they don't. That's the whole point. Unless you mean that they believe in God, but that's a pretty useless statement. Moreover, by that reasoning I can hold all people who believe in democracy responsible for the war in Iraq. Because Bush said that he invaded to bring democracy, so it is obviously democracies fault. Of course, I realize that there are moderate democrats, but they still believe what the extremists like Bush believe, they just aren't acting on it.
"@those who think Judiasm doesn't belong with Islam and Christianity... consider that Islam once brought out the world's leaders in science. Astronomy, medicine, math, philosophy, and much more survived the dark ages because the Muslims actually studied them."
You mean just Muslims? Or does that include Jews living in the Ottoman empire like Maimonides?
"Just because you believe in evolution or are good at science doesn't make you any less crazy for believing in superstition."
So you're a shrink too?
"There may not be many of them, but there are jewish extremists and with the superstition still going strong in the "moderates", it doesn't take much for extremism to spread and rational thought and science suppressed."
Hmmm. So the Jews started suicide bombing Germans did they? Extreme people they.
And I take it you're convinced that their aren't extremists who are atheists?
When conditions are right extremism in any of its form, religious, nationalist, etc. can spread.
You don't think you said anything profound here, do you?
Stuart Weinstein - troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
And the only thing those of us on PZ's site who actually answered this troll was a 'name' bait.
hey, my name could be um.... Sarah...
@#60, "You mean just Muslims? Or does that include Jews living in the Ottoman empire like Maimonides?"
Actually Maimonides lived before the Ottoman empire, but you're missing my point. I'm just saying that a religion that is considered extreme by many now was actually fairly progressive at some time, so the argument that jews are good scientists so they can't ever be nuts like muslims doesn't work.
""Just because you believe in evolution or are good at science doesn't make you any less crazy for believing in superstition."
So you're a shrink too?"
Actually, I might be. You don't have much of an argument there. Believing in something that doesn't exist may be considered psychosis. If someone goes on a killing spree because a magic green tiger told them to, everyone would agree that they need medications. If someone goes on a killing spree because God told them to kill gay people, lots of people wouldn't think that person is insane.
The rest of your argument misses my point. I'm saying that when there are a lot of people who believe in something irrational there's a lot of potential for someone acting upon those irrational beliefs (say, like religious extremists do). Just because it didn't happen in WWII doesn't mean that a Jew don't have the potential of one day (i.e. assassinating Rabin) being a religious extremist.
I don't really know of any examples of an atheist killing people simply because they don't believe in god (sure there are athests that have killed people, but it wasn't because of some deep non-belief in god that they had).
You're just suffering from a common symptom that religious people have. It's okay to call other people names, but when you talk about my religion, I'm offended.
"Stuart Weinstein - troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
And the only thing those of us on PZ's site who actually answered this troll was a 'name' bait.
hey, my name could be um.... Sarah... "
??
Uh, funny but I don't recall seeing anything authored by you in this forum before.
And as PZ could tell you, I ain't no troll, and that is my real name and I've been a regular on talk.origins for 13 years.
I was having a "spirited" but adult conversation. If you are mentally too inadequate to participate, then just be quiet. Don't act like a troll.
@59 - I might as well answer you to, before i go to sleep.
If religous people didn't believe in some random book being the absolute truth handed down by god, then chances are that there wouldn't be too many extremists taking that random book literally (i.e. extremist muslims stoning women for leaving their homes without a headscarf). The democracy and bush example doesn't work because its not that the moderates are literally supporting everything that the extremists say (moderates would likely be against stoning), but their unwavering acceptance of their rules and their holy book opens the door for someone taking things literally and becoming an extremist.
their unwavering acceptance of their rules and their holy book opens the door for someone taking things literally and becoming an extremist.
But they obviously don't have unwavering acceptance of their rules and their holy book. I'm not Christian, I'm atheist, but I know plenty of Christians who do not unwaveringly accept the rules of the bible. I would say a vast minority of Christians do so. The only ones that do are the literalists, that's what literalist means. Moreover, you're wrong about the moderates not supporting Bush. The vast, vast majority of people in the United States do little more than speak out against the war in Iraq, despite the fact that they claim to be against it. They do just as much as the moderate members of religions such as Islam in terms of stopping the violence, less even as there are governments and people who are Muslims who successfully stop other Muslims from doing harm to others. The reason for this is because we have a democracy, and we voted for Bush and people like democracy more than they like stopping war.
@#60, "You mean just Muslims? Or does that include Jews living in the Ottoman empire like Maimonides?"
Actually Maimonides lived before the Ottoman empire, "
He lived during the reign of the Saladins, which is when Islam was clearly on the ascent.
"but you're missing my point. I'm just saying that a religion that is considered extreme by many now was actually fairly progressive at some time, so the argument that jews are good scientists so they can't ever be nuts like muslims doesn't work."
I got your point. Mine seem to have rushed right over your head.
Anybody can be nuts. If you had a point, I think you forgotten it. I suppose Eco-terrorists and PETA-extremists are also God botherers.
""Just because you believe in evolution or are good at science doesn't make you any less crazy for believing in superstition."
So you're a shrink too?"
"Actually, I might be. You don't have much of an argument there. Believing in something that doesn't exist may be considered psychosis."
Interesting. Prove "it" doesn't exist.
Show all maths.
"If someone goes on a killing spree because a magic green tiger told them to, everyone would agree that they need medications. If someone goes on a killing spree because God told them to kill gay people, lots of people wouldn't think that person is insane."
Yup. And if someone starves half his country to death in an effort to enforce some bizarre form of a communist doctrine, he's also insane.
Is this really the best you can do? I agree that people who perpetrate murder for any reason, religious, political, etc. are insane.
"The rest of your argument misses my point. I'm saying that when there are a lot of people who believe in something irrational there's a lot of potential for someone acting upon those irrational beliefs (say, like religious extremists do). Just because it didn't happen in WWII doesn't mean that a Jew don't have the potential of one day (i.e. assassinating Rabin) being a religious extremist."
Prove you don't have such potential.
I figure I really don't need to respond to this, as it is really quite silly. When you can demonstrate that atheism provides some magic bullet against extreme behavior, get back to me. This particular paragraph really bothers me. It borders on paranoia.
"I don't really know of any examples of an atheist killing people simply because they don't believe in god (sure there are athests that have killed people, but it wasn't because of some deep non-belief in god that they had)."
I see. The difference is, is that when an atheist commits an act of violence, its for a better reason.
"You're just suffering from a common symptom that religious people have. It's okay to call other people names, but when you talk about my religion, I'm offended."
I'm sorry. Did I call other people names? Please point that out. And if you can't please be a gentlemen and retract your remarks.
In fact ask PZ to retract your post. Its embarrassing. Even to other atheists.
hey, leave judaism out of it. Mentioning it in context with the other two ignores the fact that they are ripoffs in every sense imaginable.
Oh, Puhleeeeze. Make fun of the other guys' woo-woo but be nice to judaism because... what?
Judaism is a bunch of ridiculous bollocks just like every other religion. The fact that other religions ripped off from it doesn't make it "better" it just makes it "more influential stupid."
Afghanistan is a medieval trash heap. Life expectancy is 47 years, while the USA is now 78 years. Running water and electricity are rare. Violent death is common. But they are very religious.
The two are closely linked. The Talibanis and Talibani clones seem to wallow in their ignorance and have no real motivation or interest in joining us in the 21st century.
It is the same with the American Talibani in the south central USA. For all their fundie cultist nonsense, fundie states have higher levels of poverty, child poverty, social problems like teen pregnancy and divorce, and lower education levels. These facts don't faze them in the least. They just wallow in their ignorance, while chanting god this and god that and talking about family values.
No one would care except they want to impose their ignorance on the rest of us with their silly theocracy. The Xian fundies can look at Afghanistan and say, Moslems suck and then turn around and try to impose the same thousands of years old defective system on us. They just might succeed.
It seems to me that the major reason that most American Jews are viewed as being less anti-reality than other religious folk is because they don't take their religion seriously.
Revisionist fucktard. What about claiming that the great sky daddy gave your people an eternal real estate grant, and then trying to enforce it in the modern era politically and militarily, is "not taking it seriously"??
The two are closely linked.
Yes, they are. Are you trying to claim that the state of their country is caused by their religion, because it seems just as likely the other way around. People get less religious the richer and more educated they get and if we want to get rid of all the crap that is happening in places like Afghanistan we need to actually do something besides bomb them and tell them they are stupid for being religious.
"It seems to me that the major reason that most American Jews are viewed as being less anti-reality than other religious folk is because they don't take their religion seriously.
Revisionist fucktard. What about claiming that the great sky daddy gave your people an eternal real estate grant, and then trying to enforce it in the modern era politically and militarily, is "not taking it seriously"??
The revisionist "fucktard" here is you. Elder statesmen at the time of modern Isreal's founding like Ben Gurion, were atheists. In fact Herzl wasn't particularly religious either. He was your basic secular Jew living the enlightenment dream or so he thought.
His vision of Israel was a modern state that was a cooperative where science and technology were at the forefront. It was his vision of a socialist utopia. Not a religious state at all or because God gave it to the Jews or whatever.
The movement to reconstitute the state of Israel, wasn't due to religious fervor, but rather the need to get the fuck out of Europe.
And whether God gave that parcel of land to the Jews or not doesn't really matter to me or the vast majority of Jews. Simple fact is we have a three thousand year history there, and we are not willing to accept dhimmi status in an Arab state.
"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom."
See? The Islamic courts are just protecting freedom. Apparently.
Oh goody, we get to talk about Israel. I'm sure this will go well.
"Oh goody, we get to talk about Israel. I'm sure this will go well."
So long as the conversation doesn't get hijacked by ignoramuses calling other people "fucktards".
Stuart Weinstein - just a statement. I'm an old time RC bred atheist. Grew up around Jews too though. A neighborhood thing. Frankly I think the American Jew (only ones I know well) is pretty pretty cool. Intelligent, generous, fun, thoughtful, tolerant and liberal. I also think the religious philosophical view I understood from them was not bad, and indeed sound philophy and psychology in many respects. And I am very proud that my people (Italians in Italy) risked their lives to save Jews from Germans in WWII. I am no Jew hater.
That doesn't alter the fact that think religion is dangerous. All types. It provides a base and justification for and fosters all types of weird shit. The tolerant Jew I love throws fire from their eyes if I mention Isreal may be a little unfair, for example. The people above are not getting on the Jews. They are just (in my mind) justly cast the net around all woo woo based things and saying all of it is unnecessary but worse a base for extremism. Religions are dangerous period. However the mostly secular culture and goodness of people (of say my Italian RC and American Jew friends) are not the issue.
Accept the fact that many of us here see religion for what we think it is as an institutional thing: a reason and motivation for crazy tribesmanship and deleterious actions. We know most people who claim religion are not bad people. I might add that I believe any sane and modern knowledgeable person really believs more in the culture than the woo woo. But that's another topic.
"Stuart Weinstein - just a statement. I'm an old time RC bred atheist. Grew up around Jews too though. A neighborhood thing. Frankly I think the American Jew (only ones I know well) is pretty pretty cool. Intelligent, generous, fun, thoughtful, tolerant and liberal. I also think the religious philosophical view I understood from them was not bad, and indeed sound philophy and psychology in many respects. And I am very proud that my people (Italians in Italy) risked their lives to save Jews from Germans in WWII. I am no Jew hater. That doesn't alter the fact that think religion is dangerous. All types. It provides a base and justification for and fosters all types of weird shit."
Lots of ideas and things can become dangerous or used for purposes for which they were not intended. Such is the human condition.
"The tolerant Jew I love throws fire from their eyes if I mention Isreal may be a little unfair, for example. The people above are not getting on the Jews. They are just (in my mind) justly cast the net around all woo woo based things and saying all of it is unnecessary but worse a base for extremism."
I agree. My point is, is that I don't see atheism as some sort
of innoculation against extremism. That's a utopian fantasy doomed to failure just like any other utopian fantsay.
"Religions are dangerous period."
They can be. So can animal rights activists. Just about any cause or ideology taken to far can be dangerous.
"However the mostly secular culture and goodness of people (of say my Italian RC and American Jew friends) are not the issue.
Accept the fact that many of us here see religion for what we think it is as an institutional thing: a reason and motivation for crazy tribesmanship and deleterious actions"
Again, just about any ideology, religious, nationalist, etc. can be a motivation for deleterious actions.
"We know most people who claim religion are not bad people."
I think quite the same of militant atheists.
"I might add that I believe any sane and modern knowledgeable person really believs more in the culture than the woo woo. But that's another topic."
Indeed.
Here we go with Stuart Weinstein "educating" us into his Israeli nationalism. You claim that all of Israel belongs to Israelis because they have been in what is modern day Israel for thousands of years? The sheer fact is very few Jews today can trace their origins in Israel past 200 years. Mostly resettlement from the Ottoman Empire. Many of the Israelis are either European Jews or Sephardic, hardly resembling the Mediterranean people of ancient Israel. In fact, it is the Palestinians that are more closely related to the Jews of Biblical times then modern day Israelis. Regardless, the battle of my land over yours is just as stupid as my omnipotent deity over your omnipotent deity. Although the early founders of modern Israel were secular, and mostly none-religious, that does not mean that our criticism of Judaism is misplaced. Any person who's willing to support irrational notions should be held to the magnifying glass of reason.
Remember that nationalism is not far from religion in terms of the extremist sentiment it tends to spread. Basically, both are beliefs that were indoctrinated from birth, and although certain aspects of cultural value homogeneity are important, for the most part, nationalism is completely overrated.
The difficutly here is that it's hard to dissociate Judaism the religion from Judaism the culture. We're not attacking your cultural values SW, but attacking the religion, just as we do all others. Although nationalism does tend to play a role in the culture, it should remain free of extremist elements. Blockading and constantly bombing the hell out of palestinian villages to me seems a bit excessive when you're trying to attempt to maintain some semblance of peace in the region. Israel, and Judaism are not above reproach or criticism. Censorship in this regard is wrong, because criticizing a religion or country is not racist (don't pull the anti-semitism card here), because we don't hold ill will towards those who for example criticize Saudi Arabia and Islam in the same light. As people who are invested individuals in world politics, believe in freedom, liberty, secularism, and atheism, we must be willing to continuously question and criticize. Our purpose is definitely not racism, but a movement towards rationality, peaceful thought, and a reduction in extremism (which as mentioned earlier is not just a product of religion but also nationalism).
Sorry, this is also off topic on Heath Ledger, but have you seen this?
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y49/pspauld/BlogPix/heathphelps.jpg
"Here we go with Stuart Weinstein "educating" us into his Israeli nationalism."
I'm an American. Daddy fought in WW2. When he was 16.
Uncles were in Korea.
"You claim that all of Israel belongs to Israelis because they have been in what is modern day Israel for thousands of years? The sheer fact is very few Jews today can trace their origins in Israel past 200 years."
It has been the goal of just about every anti-semite in the last 500 years to cast aspersions on the middle eastern origins of the Jews of the time. Perhaps in your case, its just ignorance. Or perhaps you revel being on the same level as Arafat.
I tell you, This making bullshit up about a person you don't know can be fun.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/pnas;97/12/6769
Read that, then I'll deal with the rest of your post. First correct your errors.
Stuart
Anybody can be nuts. If you had a point, I think you forgotten it. I suppose Eco-terrorists and PETA-extremists are also God botherers
You ignore the fact that the extremists of both sorts exhibit exactly the same symptoms that god botherers do: a slavish devotion to dogma. The only dogmas I have are that I do not believe in god and that the scientific method offers the best route to reliable knowledge about the universe, including us.
Would I kill people for those? no. I have been told in the past to check under my car in the mornings for 'suspicious devices' animal rights freaks might have placed there, everyone at my institute was but I lived locally and was easy to track. I also took my kids to school before going to work.
I lost all respect for Greenpeace (and I am a New Zealander) when they ignored the science over the oil platform disposal stushie here in the UK. Their solution has exposed the environment to far more pollutants.
So don't try and tell me that dogma driven idiots have to be members of a long established formal religion. Religious dogma is just a subset of possible dogmas.
"So don't try and tell me that dogma driven idiots have to be members of a long established formal religion. Religious dogma is just a subset of possible dogmas."
That is precisely my point. I have no idea what it is you thought I was trying to say.
Reading some of the posts, I got the idea that some folks here figure that without religion, there would be no extremism.
Were that only so.
Well its been real. Its been nice. But it hasn't been real nice.
And I need to crash. Later.
The point is that your use of PETA and Greenpeace actually undermines your argument, it does not support it. I then explained to you why that was.
I didn't mention it because I thought it was bleeding obvious, but Judaism counts as a dogma too, as does communism, many free market capitalists and others. Which means you do not get a get out of irrationality free card for Judaism. Dogmas bad, evidence good. Geddit?
I'm an American. Daddy fought in WW2. When he was 16.
What makes you think this will give you or your arguments more credibility?
It has been the goal of just about every anti-semite in the last 500 years to cast aspersions on the middle eastern origins of the Jews of the time.
It is more likely that jews were condemned by anti-semites because they were seen as middle-eastern and not local.
And have we forgotten about Baruch Goldstein and his idol Kahane?
Peter Ashby you are so right on (...Dogmas bad, evidence good...)!! So right on.
I believe Stuart Weinstein is right with you (and me, and most of us here from what I know of the regulars) on the substance of your point. But he then (perversely) uses it to defend his -ism in backhanded way; he seems in essence to say Judaism is OK because any -ism (god or no god involved) can foster irrational dangerous behavior. That's the way I see his argument, and believe you do too.
Stuart maybe cannot bring himself to embrace the substance of the point we though he can embrace the mechanism of the point, that any -ism, secular or non-secular, is dangerous, unnecessary, and stifles critical thinking. He cannot embrace the fullness of the statement but neither can he deny it. In essence it's "mechanism OK but Judaism special case." Hey easy trap for anyone - Judaism has lots of good philosophy of life stuff and Jews are often very cool.
Truth Machine jumped my ass one time bad because I defined religion not by belief in god but by belief in and allegiance to dogma in organized system. Communism, etc. fit the definition. Webster doesn't highlight said definition so what right do I have to use it. I stood by the usefulness of the definition then, and I do now. And by the way , I stand by the premise that all religion has in it inherently the catalysts to trigger destructive behaviors and actions in mankind; potential to use and abuse too high when you get the masses believing "you" in religious fashion. Like you said Peter: Judaism does not get a pass on this point.
I think everyone missed my point, but that doesn't matter; I wasn't that clear on it any way. I am a student of science, and I understand that almost all science is true, including evolution. However, part of understanding what is science is understanding what science simply cannot awnser; the realm of the spiritual. Judaism is descended from a band of itinerent herders and nomads, and many of it's laws reflect that. That is understood. But to my mind, a complete refusal to believe in god, simply because their is no proof, isn't scientific, just foolish. Do I believe in abig sky daddy? Not neccisarily. But I think that there is more to life than what we can see. Deneying god as fervently as many of you have is just as dogmatic as radical islam.
http://www.n55.dk/MANUALS/DISCUSSIONS/N55_TEXTS/AB_ideologies.html
Asher you need to read Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. The assertion that the side of us we label 'spiritual' is by definition outside of science is just an unsupported assertion. We know for eg that those subject to temporal lobe epilepsy are prone to heavy religious epiphanies and are heavily present in fundamentalist branches of religions. How is this outside of scientific enquiry?
There are many other examples, from brain scans of meditating Tibetan monks to Robert Persinger's TMS helmet that say the assertion simply ain't true. So you cannot use it to hide behind because we can see you in there, no matter what you believe.
Here is an example of Jewish science appreciation. It's a video of an orthodox Jew at the Discovery Institute bashing evolution:
http://fora.tv/2007/07/26/Is_Darwinism_Kosher
Asher - the reason for the ferver is just a reflex against the vast number of those who are certain God exists and who claim to know exactly what he wants.
You obviously don't understand science. No one can say that almost all science is true. Science is only about making sense of the world in a useful way based on observations to date, it may be absolutely true or not. Newton's theory of gravity is wrong compared to Einstein's but still very useful. And one day Einstein's theory may be proven wrong, but until then it has been useful. Best of all, scientists change their minds in the face of new evidence.
And it is foolish to believe in God with no proof, there are an infinite number of things you could believe in with no proof. But you don't. Are you "infinity-1" foolish?
On the whole Jews 'n Science thing, it might help if people would distinguish two lines of argument.
One is whether or not all religions are on the whole bad because they require irrational belief in something that isn't there. This theme will not be unfamiliar to those who have read Pharyngula for, oh, five minutes. I do not expect this argument to end any time this century, and will leave it to the usual participants. But for the sake of this comment, let's concede arguendo that (however virtuous some of its practitioners may be, and whatever contributions to human knowledge some of them might have made) Judaism is at its heart just as irrational as Christianity and Islam. We can concede this argument because it in no way impinges on the second argument, the one I wouild like to make here.
And that second is that Judaism has, on the whole, been more compatible with science than the other two main Abrahamic religions. (At least as far as I can recall, that's a new topic here.) On this point, I think Stuart is largely right.
Though an atheist must necessarily conclude there is something irrational at the heart of its basic operating premise, the main stream of religious Judaism has always placed great value on reason and learning. The underlying mindset might be religious, but it's easily flipped into the service of the secular sphere (where it is often found in the same people who are also quite religious, from Maimonides down to the present day). Islam used to be that way; today, not so much. Christian (or perhaps post-Christian) culture today is pretty science-friendly, but when it was most religious its denizens were ignorant flea-bitten savages; its ability to produce valuable knowledge apparently varies inversely with how serious its members (as a whole) take their traditional beliefs.
Religious Judaism has been more amenable to science, perhaps, for two reasons. One is the reverence for learning and thinking that it has preserved (and that Islam has lost, and that Christianity, at the time its religious teachings most thoroughly permeated society, never had). The second is the fact that scriptural literalism is largely alien to the Jewish tradition. (Indeed, and though many Jews might not be aware of it, one of the central traditions of Jewish religious life -- a warm meal on the Sabbath -- is in part a way of thumbing the nose at biblical literalists.) Religious Jews simply aren't as invested as fundamentalist Christians in the idea that the Genesis creation story -- or rather, the two contradictory Genesis creation stories -- are journalism.
That said, Jews are humans like the rest of us and hence vulnerable to all sorts of stupidity. I have seen Chabad literature (or rather, literature proffered by Chabad people -- no idea whether it's the official line of the sect) attacking evolution on the worst sort of vulgar biblical-literalist my-granpappy-warn't-no-monkey lines. If I were a hasid I'be horrified to see my fellow-believers infected by Christianity in this way -- and embarrassed that they'd picked this particularly ludicrous bit of fundamentalist Christianity to be infected by. But this really is a fringe phenomenon in Judaism. Very, very, very few fundamentalist Christians would be able to contribute to modern science (the ability of the human mind to compartmentalise is great, but not that great). By contrast, it is not at all surprising to find religious Jews, paot and all, who are molecular biologists or what have you.
I will leave the argument over Israel well alone. First, life's too short. Second and more important, though, this thread is arguing about religion. Whilst it's true one can find religious fanatics in Zionism (somebody mentioned Kahane and Goldberg upthread), as Stuart has correctly pointed out, religious belief of even the weakest sort is neither necessary nor sufficient to Zionism. (In fact, at least pre-WWII a strong religious belief might well have made a Jew less likely to think Zionism a good thing.)
(somebody mentioned Kahane and Goldberg upthread)
Arse. Goldstein, of course. Say what you will about Jonah, he has never massacred Arabs at the Cave of the Patriarchs. Not to my knowledge, anyway.
Mrs. Tilton -
No offense, but you have it quite wrong. Yes, Judiasm has reverence for learning, as long as it is consistent with dogma. The more your learning veers you into the secular world, the less of a learned Jew you become.
Scriptural literalism is key to Judiasm, unless you're referring to Judiasm-lite. That's why there's kosher, the Hebrew calendar says we're in the year 6,000 or so, farmers don't plant crops in the dirt in Israel every 7 years, etc.
Ah, I see the legend in his own mind and rehasher of bullshit and logical fallacy managed all of four posts before he started the name calling. Funny how it NEVER lasts... No matter how many times he jumps on the "high road" bandwagon.
Here are some Jewish scientists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej13paGUQN8
Ah, the No True Jew fallacy. Fascinating.
Mrs Tilton in #89:I will leave the argument over Israel well alone. First, life's too short. Second and more important, though, this thread is arguing about religion. Whilst it's true one can find religious fanatics in Zionism (somebody mentioned Kahane and Goldberg upthread), as Stuart has correctly pointed out, religious belief of even the weakest sort is neither necessary nor sufficient to Zionism.
I was reading recently somewhere that there is a higher proportion of secular Jews in Israel than in the diaspora. I strongly suspect that the reason for that is that only in Israel can you immerse yourself totally in Jewish culture and not have to go to a synagogue (yes alright there is the odd Jewish Cultural centre, but the media are not culturally Jewish). Our secular spaces have benefited Jews as much as minority religionists and non believers, but they are not culturally Jewish.
So paradoxically the rest of the world is left with the more religiously inclined who have no problem with the synagogue. Christians in say Istanbul will have the same problem of course, it is not unique to Judaism. I bet there are more secular cultural anglicans in England than Istanbul by proportion.
Dr Badger #58,
#58 : "Just because you believe in evolution or are good at science doesn't make you any less crazy for believing in superstition."
and then adds to this :
#62 : "Believing in something that doesn't exist may be - considered psychosis. If someone goes on a killing spree because a magic green tiger told them to, everyone would agree that they need medications. If someone goes on a killing spree because God told them to kill gay people, lots of people wouldn't think that person is insane."
So, if I understand your point corectly, as long as one holds superstitious beliefs, however educated the person may be, there is a risk that this person may act in a psychotic manner.
Now, let's see, what is the percentage of the world's population that holds to various types of superstitious beliefs (be it religious, astrological, ghosts, spirits, woo woo, esoteric, etc...) ?
95%, 98% ? Probably something like that ?
And ALL OF THEM may be subject to act in a psychotic manner ?
Now, how do you call somebody who departs from proportion and moderation, is impractical or senseless ? (C***Y)
Look, for at least the last 50,000 years (oldest ritual sites in Botswana are about that old if I remember), mankind has been holding on to superstitious beliefs. And it seems as if over all this time, and until only recently, these have affected 100% of the world's population.
The ability to start using evidence based reasoning is what, 300 year old ?
Now, are these purely socicultural phenomenae or is there also a an underlying socibiological explanation I do not know. Science will find out in the comming years.
When discussing this issue, I would wish that we, who define ourselves as rational, evidence based thinkers, start applying the same method of reasoning when anylising this issue.
And, so far, I don't see much of it around here, where we tend to lump people into two broad categories "believers" and "non believers", "psychotic" and "normal", "right" and "wrong".
It seems to me that its much more likely that, when analysing properly the matter of superstitious beliefs and behavioural impacts we'll see many shades of grey.
I'd like to see, for ounce a reasoned discussion on the matter, and not the type of endless oversimplifications that seem to be so frequent these days.
Unless and otherwise, all of this will remain fruitless.
It started in the '20s Stuart. And the European Jews weren't interested in it then. And certainly not the American Jews. And the mere fact you got someone to bully the Arabs off their land and create your apartheid state doesn't make it right. Nor does it negate the "Israel - by Jews, for Jews" statements of the founders of Israel who were, despite any handles you put on them, a bunch of heavy-fisted authoritarians who were damn sure to make their religious and ethnic bigotry and prejudice the way of Zionism and the State.
Oh, how'd that "Continents Float because the mantle is hot" argument you were in last-year go for you? Or did that butt-kicking by people who are actual geologists, with real PhDs, for a living fade away with all the other one's you've had over the years?
And you say you're not a troll. Stuart, you're an Internet legend. An man who is known for tilting at windmills while fortified with nothing more than his hubris.
Cannot argue with these people. They need to believe there is something magical out there and that's that. God how smart people can turn off their brains.
Yes I am an atheist .. but only because there is no reason to believe in magic any more than you believers would say there is reason to believe in Odin. What is so hard to get about that? Given what underlines that one must accept that there is real world and there is nothing else except what is in one's mind via culture, tradition, force, fear, and/or mental illness. Any scientific atheist here I bet would be a believer in a second if for instance the Pope prayed over a properly certifiably dead and decomposed body and it sprung-up in an instant back to fully good health as well as life.
So show me some tangiable reason to believe - not some reason that boils down to your awe, wonder, lack of knowledge, yearning of structure, adherence to tradition, etc. etc. Show us the beef or accept our that view is the only rationally sane one.
Oh that is not fair you say. Then do this: tell me why you do not believe in Odin or Zeus or the talking rabbit in Alice. Then substitute your myth label in for Odin or whatever. Still sounds logical right? Get the drift? No you do not.. I give up here.
negentropyeater "I'd like to see, for once a reasoned discussion on the matter, and not the type of endless oversimplifications that seem to be so frequent these days."
Coming from what side pray tell? You have good and some not so good posts and some REALLY good posts from the atheists here. So what's the problem!
Over all it does boil down to the simple point - so why beat around the bush. And it is elegant and sufficient in its simplicity; nothing wrong with that. Simply put: regardless of how complex one's religious belief is, or how complex they make their cognitive conflicts, or eloquent their illogical logic to resolve them, or how poetic and inspiring their tales and creeds, it is as a bottom line belief without evidence and probably worse - belief and adherence in the face of contrary evidence. It is child-like wishful and unreal thinking. At times fun to do as an adult but adults cannot carry that fun too far as they address and control the course world. We wouldn't let children rule us would we? Sounds simple - but I calls it likes I sees it.
PS huummm... yes we would I guess in the USA were we seem to have a penchant for rulers that are spoiled children or dogmatic faith thinkers. Another topic.
negentropyeater #96:When discussing this issue, I would wish that we, who define ourselves as rational, evidence based thinkers, start applying the same method of reasoning when anylising this issue.
And, so far, I don't see much of it around here, where we tend to lump people into two broad categories "believers" and "non believers", "psychotic" and "normal", "right" and "wrong".
We are all naturally prone it seems to collapse 'that behaviour is crazy' to 'he is crazy' yes. But your objection ignores the fact that people are remarkably good at compartmentalising things. The thoroughly nice chap at work who beats his wife and children is doing this just as much as the religious scientist is. The psychologists will tell you that this sort of cognitive dissonance sustained over time is not conducive to good mental health. Which is to say there are good, evidence and experience based reasons for the collapse, even for religious scientists.
I do not understand how people can do that, when my faith collided with my science education that faith was eroded away to nothing. I could find no firm ground in between and this leads me to conclude that people who compartmentalise like this are kidding themselves at best and are deluded at worst.
Is that rational and non false dichotomous for you? Those guys are crazy is much easier to write though, don't you agree? In here we can agree that the pithy means the verbose can't we? Must we caveat every statement all the time? that way lies the worst excesses of the PC brigade. Those guys are crazy.
Here's a study showing orthodox judaism is no friend of science.
I think it's interesting that one can be an anti-science scientist. That is, one can study the details of biology, for instance, without acknowledging the existence of evolution.
Sorry, Stuart. Not buying your counter-intuitive, counter-factual claims.
As an Orthodox Jew, I can tell you that the study cited in #101 is appalling in its bias. Many of the supposed facts about Jewish lifestyle noted are not only false, but unrelated to the study and seem to be added only to discredit Judaism and make it seem distasteful or sexist. I am "Torah Jew" and a "Yeshiva Jew," yet I keep my religious beliefs seperate from my scientific studies. Obviously I am a case study and not representative of Orthodox Judaism as a whole, but please don't just claim that "everyone says religious Jews are anti-science, so results from a pizza parlor study obviously prove this." No I will not claim here that Jews as a political or social group are "better" than those of any other religion, or "better" than atheists. I don't see anyone's point here that Jews in general or in the specific are threatening the lives of co-religionist scientists, researchers, or the merely curious, though. If they do, I would personally hope as a Jew that other Jews would stop such behavior (but as an individual of course I can't guarantee others coming forward to do that). I see you are pointing out here that religion in general can cause people to behave irrationally, and I don't deny that at all, however, even when it comes to myself.
Many of the supposed facts about Jewish lifestyle...
What are the facts of your Jewish lifestyle that we can make fun of? That's all that matters.
Good comments Peter Ashby. By the way the other way to parse
But to my mind, a complete refusal to believe in god, simply because their (sic) is no proof, isn't scientific, just foolish.
is to ask:
1. What do you mean exactly when you say "God"
2. What do you mean exactly when you say "believe"
I guess it sort of helps to know what exactly you are talking about. Yes there is a vague (very elastic) concept called God, that some people use to explain things they don't fully understand. But I can't actually see what it represents, is it just another name for ignorance? And if there is no evidence for something and you believe in it, then how do you decide what not to believe in?
Meanwhile back at the topic, I'd like to suggest adding a link to http://www.torproject.org/ to the OP.
@#100
Wow, weren't we talking about Afghanistan?
ConcernedJoe, Peter,
maybe I need to explain myself a little better.
My Dad was once this brilliant mathematician, extremely rationalist, and an Anglican. My Mum was this much more irrational, emotional, pragmatic Atheist. I was raised and educated in France, but for my work lived in Asia, Africa and America. Living in Spain right now.
I find myself somewhere on this fuzzy line between "belief" and "non belief", oscillating between the two for the last 25 years.
I have received a top level scientific education, but never went into research (wanted to make money when I was young).
I hold dearly to Science as the only way to dicover the nature of reality, of methodological naturalism, and evidence based reasoning. That's the way I function, and I would never exchange it for anything else.
But I can't say that I'm not superstitious :
- my rational mind says : you don't believe in Ghosts,
but sometimes (rarely) I feel scared by them
- my rational mind says : Gods are extremely unlikely, and for sure they don't listen to prayers or the like,
but sometimes, I pray
- my rational mind says : there is nothing after death,
but sometimes I find get caught by Pascal's wager
Now, am I crazy ?
I've long accepted the way I am, and turned it into an advantage, because in the world we live in, which is evidently in a transition period, between belief and non belief, we will first and foremost need to find common grounds, areas where we can reduce the epistemological differences between reason and faith. I don't believe that the method Coué works for this (don't know the English expression, he was a French Doctor who believed one needs to confront people harshly with reality in order to cure them).
I've come to the conlusion that the most important practical, obtainable, achievement one can make is to get believers to ask themselves the question : "what if there were no God(s)" ?
And you don't get that by opposing or trying to demonstrate your convictions, your knowledge, your rationality. This technique only works with a tiny, tiny fraction of the population.
Only if you can first find common grounds, make them feel comfortable, will they start opening their minds.
I always hear things "ah but the burden of proof is on them". In absolute it's right, afterall, there's no evidence.
But in practice, it isn't. Because we live in a world where more than 90% of the world's population holds dearly to these superstitious beliefs, and are convinced that they cannot function otherwise. If we had had 50,000 years behind us without superstitions, we wouldn't start inventing some now.
But that world is not our world, and I cannot imagine that another social animal, could have gotten where we are today, without superstitious beliefs. And I admit, that might be, afterall, my biggest superstition.
#103 if that's what your atheism means to you, you're not a shining example of atheism as a rational, productive approach to life.
But I can't say that I'm not superstitious :
- my rational mind says : you don't believe in Ghosts,
but sometimes (rarely) I feel scared by them
- my rational mind says : Gods are extremely unlikely, and for sure they don't listen to prayers or the like,
but sometimes, I pray
- my rational mind says : there is nothing after death,
but sometimes I find get caught by Pascal's wager
Now, am I crazy ?
No, just normal. In the place I did my PhD the electron microscopes were in the basement, part of Anatomy's fiefdom. Also in the basement, part way along the corridor to the EM suite were the doors to the room where they kept the corpses for dissection in big tanks of formaldehyde. Being a lowly grad student I couldn't book time on the 'scopes in daytime. So I used to go down there, by myself, at night, in the dark (dodgy lights). Also the ceiling of the corridor was festooned with pipes and wires and inevitably halfway down one of the pipes would go bang! and I would jump out of my skin. Does that mean ghosts exist? no. It just means I am programmed to jump at shadows because sometimes shadows are predators.
Since you are prey to Pascal's wager it is no wonder that sometimes you pray, nes pas? The problem with Pascals' wager is it doesn't tell you which god to pray to, or how to pray or even if prayer is allowed. So whenever I get such urges I remind myself of this and the urges go away as I have no means of knowing what to do.
I sometimes get angry and feel the need to strike someone, do I give in to that urge? no. I sometimes feel the urge to grope that cute woman over there, do I give in? not so far at least ;-) So why do you give in to Pascal's fallacious wager? After all it only leads to praying. Do something useful instead.
Negentropyeater
What makes you think the number "holding dearly" to these substitutious beliefs is so high. I'm convinced as is Daniel Dennett that this number is far too high. Most "believers" are much more doubtful than that. I mean, I went to a catholic school and I know most of my classmates were AT MOST lukewarm about their "faith". That is where a forthright atheism can help first, it releases the closet atheists from their self-imposed bonds, much as homosexuals were helped when people started coming out.
I know what you are saying, but we also want to be careful about giving authoritarian bigotry a respectability that it doesn't deserve.
Maybe the right approach is a subtler one, to start of by pointing out to people how unreliable human perception is and asking how we might go about getting more reliable information. If they start by trying to say the bible is a reliable source of information, ask them how they know. Point out its inconsistencies usw...
Negentropyeater
You clearly are someone who questions your own mind. But I think our biggest problem is that too many people think emotional truth is the same as truth. (That is they believe they can FEEL what is true and what is not.) I even think that is why more women appear to be religious than men - because women are taught that they have special intuitive powers and so are even more likely to follow what feels right. Does somebody have good demonstrations of how unreliable our perceptions are (some reliable demostration on a u-tube for instance). It would be a good weapon.
Liesele -
How/why do you keep your religious beliefs seperate from your scientific studies?
... you're not a shining example of atheism as a rational, productive approach to life...
That's true. I could be the poster child for the nasty, swearing, intolerant brand of atheism.
When you say, "I keep my religious beliefs seperate from my scientific studies," I naturally wonder whether this is a defensive stance you have adopted to protect your religious beliefs from the withering scrutiny they ought to be subjected to.
#107, you is having a laugh innit.
Get a grip. All religion is quite patently a rancid load of knobcheese invented by (generally bearded) high-function Asperger's/OCD types. If ghosts bother you, lay off the coffee, or get a job involving manual labour.
The only interesting thing about islam is "what's in the box?", you know, the square thing in mecca they do that flashmob thing at, strolling round and round it in herds. Any ideas?
negentropyeater thanks for sharing.
I appreciate that -- you are not crazy - you are human. We all come with baggage, some from how and where we were born and raised and some from the genes (to put it simply). There was benefit to being "scared" of the dark, shadows, strange sounds, etc. and with human imagination we amped that up and even had leaders that selected for the hyper of that. So we all fight those urges and feelings .. not fight them necessarially to avoid becoming deist or theist but because we feel foolish having these irrational feelings. But just having normal feelings is not insanity. Insanity is not realizing something is ammiss in your (not you but anyone's) thinking when you have irrational urges. Just like forgetting what you went into the kitchen for is normal - but, even momentarily, forgeting what the heck a kitchen is or the appliances are for is something that should get you to a doctor pronto.
Religious people, real believers, accept and believe that these primative and behavioral conditioned urges and feelings are signs of the spirit (as in say Holy Ghost) or worse yet as reason for ALL to follow the rules THEY perceive as god's rules. They don't see how their thinking is amiss at all. This be lazy, immature, dictatorial, weak-willed, and/or insane in my book. Could be other things but I cannot think of them.
In any case negentropyeater - thanks for sharing - you seem like a normal sane intelligent person to me for what that is worth (I do not mean to patronize or condescend - take it as one imperfect human's empathy).
PS when one personally addresses and discusses (not on a blog where one assumes an audience) things with another, one is obligated to respectfully listen and try to understand and be civil. However a spade has to be called a spade bottom line. If the person advocates idiocy, prejudice, and lies as the norm then one has every right to vigorously defend justice and reason, even if it gets nasty.
Peter @109,
Pascal's fallacious wager
I recently read -- I'm pretty sure it was in one of PZ's comments threads! -- that Pascal (though deeply religious) never intended his "Wager" to persuade people to believe. Rather, he was using it to illustrate a point of probability theory.
I had never known that, but it makes sense. Pascal's Wager is a stupid argument for belief in God, but Pascal was very far from stupid.
dustbubble @115,
The only interesting thing about islam is "what's in the box?"
You don't know? Winston Rumfoord and his dog materialise there once every seven years.
No, seriously; the real answer seems to be, not much.
#102, you're compartmentalizing everything that you learn in your Orthodox studies. You cannot continue to compartmentalize both issues, because ultimately, they will collide. It's the same with Evangelicals who claim that they do real science while remaining faithful to their version of "god". Either way, you're either based on rational ideas, or you're swayed by the indoctrination of your youth. There are many ways to remain culturally jewish for your part I suppose, but you can't maintain the religious bullshit you're following. Doesn't make any sense at all.
Just the same, I can identify myself as culturally christian and Armenian, but I'm not going to hold on to nationalistic or religious concepts because it feeds my inner need for comfort as apparently yours does. Stewart Weinstein who has posted here supposes that my disagreement with him is anti-semitic, which is convenient because apparently, we're not supposed to think critically, criticize other religions or political systems.
Mrs. Tilton: Your link about Mecca just leads to the January archive of Pharyngula.
Thanks, Rey. How strange.
Try this, then.
Helioprogenus @118,
You cannot continue to compartmentalize both issues, because ultimately, they will collide. It's the same with Evangelicals who claim that they do real science while remaining faithful to their version of "god". Either way, you're either based on rational ideas, or you're swayed by the indoctrination of your youth.
I don't think that's correct. It's probably fair to say that cultivating the habits of thought that science requires tends to weaken or eliminate religious belief. But it's simply not true that one necessarily hits a point at which one must jettison either religion or the ability to do good science. Theo Dobzhansky, David Lack, RA Fisher: these were not slackers. And while Francis Collins is regularly and mercilessly pilloried round here for his religious views, I have never read anybody criticise the quality of his scientific work.
Now, that could be viewed as an argument that there's no inherent conflict between science and religion, or it could be viewed as nothing more than a demonstration that people are really gifted at compartmentalising. But I don't think you can claim that one must abandon religion in order to be a really good scientist.
But I don't think you can claim that one must abandon religion in order to be a really good scientist.
However the statistics, if you take the metric to be some measure of being a good scientist, are that the members of the Royal Society or the National Academy are very much less likely to be believers than the bulk of scientists. So it would seem that belief is almost certainly not a help in order to be a really good scientist.
Peter @122,
but I don't suggest belief would be a "help". And I am aware that lots of scientists aren't religious.
I note merely that anybody claiming, as Helioprogenus seems to be doing (H.: pardon me if I am misreading you), that religious belief necesarily prevents one from being a really good scientist needs to explain how Dobzhansky wasn't a really good scientist.
it's simply not true that one necessarily hits a point at which one must jettison either religion or the ability to do good science.
Of course you do. The scientific method depends on building a world-view based on weight of evidence, predictive power of experiment, and cross-checking results between peers. More importantly, science absolutely requires that your world-view not contradict itself. Religion builds a world-view based on imaginings, offers no evidence, has no theoretical basis that allows it to have predictive power, offers no testable propositions, and glorifies self-contradiction.
Saying religion and science can coexist in one mind is like saying "You can be really smart but also fucking stupid at the same time." It is a contradiction in terms. You're either fucking stupid (religious) or potentially smart (scientific) - pick one.
Marcus @124,
thanks for clearing that up for me. I'll just throw out my copy of The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, then, because Fisher was fucking stupid.
And whether God gave that parcel of land to the Jews or not doesn't really matter to me or the vast majority of Jews.
Oh, so you'd have been equally happy with a chunk of real estate in, say, Africa someplace?
thanks for clearing that up for me. I'll just throw out my copy of The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, then, because Fisher was fucking stupid.
You're a moron for attempting such a ridiculous appeal to authority.
Fisher appears to have managed to accomplish some good work in spite of an obvious handicap. How about that? Think what he might have accomplished if he hadn't had to waste brain-cycles dancing around this ridiculous mass of bullshit that he was trying to juggle along with reality.
Saying religion and science can coexist in one mind is like saying "You can be really smart but also fucking stupid at the same time." It is a contradiction in terms. You're either fucking stupid (religious) or potentially smart (scientific) - pick one.
Having known plenty of stupid atheists -- heck, I may be one myself -- I know this sadly ain't the truth.
Is it true that the Scientia Natura blog is closed because of Muslims and that Shalini is in some sort of serious trouble because of that?
Inkadu: did you see the word "potentially" sitting there in the critical spot in my sentence?
Marcus,
if you're going to toss around terms like "appeal to authority", you'll want to acquaint yourself with their meaning first. I am not, for example, saying that male-to-female sex ratios are what they are because Ronald Fisher said so and he was an Authority.
I am saying that Fisher did (or "appears to have managed to accomplish") work that was absolutely seminal to modern evolutionary theory, and noting that he also happened to be religious.
Think what he might have accomplished if he hadn't had to waste brain-cycles dancing around this ridiculous mass of bullshit that he was trying to juggle along with reality
Yes, just imagine. If Fisher had been an atheist, perhaps he'd have written the Genetical Theory *and* cured cancer, squared the circle, travelled to Mars and decoded the Beale ciphers -- all at the same time! Or, just possibly, his scientific and mathematical work would have been pretty much what they were.
Look, there is no possible way to remain religious with the MOUNTAIN of evidence against it. Perhaps in simpler times, people were able to maintain their religious beliefs and perform decent science (such as Newton), but with our understanding of Evolution, Cosmology, Planetary formation, etc, how can one continue to maintain and compartmentalize their indoctrinated illogical beliefs against reason and logic. It makes you question the science that they're able to perform, or the logic that they use to function through life. Most of it ultimately comes down to comfort, and their need for comfort in some supernatural BS. It's a weakness of the mind, and although difficult to overcome, it's possible nonetheless with reason, logic, science, and of course proof. Belief is as variable as grains of sand in the world, but evidence and proof are irrefutable.
Boy,I started quite the firestorm, didn't I?
if you're going to toss around terms like "appeal to authority", you'll want to acquaint yourself with their meaning first. I am not, for example, saying that male-to-female sex ratios are what they are because Ronald Fisher said so and he was an Authority.
Yeah, but we were all supposed to be super impressed that a really famous scientific authority was also religious. That was supposed to somehow convince us extra special well, right? I notice that you didn't offer the example of some mathematics undergrad, right? You were trying to prove by example (which is dumb) and trying to impress with authority - you can quibble the details if you like; that won't change the fact that you haven't got a point other than "Look! Some people have managed to compartmentalize the bullshit level in their brain enough to do some good work in spite of it!"
One possibility is that you've got a believer who managed to do some good science because the particular bits of religious bullshit he accepted as true didn't interfere with the particular science he was doing. You might be able to be a good dentist while believing that Great Sky Fairy created the universe, but you're eroding your dentistry skills if you believed that Great Sky Fairy designed teeth, and you'd be seriously eroding your dentistry skills if you told your patient to pray as an alternative to flossing.
Religion's interference with the sufferer's ability to think rationally is not always 100% - it's more of a continuum. At the far end, you've got religiotards who are utterly addled into incapacity, and at the other you have people who are probably capable of doing useful thinking in spite of their handicap.
I think you're actually arguing my point without understanding that's what you're doing. You wanna make a bet that Fisher's religious beliefs didn't extend into the area where he did his science? I'm sure you can still work on genetics if you believe theistic woo-woo about the universe being created by a nebulous woo-event, but it gets a bit harder if you're a young earth creationist, huh?
Bottom line is: science demands evidence, non-contradiction, and predictive power. Religion is the opposite in every regard. The only way a brain can hold two such contradictory ideas is to be accepting of internal contradiction; i.e.: religious. The scientific mind must resolve contradictions, or it's taking things on faith and it's no longer in the realm of science.
Now you're gonna rattle off a bunch more famous scientists who managed to do cool stuff in spite of being handicapped to a greater or lesser degree by religion. Let me forestall you by predicting that the greater the scientist, the lesser the handicap.
Moses (of all people) writes:
" The movement to reconstitute the state of Israel, wasn't due to religious fervor, but rather the need to get the fuck out of Europe.
And whether God gave that parcel of land to the Jews or not doesn't really matter to me or the vast majority of Jews. Simple fact is we have a three thousand year history there, and we are not willing to accept dhimmi status in an Arab state.
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | January 24, 2008 2:15 AM
It started in the '20s Stuart. "
It started before that.
"And the European Jews weren't interested in it then. And certainly not the American Jews."
Indeed, once a few Europeans set up shop and started farming, other Jews from the mideast started to move to Palestine in an effort tp avoid dhimmi status. The British of course tried their best to limit Jewish immigration while not imposing any such limits on Arab immigration."
"And the mere fact you got someone to bully the Arabs off their land"
Please kindly state when and where this bullying occurred.
"and create your apartheid state doesn't make it right."
Interesting. Israel is the only nation to import black africans to freedom. Arab-israeli citizens have full voting rights, and have access to the same social services. However, as in every other country on the planet, minorities don't fair as well as the majority. Unfortunately Israel is no different in that respect.
Carter himself has made it clear that its not the state of Israel he regards as Apartheid, but their policies with respect to the occupied territories.
"Nor does it negate the "Israel - by Jews, for Jews" statements of the founders of Israel who were, despite any handles you put on them, a bunch of heavy-fisted authoritarians who were damn sure to make their religious and ethnic bigotry and prejudice the way of Zionism and the State."
Nothing but assertions from you. Of course zionims was equated with racism by the UN when, oh yeah, the Nazi war criminal Waldheim was in charge. Zionism is simply a yearn to return to Israel. The only person bigoted here is you, who apparently is unable to let the facts get in the way of his ideological blinders.
Consult professional historian Sir Martin Gilberts book "Israel". You might actually learn something. The again I doubt it.
"Oh, how'd that "Continents Float because the mantle is hot" argument you were in last-year go for you?"
? I think you must have me confused with someone else. I never said continents float on the mantle cuz the mantle is hot. Continents stay on the surface because the are intrinsically less dense ( silica rich) than mantle (peridotite).
"Or did that butt-kicking by people who are actual geologists, with real PhDs, for a living fade away with all the other one's you've had over the years?"
One can only wonder you're fantasizing about.
Curb your bigotries and wipe the spittle of your face. Its embarrassing.
"It has been the goal of just about every anti-semite in the last 500 years to cast aspersions on the middle eastern origins of the Jews of the time."
It is more likely that jews were condemned by anti-semites because they were seen as middle-eastern and not local."
They were condemned because they had a different religion and were blamed for killing Jesus.
"And have we forgotten about Baruch Goldstein and his idol Kahane?"
Nope. Goldstein was a monster and Kahane's party was outlawed.
And your point was?
Marcus: "And whether God gave that parcel of land to the Jews or not doesn't really matter to me or the vast majority of Jews.
Oh, so you'd have been equally happy with a chunk of real estate in, say, Africa someplace?"
Marcus, as I stated I am interested in Israel cuz that is where my ancestors come from. Not cuz God did or did not give it to me.
Should I repeat it one more time?
The idea of a homeland in Africa is not new. But I suppose you already know that.
Marcus writes:
"Bottom line is: science demands evidence, non-contradiction, and predictive power. Religion is the opposite in every regard. The only way a brain can hold two such contradictory ideas is to be accepting of internal contradiction; i.e.: religious. The scientific mind must resolve contradictions, or it's taking things on faith and it's no longer in the realm of science."
Well if your gonna base your understanding of natural phenomena on your religious beliefs, I agree with you. If not, then I don't see a conflict with science.
Oh, and yes Marcus, you do have a complete grasp of the obvious. Indeed religion is not science.
"Now you're gonna rattle off a bunch more famous scientists who managed to do cool stuff in spite of being handicapped to a greater or lesser degree by religion. Let me forestall you by predicting that the greater the scientist, the lesser the handicap."
Hey Marcus, can we see references to peer-reviewed science you have authored, because I'd really like to evaluate the science imparted by a mind unencumbered as it were, like yours.
Peter:
"
I lost all respect for Greenpeace (and I am a New Zealander) when they ignored the science over the oil platform disposal stushie here in the UK. Their solution has exposed the environment to far more pollutants.
So don't try and tell me that dogma driven idiots have to be members of a long established formal religion. Religious dogma is just a subset of possible dogmas."
Peter my point is, is that the "enemy" is extremism.
In any of its forms, religious, nationalist, etc.
I don't know how I can be more clear.
Marcus, as I stated I am interested in Israel cuz that is where my ancestors come from. Not cuz God did or did not give it to me
I think you're full of shit.
The idea of a homeland in Africa is not new. But I suppose you already know that.
No, actually, I didn't. But I bet it didn't work out for at least the reason that a lot of jews believe that the great sky fairy deeded them a parcel of real estate in the middle east, right?
Arguing about jew-woo is so freakin' tedious, because jew-woos have this great 3-way dodge that they use.
First, they say "Zionists are a special case; they don't count!" That's just the tired old "no true Scotsman" argument. And it's tiresome bullshit because there are a very large number of zionists who are into jew-woo. I believe it exactly as much as I believe a christian-woo when they say "no true christian would be intolerant or violent." Spare me; it doesn't fly.
And then there's the "jewishness is a culture not a religion!" dodge. Yeah, sure, it is. It's a culture that is so entertwined with religion that they're inseperable - except for when it's convenient for the jew-woos. Suuuuuuure, dietary restrictions, corned beef, whatever - are all "cultural values" but eating funny because the great sky fairy wants you to eat funny is woo, whether you've been doing it for 3 years or 3,000.
It's all complete bullshit.
Your statement that "it's where my ancestors came from" is part of the "cultural" woo argument. You care about that because it's been part of "jewish culture" since the beginning because for freakin' ever jewish-woo religion said the great sky fairy gave the jews title to that piece of land.
I don't know how the jew-woos get away with it; it'd be like the catholics managing to convince everyone that they just drink the wine and chew the wafer because they don't really believe it; they just do it to humor the memory of Torquemada. "It's just part of our culture" that we cross ourselves; really, we don't mean it. And all that stuff about Rome being the center of everything, and the goofy guy in the white cruiser-duds; yeah, we just do that to celebrate our italian heritage.
Look, I always cut jew-woo huge slack (because if you don't someone is sure to trigger Godwin's law by calling you an anti-semite) but this "jewish culture" nonsense is just religious nonsense that's been around for a long long time. It's still just stupid religion and I'm sick of dancing around that because I'm afraid someone is going to play the anti-semitism card.
Hey Marcus, can we see references to peer-reviewed science you have authored, because I'd really like to evaluate the science imparted by a mind unencumbered as it were, like yours.
Why should I even respond to your stupid ad-hominem?
Google me if you want. I'm not a scientist, but unlike you I'm intellectually honest.
The point Stuart is that it is very hard to be an extremist without a dogma. Oh and pick on me instead of Marcus, I have my name on a paper in Nature. Good enough for you?
Well if your gonna base your understanding of natural phenomena on your religious beliefs, I agree with you. If not, then I don't see a conflict with science.
By "natural phenomena" you can only be referring to things that are observable and that happen in the natural world. The opposite of "natural phenomena" would, therefore have to be "supernatural." Right? So it sounds like we're agreed that, if you're a scientist, you'd base your understanding of - well - everything that is known to exist, upon natural law and science.
And you're saying, then, that this supposed "scientist" would use religion to think about the supernatural?
But how can that be? Because if it's supernatural, by definition it is immesurable, unseen, unknowable, untestable - at best, purely hypothetical and, more likely "imaginary."
You cannot think "rationally" about something you acknowledge as having no evidence that it exists, at all. That's why real scientists don't write peer-reviewed papers about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but theologians (who try to deal "rationally" with the "supernatural") do. More to the point, you cannot even reason about the supposed properties of the supernatural, since, well, there are none. Or there absolutely no evidence for any. You can make stuff up all day - which is what the faithful have obviously spent thousands of years doing, but if there was even a shred of evidence then it would have to be of the natural world and would be subject to scientific reasoning.
How can someone call themselves a "scientist" if they simply assume properties of some vast supernatural whatever based on by definition absolutely no evidence?
Well if your gonna base your understanding of natural phenomena on your religious beliefs, I agree with you. If not, then I don't see a conflict with science.
Ah, I thought of a better way to explain it to you:
As long as religion makes NO claims about anything that purports to be in or affect the natural world, or to be in any way measurable, observable - then there's no basis for conflict.
Of course, it's really hard to make an interesting claim about anything without crossing that line. But that's not my fault or my problem.
As soon as religion makes a claim that in any way, shape, or form touches the natural world, the scientific mind cannot accept it without evidence because otherwise it would have to accept it on faith and it's no longer reasoning scientifically.
That's why it's ridiculous to say there's no conflict. Suppose you think you're a scientist but you believe that the universe has a purpose. And I ask you, "what is your evidence that there is a purpose?" If you can't present any, you've just admitted that you assumed something as significant as that the universe has a purpose, without the least shred of evidence. That's religion, and if that's how you think, you're not a scientist.
When dealing with a rational mind, exploding religion completely ought to take about 10 seconds. Of course it's not that easy, because irrational beliefs are deeply held and are very important to their holders. They are cherished illusions and of course it takes longer to let them go than it did to get over believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. But trying to find some kind of compatible position in which you can sensibly believe in an objective reality that exists alongside and in contact with a hypothetical supernatural - that's called "insanity" or, more colloquially "fucktarded."
Marcus writes:
"Marcus, as I stated I am interested in Israel cuz that is where my ancestors come from. Not cuz God did or did not give it to me
I think you're full of shit."
And you're lecturing me on science, woo-woo and intellectual honesty? My but you are presumptuous.
Apparently, someone has an over commitment to a particular point
of view.
I don't care what you think, Marcus. Cuz what you think is quite
inferior to what I know.
Oh, and I am waiting for your list of scientific accomplishments. And I have googled you.
Forgive me, but I'm not impressed. Computer geeks are a dime a dozen.
If you don't have any scientific accomplishments, just say so. But don't try to cover it up by venting your spleen and telling me I'm full of shit.
And by the way, look up ad-hominem. I don't think you know what it means. Its only proper to ask somebody who claims the mantle of scientific thinking what science they have done. It goes to credibility.
Bluster all you want, you're a mere poseur.
Bluster all you want, you're a mere poseur.
Wait, you wasted a whole posting of perfectly good blustering and name-calling, in which you made not even the slightest attempt to refute anything I've said - and ended by implying I'm a blustering poseur?
The irony... it burns.
as angry as i am with the future of this poor fellow for downloading islam-insulting material, i am angrier that we always get a jewish guy stepping in with self righteous indignation and commenting, believing nobody ever dare attack the sacred empire of being a jew. your religion isn't "better", no matter how many times you mention science. If it was so fantastic about science, it wouldn't be a religion at all. No religion plays well with science. If it did, it would have abolished it all in the first place. if a christian guy commented with that same self righteousness, he'd never get away with it.
call me bigoted, insensitive, whatever you wish, but i refuse to suddenly gain sensitivity or lose some of my cynicism because someone presents me with judaism.
Listen Stewart Weinstein, no matter how many times you state something, it still doesn't make it a fact. You are completely caught up in some nationalist bullshit and can't see passed it. You are no different then the religious nutjobs who continues to claim that they are always right. Truth is not a democracy as has been stated, but you feel that if you force and censor everyone to change their opinions, you will succeed in changing the facts. Don't blame us for being skeptical of your bullshit, because just as we've been fighting indoctrination against religion, we've also been fighting nationalistic sentiment, especially regarding Judaism and Israel. You are not above reproach, and we're not anti-semitic for stating the obvious. You can attempt to link sources to your argument, just as I can find thousands to support my contention that most modern day Israeli's are not descendants of the Canaanite people in the region. You know that all your defense against our arguments are based on the same tired old bullshit. If you can't further argue with us, you'll choose to discredit by using that anti-semitic term, which thanks to people like you has lost all its meaning. The term itself is bullshit because the whole arab world is semitic, and in fact, more rightfully so then you yourself are. If you're going to insult us with petty name-calling, then you can say anti-jewish instead. Which still shouldn't make a difference, because I'm not disagreeing with you based on your background or ethnicity, but on your stupid outdated beliefs, concepts, and knowingly disingenuous statements. It's one thing to treat all people equally, and another to treat their ideas in the same manner. You are wrong, regardless of how loudly you proclaim against it, bash your head against a wall, insult those whose views are based on rational and empirical evidence.
Damn but this site is hard on irony meters (and shouldn't be read in crowded places - laughing *that* hard will get you looked at funny).
Of course, the people who lived in Palestine in 1940 *also* had ancestors that came from there. Recent ones that they can identify, even. But that doesn't count, because... (if you can fill in this blank with something *other* than "God said so", I'll be surprised.)
"Listen Stewart Weinstein, no matter how many times you state something, it still doesn't make it a fact. You are completely caught up in some nationalist bullshit and can't see passed it."
Like what? Exactly what was the nationalist bullshit?
If you are this inarticulate, perhaps you need another hobby.
Meanwhile, I'll go back to my job and do some science, and you can continue to mental masturbate in public and rail against something
you're quite sure I said, but somehow can't articulate what the problem is.
One fool (you I think) claimed there is no basis for claiming my origins are from the middle east. The PNAS article I cited refutes that.
Show your sources that say otherwise and make sure they didn't originate on some white-supremacist website.
Refute the Hammer et al. study or shut up.
I think the problem you and Marcus have, is that you can't stand the fact that somebody might be religious and yet do good science, while at best all you can do is post on science blogs and think that somehow makes you a scientist.
You're a nobody without a clue. Completely invisible.
"Bluster all you want, you're a mere poseur.
Wait, you wasted a whole posting of perfectly good blustering and name-calling, in which you made not even the slightest attempt to refute anything I've said - and ended by implying I'm a blustering poseur?"
Yeah Marcus.
Its one thing to tell somebody what they *should* think, but you tried to tell me what *I actually think*.
Your arrogance knows no bounds.
"The irony... it burns."
Where are those peer-reviewed science papers you published?
Irony indeed.
Chris writes "Damn but this site is hard on irony meters (and shouldn't be read in crowded places - laughing *that* hard will get you looked at funny).
Of course, the people who lived in Palestine in 1940 *also* had ancestors that came from there. Recent ones that they can identify, even. But that doesn't count, because... (if you can fill in this blank with something *other* than "God said so", I'll be surprised.)"
Hmmm.
Can you point out anywhere where I disputed the people who lived in Palestine (lots of Arabs, as well as Jews) come from that area?
Whats funny is that you felt the need to refute something I didn't claim.
Either point out where I made that claim or retract your remarks.
Next time, try reading my posts before you respond to them.
Sheesh. Its remarkable how quickly this place became infested with what Steven Weinberg calls gutter liberals.
"Here we go with Stuart Weinstein "educating" us into his Israeli nationalism."
Didn't see him spouting any Israeli nationalism, and it does seem like a few people here do need some educating on the subject.
Here are some ignorant and misleading statements:
"Blockading and constantly bombing the hell out of palestinian villages to me seems a bit excessive when you're trying to attempt to maintain some semblance of peace in the region."
"And the mere fact you got someone to bully the Arabs off their land and create your apartheid state doesn't make it right. Nor does it negate the "Israel - by Jews, for Jews" statements of the founders of Israel who were, despite any handles you put on them, a bunch of heavy-fisted authoritarians who were damn sure to make their religious and ethnic bigotry and prejudice the way of Zionism and the State."
Gross ignorance. Why don't you actually read some history of how the Jews bought land from Arabs in the region, and how some of the Muslim bigots reacted to that. Read about how Israel set up a fund to compensate those Arabs who could not be allowed to return to Israel for their demonstrated antisemitism and danger to the other members of the community.
Nothing like that happened in reverse for all the Jews who were expelled from Arab countries. Countries that have been true apartheid states, as are pretty much ever Muslim country, since their inception.
Why does one tiny sliver of land get some people so riled up in hating the jews, or Jew-woos as one poster likes to refer to the religion.
Give it a break really. On almost every metric the Israelis are being more reasonable than the Muslims. Hell, even when they "terrorized" the British they bombed military targets, and phoned in warnings, and at least there was some controversy on the Jewish side over whether even that was the right thing to do.
I find it humorous when Americans and Europeans chastise Jews for bullying Arabs off their lands forgetting the histories of their own countries. If Mexicans started making suicide runs into the US instead of coming here to work and take advantage of our infrastructure I don't think there would be much question about us keeping them out, and doing so wounldn't make us an apartheid state either.
There are Arabs in Israel and they live a lot more freely there than any of Arab Christian, Muslims and Jews living in neighboring states. They can vote, hold office, etc. I'd tell you more info to blow holes in your theories but I want you to make some more ignorant claims first so you can fully expose your ignorance. This is where some ignoramus usually jumps in and calls Israel a theocracy.
Of course, the people who lived in Palestine in 1940 *also* had ancestors that came from there.
In fact, everyone has some ancestors from the Middle East.
Listen Stewart Weinstein, you're a complete asshole. Do you realize the Irony of your statements? You seem to rail on me for not having my facts, but there you go supposing you're doing real science, while I'm spending all my free time posting. Apparently, molecular biology is not real science, either that, or you're ready to jump the gun and proclaim yourself a scientist without knowing what I do or publish? Listen, you may have compartmentalized your stupid and illogical belief system (performing some decent science at the same time I bet), but that doesn't prevent me from calling you on it. You can't maintain a systematic logical belief system, whilst concurrently retaining an imaginary belief system based on generations of idiots. I respect the fact that you feel connected to your culture, but don't at all respect your religious position. In your mind, I suppose you assume Israel and the Jews can do no wrong, and the world owes you a favor for what happened in the past. Let me tell you, you're not the only peoples who have nearly suffered cultural annihilation, but there are healthy ways of dealing with it and tantrum filled methods. I'll let you figure out where you fit in that equation.
As for the middle eastern origins of European Jews, I'm not denying the fact that there's a certain link to the Levant, but don't forget that it's not like the Palestinians originated from the heavens to occupy lands they now inhabit. As for physical differences, even with mitochondrial DNA, Y Chromosome analysis, and similar genetic links to the middle east, you can't claim a 100% origin there. I for example, am not Mongolian, but have certain markers in my Y-chromosome that links me to the Mongolian Plateau. It's not just me but at least a third of Eurasians can claim such mongolian markers. Does that mean we should travel to Inner Mongolia in China, and claim that it belongs to us descendants of Genghis Khan? If you're looking for certain markers, look no further then Spain, where genetic markers can show a likely origin in Morocco. There are certain genetic markers among the Berbers that the Spanish share, but does that mean Morocco is Spanish territory? Similarly, I, as an Armenian, have markers linking me all over the place, the Caucuses, Mongolia, Anatolia, France, and yes, even the Eastern Mediterranean coast. That does not mean I have any genetic "right" towards any of those lands.
As Windy stated, it's all a moot point anyway because everyone at some point has ancestors in the Middle East, and prior to that, in Africa. If we follow your stupid rationality, that means any human being can claim that the African Rift Valley area belongs to them. Where do you draw the line in the sand? Where's the cut-off for land rights? The truth is, it's all an ambiguous mess, but my real argument with you is not your ethnicity, but your superstitious religious belief. All religion is the same bullshit nonesense and the sooner you realize that, the better scientist you'll eventually be. I'm tired of dealing with people like you who, even if you're doing some real science, part of your brain is fighting against reason. You don't realize how liberating it is to just cast that bullshit out, and free your mind.
I find it humorous when Americans and Europeans chastise Jews for bullying Arabs off their lands forgetting the histories of their own countries.
Just because I've done something wrong does not make it right for others to do the same. I would love to see some sort of redress for the wrongs in my country's past, but I doubt that's going to happen.
"Listen Stewart Weinstein, you're a complete asshole."
Hmm. No. Your quiet the expert on that subject.
" Do you realize the Irony of your statements? You seem to rail on me for not having my facts, but there you go supposing you're doing real science, while I'm spending all my free time posting. Apparently, molecular biology is not real science, either that, or you're ready to jump the gun and proclaim yourself a scientist without knowing what I do or publish? "
Fine, what is your name?
"Listen, you may have compartmentalized your stupid and illogical belief system (performing some decent science at the same time I bet), but that doesn't prevent me from calling you on it."
Funny. I haven't compartmentalized anything. The findings of science have nothing to with my religious beliefs.
Nothing.
"You can't maintain a systematic logical belief system, whilst concurrently retaining an imaginary belief system based on generations of idiots. I respect the fact that you feel connected to your culture, but don't at all respect your religious position."
Gee, thanks. Why, I'm so glad I have your permission kind Sir.
"In your mind, I suppose you assume Israel and the Jews can do no wrong, and the world owes you a favor for what happened in the past."
Again, I can only assume you confused me with someone else. The world owes us no favors. We owe the world no favors either.
"Let me tell you, you're not the only peoples who have nearly suffered cultural annihilation, but there are healthy ways of dealing with it and tantrum filled methods."
Uh.. hows your health? I mean all that pent up piss and vinegar can't be good for you.
" I'll let you figure out where you fit in that equation.
As for the middle eastern origins of European Jews, I'm not denying the fact that there's a certain link to the Levant, but don't forget that it's not like the Palestinians originated from the heavens to occupy lands they now inhabit."
Same for the Jews.
"As for physical differences, even with mitochondrial DNA, Y Chromosome analysis, and similar genetic links to the middle east, you can't claim a 100% origin there. I for example, am not Mongolian, but have certain markers in my Y-chromosome that links me to the Mongolian Plateau. It's not just me but at least a third of Eurasians can claim such mongolian markers. Does that mean we should travel to Inner Mongolia in China, and claim that it belongs to us descendants of Genghis Khan? If you're looking for certain markers, look no further then Spain, where genetic markers can show a likely origin in Morocco. There are certain genetic markers among the Berbers that the Spanish share, but does that mean Morocco is Spanish territory? Similarly, I, as an Armenian, have markers linking me all over the place, the Caucuses, Mongolia, Anatolia, France, and yes, even the Eastern Mediterranean coast. That does not mean I have any genetic "right" towards any of those lands."
Hey asshole (now that is fun!) I wasn't claiming I had "genetic" rights to those lands. Some "asshole", maybe you, said there was nothing to indicate that I had anything to do with said lands. Either you didn't read the Hammer article, or your simply trying to bs me and hope I'll go away.
The paper shows that European Jews and middle easterners on the basis of Y-chromosomes form a tight group, isolated from others. There's not much other interpretation, other than that we are essentially a similar or very closely related group of populations as Jews more or less maintained their identity by rarely inter-marrying.
That you may have markers of other groups in your Y makeup, doesn't suggest you're part of that population, much less even a close relative, only that members of those other groups are among your ancestors. One wonders why a self proclaimed biochemist has such trouble with an elementary paper dealing with genetics.
Feel free to write a challenge to the Hammer et al. article.
The only explanation I have for why you continue to refute things I haven't said is and why you feel the need to impugn the ancestry of modern day Jews, is that you're either your just a garden variety bigot, or a garden variety jerk. Either works for me.
Plain and simple.
The arguments you have raised and part and parcel of the anti-semite's arsenal. Now I see why you post under a pseudonym.
I think the problem you and Marcus have, is that you can't stand the fact that somebody might be religious and yet do good science, while at best all you can do is post on science blogs and think that somehow makes you a scientist.
It's nothing like that at all. I just saw some arrogant fuckwit talking out his ass and decided to put my foot in it.
But you'll notice I've explained (from about 3 different angles) why it's impossible to rationalize science and religion -- and you keep ignoring that. Perhaps - just maybe - because you can't defend the ridiculous position you adopted? So, instead, you're going to try to disparage my credentials, or whatever. Gosh, gee wiz you're smart. I've never ever seen someone try that as a debating tactic before.
You're a nobody without a clue. Completely invisible.
Maybe you should put your fingers in your ears and go "neeeeeeeeeneeeeeeeneeeeeeeee" and screw your eyes shut, too, and then we're completely gone and you can be comfortable in your delusional world.'
Where are those peer-reviewed science papers you published?
I haven't. I already said that. Being in peer-reviewed science papers would mean something if I was trying to pass myself off as having expert credentials, I suppose -- but I'm just questioning your basic logic. That's all simple introductory logic/philosophy stuff; I don't need to pony up any credentials to play that game.
I notice that you're so busy waving my lack of credentials around that you completely failed to address the logical problem I presented you. Namely, how can you do science based on requring experience and evidence of the real world, while accepting on faith that other conditions prevail in a supernatural world -- for which there is and can be no evidence? (Because, if there was, it wouldn't be supernatural, and it could be explored scientifically).
Instead of addressing my argument, you're posing and posturing about what scientist you are... If the way you respond to challenges on your many peer-reviewed publications is to try to blow the comments off because you don't respect their credentials, you must be one heck of a successful scientist!!!
Oh, and you say you're concerned about the middle east because your ancestors came from there. Uh, how long ago has your family been out of the middle east?? My "people" came over to the US from Norway 150 years ago and I'm not still hanging onto some fucktarded notion that I've got title to land in the fjords. Why can't you just admit that it's the "holy land" and it's part of your people's mythical history (a bunch of lies, half-truths, and truths that comprise "culture" inextricably intertwined with religious lies and half-truths) Remember - our ancestral lands are all in Africa, if you go back a few planetary eyeblinks. Why, in particular, would someone decide which ancestral lands were special? Does the great sky fairy have something to do with it? Just maybe?
If you want to puff up your chest and make blatting noises about being a scientist, why don't you show a little intellectual honesty. That's the single most important thing that goes into making a good scientist and you look pretty short-supplied in that regard, even to this mere computer programmer.
Why does one tiny sliver of land get some people so riled up in hating the jews, or Jew-woos as one poster likes to refer to the religion.
I'm the one who refers to judaism as "jew-woo" - partially to distinguish the religious fuckwittery of judaism from the cultural aspects. Because it's really hard to come to grips with judaism without your opponent smoothly shifting back and forth between judaism-as-religion and judaism-as-culture. Arguing about jew-woo is very fraught, because it almost always triggers charges of antisemitism. Like your implicit "hating the jews" above.
I don't hate the jews; jew-woo is a religion and other than a manifestation of silly behavior it has absolutely no meaning to me at all. How can you hate someone's delusion? It's just a dumb idea that's stuck in their head. I'm contemptuous of jew-woo, just like I am of every other religion, pretty much equally. I think jew-woo is just as dumb as buddah-woo or jebus-woo or, in fact, flying spaghetti monsterism (though at least they know they're talking nonsense).
So - as far as that "sliver of land" - I don't give a rat's ass about it. But there are lots of woo-addled religious nutbags who do. And, because they do, I hold them in contempt. There are lots of ignorant savages who claim their "ancestral lands" - and, whether they have the guts to admit it or not, that claim rests on an imaginary promise from the great sky fairy. A claim that has no more or less value than "manifest destiny" "the british empire" "pax romana" or any other of the various excuses that people have made up to justify claiming real estate.
Making claims about "ancestral lands" is a non-starter. Wars and conquest have stirred the real estate pot so thoroughly that it's simply ridiculous to claim "ancestral lands" because at some point or other everything has belonged to someone else. You don't see the Italians descended from the Romans saying they have a claim to Jerusalem, do you? Because they're not holding onto a 2000 year-old legend that the great sky fairy gave it to them.
"I think the problem you and Marcus have, is that you can't stand the fact that somebody might be religious and yet do good science, while at best all you can do is post on science blogs and think that somehow makes you a scientist.
It's nothing like that at all. I just saw some arrogant fuckwit talking out his ass and decided to put my foot in it."
The only thing you stuck a foot in was your mouth. I handed you your ass.
"
But you'll notice I've explained (from about 3 different angles) why it's impossible to rationalize science and religion"
I'm sorry, I guess I didn't think much of them. To a large extent I agree with you. They are completely different modes of thought.
I can't explain "love" either. One can make arguments that *love* is irrational. However, few of us would be willing to do without it.
Is it rational? Or is it some set of biochemicals kicking in?
"Oh, and you say you're concerned about the middle east because your ancestors came from there. Uh, how long ago has your family been out of the middle east??
Really have no idea.
"My "people" came over to the US from Norway 150 years ago and I'm not still hanging onto some fucktarded notion that I've got title to land in the fjords."
Funny. Again we have somebody refuting arguments I haven't made. You know, if your spoiling for a fight that bad, go to your local Y.
I have to say there must be a name for arguments of the form " I don't care about X, therefore its wrong for you to care about X"
"Why can't you just admit that it's the "holy land" and it's part of your people's mythical history (a bunch of lies, half-truths, and truths that comprise "culture" inextricably intertwined with religious lies and half-truths)"
Some of its mythical. Some of its not.
"Remember - our ancestral lands are all in Africa, if you go back a few planetary eyeblinks. Why, in particular, would someone decide which ancestral lands were special?"
To me its special, as it the birthplace of my culture as well as several others.
"Does the great sky fairy have something to do with it? Just maybe?"
Well, maybe deep down. Steven Weinberg famous physicist and Atheist is also an avowed Zionist.
If the sky-daddy doesn't do it for him, why must it be the reason in my case?
Sorry for disparaging your computer abilities. Truth be told I have a lot of respect for programmers.
Good ones, anyway.
Hey Stuart Weinstein, one of my posts must not have properly been submitted because I had sent you a link to another paper that does show to some extent the gene flow that must have occured between European Jews and Europeans alike. http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/Nebel%20_2005.pdf
This is not an article from some bigoted supremist website, and it's just illustrating the gene flow that occured between Jewish and European populations. My point is that even if a small founder group's origins were in one specific region of the world, they can't have a right of claim to some land because in that regards, they could claim a right to any land that certain genetic markers of theirs originated. Cultural homogeneity does not make for genetic homogeneity.
Yet, what we're dealing with here is not your cultural or genetic origins but the bullshit religious belief that people of science follow. It's a virus of the mind, and as much as you try to tell us otherwise, it has infected yours. I'm not going to assume how that specific religious meme managed to infiltrate your mind, but apparently, you're confident enough in that irrational idea that you can compartmentalize it and function at some schizoid level. How can you continue to believe, with all the evidence that you face on a daily basis that there is some supernatural aspect of the universe that you may choose to define as god. Conveniently of course, it also happens to be the same "entity" that you were indoctrinated by within your culture. Do you not see the potential conflict in all of this? You may be wonder what the giant chip on my shoulder is, and it has a lot to do with a few people in my department, like yourself, claiming to be scientists, and still following some bullshit, illogical belief system to satisfy some inner need for what I guess is comfort. I know they, along with you, have it within you to shed yourself of this nonsense and liberate your mind, but you keep banging your head against some etheral wall you choose to illogically identify with. As scientists, it is evidence that guides us, and I know the assumption is that you can coexist with some illogical belief systems, but ultimately, there comes a time when the two shall meet. Apparently, evidence doesn't fulfill you completely, and you go searching for emergent concepts like love, which you find may have an explanation outside of science perhaps. It's these gaps in knowledge that at the moment, you fill with supernatural beliefs which will eventually be patched. You will have wasted precious resources filling your mind with garbage that will not matter in the long run.
> Just because I've done something wrong does not
> make it right for others to do the same.
Thats true, but it also works the other way around: If you are not better than others, you should not lecture them. Many, if not most Europeans and Americans are strangely obsessed with alleged Israeli wrongs, although their own ancestors did much worse things to other nations than the Israelis did to the Arabs (loosing a strip of territory the size of New Jersey really isn't such a big deal by 20th century standards. The Poles, to name just one random eastern European nation - you could name others, like Hungary or Romania, as well - lost one third of their territory ). I think this is a case of projection.
This said, this used to be a post about religion in general and Islam in peculiar, not about Israel and/or zionism, or who had ancestors in the middle east. As # 90 said, life's too short.
Hey Stuart I notice you have not deigned to reply to my stuff. What's the matter? intimidated by my Nature paper or somat?
Tell you what, you drop your academic posturing and I'll drop mine, then we can talk. Huh?
Thats true, but it also works the other way around: If you are not better than others, you should not lecture them. Many, if not most Europeans and Americans are strangely obsessed with alleged Israeli wrongs, although their own ancestors did much worse things to other nations than the Israelis did to the Arabs
That's absurd logic. The things that Europeans and Americans did and are doing are bad, but they aren't separate from what Israel is doing, the U.S. gives Israel billions. Wrong is wrong, and Israel is doing some stuff that definitely falls in the "wrong" category.
> That's absurd logic. The things that Europeans and
> Americans did and are doing are bad, but they aren't
> separate from what Israel is doing,
That was my point: Why single out one small nation when everybody else does the same?
> the U.S. gives Israel billions.
The U.S., the EU and, ironically, even Israel itself (the Israeli state is one of the main sponsors of the Palestinian Authority) also give billions to Israels enemies.
> Wrong is wrong, and Israel is doing some stuff
> that definitely falls in the "wrong" category.
So does the apartheit system of Cote de Ivoire. So why there are so many people obsessed with criticising Israel (polls regulary show that 60-70% of the Europeans consider Israel "the greatest danger for world peace"), but have never ever heard of the Ivorian troubles and the French involvement in them? The question is not wether it is legitimate to criticise Israel or not (it clearly is), but why so many people are so enormously overengaged when it comes to Israel - totally out of proportion to the size of the territory or the number of people ivolved.
Peter Ashby, Weinstein will not reply to you because he knows he's backed into a corner and intimidated. It's typical of his type of behavior, shutting a wall around criticism of which he can't argue with, and then jumping on people he perceives are at a lower educational level. I will not feed his need and curiosity as to what I've published because I'm not going to throw my science around in his face. I respect your decision to direct him towards papers you've published, but considering the BS on his part, I myself will not entertain his needs for knowing who I am. I like to let him wallow in his ignorance because that's pretty much what he's been doing for his life. Compratmentalizing his mind, holding his breath till he turns blue, and shouting till he gets the attention that he craves.
You are misrepresenting the poll. Although I agree that it would be very disturbing if Europeans felt that, that's not what was asked. (Would you prefer "part of the axis of nonpeacefullyness"?)
Wow this still going on. I'll join the fun.
Stuart: "Funny. I haven't compartmentalized anything. The findings of science have nothing to with my religious beliefs. "
Strange statement. What are your religious beliefs? I am very curious. I've never seen a god belief religion not insert its god into the real world (the world science addresses). Creator, answerer of prayers, comforter of oppressed, punisher of the disobedient, tester of the faithful, etc. - I mean I have never seen god disconnected with the real world (world science has as its realm). So what does our god do? What has your god done? Do you have a god? If not (no god) what is your religion - communism, Zionism? Utilitarianism? Seriously Stuart I hope you answer very specifically because I am perplexed to the max.
Does the Cote de Ivoire have nukes? Is the Cote de Ivoire supported with billions of dollars in civil and military aid from the US? Is the Cote de Ivoire held up as a shining beacon of democracy in an otherwise benighted Middle East?
Israel is hugely important in geopolitics, far more so than the Cote de Ivoire is. So it is scrutinized far more closely.
The only thing you stuck a foot in was your mouth. I handed you your ass.
You really are good at compartmentalizing your faith away from the real world, aren't you?
Why single out one small nation when everybody else does the same?
To me,it depends why they do it.
If some tribe has been living in a particular place for a long time, and are booted out violently, and want to get "their ancestral lands" back because of the mineral rights, or for revenge, or whatever - that makes a certain amount of sense. But the strength of the "ancestral lands" argument erodes with time. That's why, if one of the descendants of the Susquehannog tribes came and asked for the deed to my farm, I'd escort him off what is (now) my property. If it was his last year and I had just settled at gunpoint, that'd be a different story.
That "one small nation" bases their claim in whole or in part not on realpolitik but on religion. How can anyone respect that? Hey, I woke up the other morning and the angel of the lord told me New York City's central park is my ancestral lands; I want it. Get out.
It's hard to talk realpolitik with someone whose view of reality (or their ancestors' view...) is that they got a land-grant from the great sky fairy. You just can't negotiate with that. And, if you look at what's going on - specifically regarding the ridiculousness of the multiple faith-based claims to Jerusalem - rationality and reason are sorely lacking. And it shows. You cannot avoid noticing that the only claims that are being considered as remotely valid are the religious ones; the Romans aren't asking for their slice of Jerusalem, nor are the former crusaders. ;) All the pissing is not about "ancestral lands" it's about "our fucktard priests built an important temple here thousands of years ago, so now we own it today."
The endless pissing over real estate in and around Jerusalem is not supported by rationality; it's religion. It's not worthy of respect.
I work with people like Weinstein on a daily basis. They get some kind of perverse pleasure out of convincing themselves of some irrational belief, and then enjoying the masochistic pleasure of criticism against their delusions.
Could you imagine dealing with this day-in and day-out, and then trying to retain some semblance of sanity? What the hell are you idiots doing in the field of science anyway? Go study something like theology which suits your belief structure. You can't defend against your compartmentalization, and worse still, you're arrogantly proud of your illogical faith.
I'm further certain that Weinstein's read plenty into Steven J. Gould's concepts of "non-overlapping magestria" and assumes that religion and science do not overlap and are not in conflict. Well, that's just stupid philosophical insight right there. How can science and religion not overlap or conflict when one is based on reason and evidence, and the other is based on faith (but faith that is supplemental to some indoctrinated meme). Yes, there are plenty of things unexplained in the universe, but placing those explanations with something supernatural will never help us explain it. Only evidence and reason can help us overcome our limitations in what we know. At the moment for example, it's impossible to say how life originated, but there are plenty of good theories we're working on towards the initial steps necessary for biochemical reactions. In this gap right here, some people are willing to interject some kind of primary mover, or perhaps in other gaps. Sometimes, as it seems in Weinstein's case, they seem to place their faith in some kind of isolated dimension that cannot overlap with our own. That's all pretty much bullshit, and the only reason for retaining such crap is to either support an illogical viewpoint, or pander and sugar coat concepts to those who might be doing the same. Either way, if you don't function within evidence, then all you really are is a mindless self-delusional drone.
God's only excuse is that he does not exist - Stendahl
I have a question posed to Stuart in #169; a question that asks him to address a curious statement he made. Maybe he will quote Gould in response. I hope though he gives it a serious answer.
Your entire premise about Israel is based on a falsehood. The Jews didn't just show up in the middle east, claim their ancestrial lands back, and kick everyone out. That's simplistic and false.
What the Zionists actually did from the start was:
1) Collected contributions
2) Bought land in an area that is factually their ancestrial homeland, where Jews have been living continuously for 3000 - 4000 years, and where they were mostly kicked out of long ago.
2a) Bought the land from individual Arab owners in the region
2b) Bought governmental lands.
3) Initially immigrated from Eastern Europe where they were being persecuted, and for that reason, not because the felt they already owned the Middle East.
4) The Jews were fighting for political control of the area because they wanted some one place on the planet where they wouldn't be persecuted and treated like third class citizens.
5) The local Arab bigots started to terrorize any peaceful locals who excercised their right to sell to whomever they like.
6) The local Arab bigots then put their own policial pressure on and got laws enacted to prevent Jews from a) Buying land b) Immigrating into the region.
You know, I sold my house about four years back to an East Indian couple. In fact, in that town there was a large influx of Indians, so much so, that my sons went back three years later and got lost because all the stores are now foreign to them, with non-english signs. I'm sure the Indian community has much larger political pull now than before, too.
So, now suppose those Indians were actually Native American Indians, who happened to have been dispossessed and moved overseas 200 years ago. Also suppose there were native americans still living in my town. Suppose further that the USA was set up as an apartheid where NA Indians were second class citizens, and they wanted to overthrow that situation. Further suppose that NA Indians were persecuted pretty much everywhere they had resettled.
Also suppose my neighbors reaction was to a) Start uprisings forcing a closure of immigration of Native American Indians back to their ancestrial homeland. b) Enact laws that would not allow me to sell my house to "Indians" c) Burn my house or worse kill me if I sold before the laws were enacted. d) Called "Indians" the greediest of all the people because God himself wrote it in the bible (actually Allah and the Koran) e) Called them Pigs and Apes. f) Had a holy book that had God himself instructing that Indians were not to be befriended, not to be allowed in positions of authority, must pay a tax to be suffered to live, and must never be in positions of political power.
Then you might just begin to understand what the starting point of Israel was. Not this bull about Zionist planning to steal land based on some ancient religious claim.
"I agree that people who perpetrate murder for any reason, religious, political, etc. are insane."
I guess in your world religious murderers just get an automatic plea of insanity? How convenient for the religious. Do they get out the mental institution if they prove their sanity by changing sects? Hell, "any reason" would mean no one would be in prison for murder.
"Just about any cause or ideology taken to far can be dangerous."
To whom? Amish extremist comes to mind but I don't see them gunning down anybody.
"Again, just about any ideology, religious, nationalist, etc. can be a motivation for deleterious actions."
I'm sure there are exceptions. People who don't believe in leprechauns aren't motivated by their ideology to kill people. The problem is when the ideology actually advocates bad behavior, the member believe in it, and then acts on it.
Atheism is exactly like not believing in leprechauns. I'm pretty sure the guys who flew into the World Trade Center didn't believe in leprechauns but it would be wrong to blame their behavior on that aspect of their ideology.
In fact I don't know of any murders where atheism was the basis of the action. Now persecution by believers might be considered a motivation for murder in an atheist that holds grudges but I think that's more a personality issue. Some people don't react well to being picked on.
The problem with faith based ideologies is that the individual gets to the point where he or she things they are justified in murdering someone else.
BTW, I think it idiotic to argue that Jews can't be true scientists, and I'm an atheist, so I hope you don't judge me by my shared lack of belief with some of the other posters here.
BTW, I thought your comment on programmers was pretty idiotic and bigoted, and that's why I thought you might judge based on such bigotry with regard to atheists.
That was my point: Why single out one small nation when everybody else does the same?
Yes, Israel is the only country in the world that anyone criticizes. No one has ever brought up problems with the foreign policy of the US or the EU.
The U.S., the EU and, ironically, even Israel itself (the Israeli state is one of the main sponsors of the Palestinian Authority) also give billions to Israels enemies.
We give Israel the money specifically so they will but weapons, the majority of it at least. We sell them arms and we, the U.S. that is, are their number one defender in the UN and other international fora. To say that we bear no responsibility for their actions is absurd. We should be criticizing a nuclear state that is the recipient of such large amounts of aid.
why so many people are so enormously overengaged when it comes to Israel
A number of reasons. First, the state is a creation of western powers and people. European Jews, often with the support of European powers, went into a region that was ruled by the colonial powers and established a presence. Israel would not exist were it not for the colonialism of Europe. Nor would it exist but for the Cash and Weapons of the United States. This is not to say that it shouldn't exist, only that it occupies a position that is unique in the world, ad thus it merits unique criticism.
And your comparison to Cote D'Ivoire is patently absurd. Especially in terms of world peace. Note the presence of the modifier "world." That means on a broader scale than just some minor French interventions. It's like asking why people don't criticize Guatemala and pointing out that the US invaded in the eighties.
Stuart please answer the question in #169. Maybe it is just me but I cannot think of any god as promoted by the faithful - any one of the thousands - that isn't messing with the physical world - the world that secular science explores and addresses.
So kindly answer my question in #169; enlighten us as to who and what your god is; a god that reading into your words I must assume has never and is not inserting itself in the real world (the world science addresses).
By answering my question I ask you to explain your statement "Funny. I haven't compartmentalized anything. The findings of science have nothing to with my religious beliefs" because I am always flabbergasted that any scientist can say that. Maybe you can explain to me (and other curious sorts here) the religious beliefs (god beliefs) that are consistent with such a statement as you made.
Again my question is specific - I am not asking you to wax about the beauty of the philosophy, or the validity of the rules for a good life, or the value of maintaining tradition, or the value of a base to teach morality, or any such thing one might say about the value of religion. Whether I think religion adds value there or not is not what you are helping me with. My question is simply: what specifically and representatively has your god done and is doing and will do, based on your religious beliefs; implicit is the question how does this god do whatever?
Answer that honestly specifically and completely (parapharsing acceptable). We'll draw our own conclusions as to whether your god has his foot in science's realm, based on your answer.
Thank you.
# 168,
> You are misrepresenting the poll.
I hope so.
># 170
> Does the Cote de Ivoire have nukes?
No. For what on earth do you need your own nukes if your late president has co-written the constitution of a nuclear power (France)?
> Is the Cote de Ivoire supported with billions of dollars
> in civil and military aid from the US?
It was, directly or indirectly through France and Nato. It might be otherwise now.
> Is the Cote de Ivoire held up as a shining beacon of democracy in
> an otherwise benighted Middle East?
Well, replace 'democracy' with 'liberal capitalism' and 'middle east' with Africa...
coathhangrrr
> A number of reasons. First, the state is a creation of western
> powers
Applies for most, if not all post colonial states. And remember that the Soviet Union and its satellites were among the strongest backers of Israel in the early years
> and people.
That applies for the European jews - a minority - , if you can call cszarist Russia "western" by any means. It clearly does not apply for people of Ethiopian or even Egyptian or Iraqi origin, or native Bedouin or Druze.
> European Jews, often with the support of European powers, went
> into a region that was ruled by the colonial powers and
> established a presence.
If you can call the Ottoman Empire a western colonial power...
> Israel would not exist were it not for the colonialism of Europe.
Nor would the Arab states, that would be still ruled by people of turco-mongol or Balkan origin without the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. Nor would Canada. Nor would Belize. Nor would (insert three quarters of the worlds' states here).How many nation-states existed in 1900?
> Nor would it exist but for the Cash and Weapons of the United
> States.
Also applies for the states of Europe in their current form, with the possible exception of Sweden, Switzerland and Britain.
> This is not to say that it shouldn't exist, only that
> it occupies a position that is unique in the world, and
> thus it merits unique criticism.
On the territory of the three great Eurasian Empires that were destroyed in the 20th century (Czsarist Russia,the Ottoman Empire,and the Austro-Hungarian one), massive populaion exchanges, resettlement and the foundation of new nation-states are anything but unique.
> And your comparison to Cote D'Ivoire is patently absurd.
> Especially in terms of world peace. Note the presence of the
> modifier "world."
Africa is part of the world. It might quickly become much more important than people in the western countries are used to think, if raw materials become scarcer, and China begins to stake its claims. And peripheral conflicts might have metropolitan repercussions. If you think a conflict between evangelicals and muslims - to come back to the topic of religion - that involves a nuclear power (France) is not dangerous for world peace....
> That means on a broader scale than just some minor French
> interventions.
We don't speak of a passive victim of French neo-colonialism here. The problem is that the evangelical Goverment is backed by the French left. the muslim opposition by the French right, so French and Ivorian affairs are rather intertwined.
Coathangrrr,
I see you just hate when the US does anything. Doesn't matter if the rest of the world has done the same things. Johannes did a pretty good job of responding, and I'm sure he could have gone on with more examples and more details of why you have a double standard.
"went into a region that was ruled by the colonial powers and established a presence. Israel would not exist were it not for the colonialism of Europe."
Most of the Islamic states wouldn't exist if it were not for the colonialism of Islam. Hell Europe was invaded several times and colonies set up there. They were just returning the favor to the rest of the world. That was the reality of the world back then get used to it. Everybody was conquering everybody.
Yes, the US has responsibility for Israel and that's a good thing. We are keeping the violent neighbors at bay. Neighbors who have vocally and repetitively called for the extermination of the Jews in Israel. As Johannes points out we've done that for much of Europe, and I would add plenty of other places on the planet. All that and we don't extract tribute but instead send money to our allies.
There's more to Europe than Western Europe, mr. historian.
Ones view of historical events or opinion of who was right or wrong way back or not so way back.
Good people the only thing we can affect is the present and future. All sides have to get rid of the past and concentrate on making a future that is brighter, more just, and more secure for all involved that have a right to be involved.
The concept of negotiation is simple: find objectives in the here and now that all can agree on, then move to their implementation in ways all can agree on.
The concept is simple; doing it is difficult to the max. That is why all need leaders that are not hung up on the past; that can accept what is as what is (deal with it); that can allow all to benefit grow and prosper.
I am tired of smart people never getting off 1st base (actually probably the batters box) because they still love the esoterics and the comfort of their justifying historical view. The world should address problems and injustices that are today's. Period. Background is nice - don't let it be the end game.
Applies for most, if not all post colonial states. And remember that the Soviet Union and its satellites were among the strongest backers of Israel in the early years
There is a huge difference between the borders being created by Western powers and a specific group of people being told they can live there, a la the Balfour Declaration.
That applies for the European jews - a minority - , if you can call cszarist Russia "western" by any means. It clearly does not apply for people of Ethiopian or even Egyptian or Iraqi origin, or native Bedouin or Druze.
I was including Russia as western, though I realize there are some problematic aspects to that, they were a colonial power and a European power. While the current population is fairly diverse in terms of nationalities, there was not that sort of diversity during the founding of the nation. Israel was founded by Jew from Europe, primarily.
If you can call the Ottoman Empire a western colonial power...
The Ottoman empire was gone by the time any significant amount of Jews had immigrated into the area. Palestine was under British mandate.
Africa is part of the world. It might quickly become much more important than people in the western countries are used to think, if raw materials become scarcer, and China begins to stake its claims. And peripheral conflicts might have metropolitan repercussions. If you think a conflict between evangelicals and muslims - to come back to the topic of religion - that involves a nuclear power (France) is not dangerous for world peace....
Seriously, France is not going to go Nuclear over Cote D'Ivoire. I realize that there are conflicts in the country, and that it has problems. It is simply not as important in terms of geopolitics as is Israel.
We don't speak of a passive victim of French neo-colonialism here. The problem is that the evangelical Goverment is backed by the French left. the muslim opposition by the French right, so French and Ivorian affairs are rather intertwined.
So why not bring up Haiti or any of the manifold other states that have internal affairs backed by different parts of foreign countries. That doesn't make Israel more or less of a threat, because those countries don't have nukes and they aren't the number one recipient of U.S. foreign aid.
Brian Macker
I shouldn't even respond to you given that you obviously are not interested in dialogue. But I will.
I see you just hate when the US does anything. Doesn't matter if the rest of the world has done the same things.
No, I do not hate everything that the US does anything, I hate when the US does things that are wrong, things that cause damage to other people and societies. I'll admit it right here, when the government I give my tax dollars to kills innocent people and causes innocent people to be killed I don't like it at all because I am complicit in that crime by way of my monetary support.
Johannes did a pretty good job of responding, and I'm sure he could have gone on with more examples and more details of why you have a double standard.
Yes, he did a fairly good job of responding in that he didn't feel the need to attack me and put words in my mouth. I disagree that he exposed some sort of double standard. I'd also note that I was the one who originally pointed out that a discussion on Israel would lead no where good.
Neighbors who have vocally and repetitively called for the extermination of the Jews in Israel.
Actually they have called for the elimination of the state of Israel, which is different. Of course the worst defenders of Israel never fail to subtly invoke the holocaust.
"I give my tax dollars to kills innocent people and causes innocent people to be killed I don't like it at all because I am complicit in that crime by way of my monetary support."
Yes, because Palestinian terrorists are "innocent". Or did you mean people that get accidentally killed when those terrorists hide in civilian populations. Well, who's fault it that? Perhaps we have different views on responsibility.
"Actually they have called for the elimination of the state of Israel, which is different. Of course the worst defenders of Israel never fail to subtly invoke the holocaust."
They've done both and both are wrong. Just because an area was once under Muslim control doesn't mean it has to be so in perpetuity. The Muslims are motivated by the worst sort of religious supremacist thinking. Given that Muslims living in Israel have more freedoms than in the surrounding countries they should be doing the opposite. The problem is that Jewish rule is as repugnant to Muslims as it is to Nazis.
The game Mohammed played of naming one of the most holiest of Jewish and Christian cities as their own is one of the direct contributors to this problem. If Christians were so bent out of shape as Muslims do over who should be supreme in the holy sites then after WWI with Christian countries military superiority the Muslims would have been driven out of Jerusalem.
You don't see the double standard because you suffer from a kind of moral equivalence I see often. Usually, it's due to a failure to see the difference between killing and murder, and a failure or total lack of concern over placing moral blame in the proper location. It's impossible to be against all killing, since some killing is done to control murderers. Murderers aren't going to stop killing just because their victims refrain from retaliation.
If you want to find the calls for extermination just do a google search. I found this in no time.
I've been reading about and listening to this kind of sickening stuff for at least thirty years in current events. The history goes back much further than that. These guys have their roots working with the Nazis. Read the Koran it reads like Mein Kampf with regard to non-believers and Jews.
I stay with this tread because it is of interest. And it also makes me sad.
Brian you may be right on with historical facts or with how noble the Israelis are as compared to their Palestinian counter-points. I plead no contest in any debate with you on facts like those. But to me this line of discussion is a big so what and even discussing such just fans flames. It gets us NOWHERE.
Those that are real peacemakers - humanitarians - promoters of a better world -- I believe should be more concerned with being as rational and fair and empathetic and sympathetic as a human can possibly be. There are always 2 sides to every story. Everyone suffers; the Palestinians probably because they have the world's worst leaders and are under the spell and influence of a very fixated religion, and they feel the brunt of Israeli retaliation; the Israelis because enough of them line up in Right Wing Authoritarian way in response to the way the Palestinian and Arab leaders so absurdly and sadly exploit and promote the injustices the people feel, and thus by that support allow the flames to be fanned.
Look I know many of you can talk circles around me on the "facts" (really your arguments to justify your perspectives - and in a worst sense maintain status quo). But I stand by my statements in #185. Peace is never had without first sympathy and empathy, then humility, then compromise on objectives, then compromise on implementations that accomplish objectives. Brian sorry to use you as an example and forgive me if I missed something, but it doesn't strike me that you ever mentioned how any poor bloke Palestinian is suffering and how that is important to you. I accept that Israelis suffer. Perhaps coathangtrr re: them has the same problem to be fair. My point - address the here and now; see all sides clinically, and support peace not some stupid national entity (of any stripe).
PS yes I know we had to "crush" the Nazis or the Japanese in WWII to be able to make peace but (1) the situation is not the same militarily or structurally re: I and P and (2) the real peace of WWII was achieved when we acted for the good of all and saw no enemies as we formed our reconstruction plans and actions (a different method was tried in WWI and look what that wrought). I am just saying save your breath re: military might makes peace. Perhaps it is a necessary component to a certain extent but making war as the means to achieve peace is like using fucking to achieve virginity.
Yes, because Palestinian terrorists are "innocent". Or did you mean people that get accidentally killed when those terrorists hide in civilian populations. Well, who's fault it that? Perhaps we have different views on responsibility.
I'm sorry, but if you launch a missile and you know for a fact that it will kill an innocent person, as is the case when you blow up a whole house to kill one terrorist, you are guilty of murder. To say otherwise is morally reprehensible. If I know my actions will kill someone who has done nothing wrong then I am knowingly doing wrong. This does not mean that every Palestinian is innocent, but unless you think that the majority of them are terrorists, and if you do you are an idiot, then the actions of Israel are wrong.
They've done both and both are wrong. Just because an area was once under Muslim control doesn't mean it has to be so in perpetuity.
There are groups who have called for the elimination of Jews, but these are not neighboring countries, they are militant groups. By your logic we should condemn Israel because it has groups of jews who want to completely get rid of Arabs in Palestine. And I disagree that it is necessarily wrong to call for the elimination of the state of Israel. I don't think Israel should be eliminated, but to say that saying a state should not exist, as opposed to a people, is not wrong. Calling for the elimination of a people is wrong. It would be nice to see a source other than something with Zionist in the name of it, I hope you understand the problem of relying on translations from such a hostile source.
The game Mohammed played of naming one of the most holiest of Jewish and Christian cities as their own is one of the direct contributors to this problem.
You are 100% correct there. But to simply blame Mohammed is naive, Christianity and Judaism, both of which are obviously willing to go to war over the city, are to blame as well.
You don't see the double standard because you suffer from a kind of moral equivalence I see often. Usually, it's due to a failure to see the difference between killing and murder, and a failure or total lack of concern over placing moral blame in the proper location. It's impossible to be against all killing, since some killing is done to control murderers. Murderers aren't going to stop killing just because their victims refrain from retaliation.
If you think that it is okay to kill the innocent because it might stop someone else from murdering then you have a morality that I consider fucked up and wrong. That is what we are talking about, torturing and killing people who have done nothing to get at those who have. And both sides are guilty of this, the Israelis on a larger scale, because they have the capability, because the U.S. has provided them with that capability. If the U.S. were providing the Palestinians with weapons to inflict collective punishment on the Jews then I would speak out about that. But the U.S. is not. Yes, firing rockets into Israel at random and setting off bombs to kill civilians is wrong, but it is just as wrong when the Israelis torture and kill the innocent and they are doing it with my money. Obviously you think all Palestinians are blood thirsty murderers with comments like, "Murderers aren't going to stop killing just because their victims refrain from retaliation." Because it turns everyone killed into a murderer and ignores the fact that Israel has some part in the problems.
My point - address the here and now; see all sides clinically, and support peace not some stupid national entity (of any stripe).
I agree, we need to figure out what exactly the problem is and fix it; but, to do that we need to have a clear idea of who is doing what not so we can lay blame, but so that we can stop it. Unfortunately, the process of this will necessarily involve bringing to light the bad actions of groups on both sides. Because of this it is difficult to even begin, people on either side become defensive whenever certain actions are brought up.
>> "Nor would it exist but for the Cash and Weapons of the United
>> States." Also applies for the states of Europe in their current
>> form, with the possible exception of Sweden, Switzerland and
>> Britain.
> There's more to Europe than Western Europe, mr. historian.
#184,
do you really think that Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Slovakia, the Czech republic or an united Germany would exist as independent states, if the west had not won the cold war?
coathangrrr your #191 is rational and has a heart in the right place (not that you need me to tell you that -- just letting you know my context)
My points above though have a meaning that says "we need to have a clear idea of who is doing what not so we can lay blame, but so that we can stop it" is a non-starter - just like you admit later on.
Please understand I am not intending to give you a hard time (you just happen to be here for the conversation and I appreciate your comments), but I think we must think past our urges to use military solutions to solve essentially non-military problems. The violence can be stopped "infinitely" better by implementing a justice that says all are winners, than by bringing the violence to a stand-off militarily for a point in time.
In my model one would alter your words to say something like: we need to have a clear idea of who is suffering so that we can stop it.
I know that is very difficult when bombs and rockets are flying but that is my point also .. peace is difficult to achieve when military actions are in progress.
There is much you need to establish before you can assume that the policy is to blow up terrorists without regard to whether there are innocent people nearby. With the hundreds of terrorists taken out by missiles very few have ended up with unintended targets, and make no mistake the targets are terrorists.
So who's responsibility is it to make sure that one doesn't endanger ones neighbors, the terrorist, or the people being terrorized? I've listened to Muslim women, speaking in English, about how they are going to raise every one of their children to be terrorists and suicide bombers. So if she gets killed when one of them are blown away by a missile in her home then is she "innocent".
Are people who harbor known murderers "innocent"? Of course not. The rules about what one does within a society to bring people to justice may be very different than those that occur between societies, especially when the rules of reciprocity break down. Israel does not lob missiles within her territory to get terrorists because they can be captured via law enforcement. She is in control of that territory. The same cannot be said of other territories. Bringing murderers to justice requires different methods in outlaw areas.
That's not true. There are plenty of exceptions, especially in war, and Israel is pretty much at war all the time. Besides this is simplistic. Plenty of things that are "wrong" like eating human flesh, are excusable under extreme circumstances. Terrorists deliberately set up such extreme circumstances all the time. The whole reason for rules in war is to protect civilian populations and those are precisely the rules that the terrorists violate, therefore the resulting civilian casualties are the fault of the terrorists.
When you shoot and kill the enemy soldier during war you are usually killing someone who has "done nothing wrong".
Israel doesn't target the majority of Palestinians. The people being targeted are directly murderers, or people consipiring with murderers. They aren't being targeted with total disregard for the average Palestinian otherwise the majority of attacks would be in populated areas with disregard to who is around them. Mostly they are taken out while driving around in cars with other conspirators, or in their hideouts. If they choose to hide out with their families, and their families are harboring known murderers then they aren't truly innocent, are they? I've looked at lists of terrorists taken out by missiles and the vast majority don't kill innocents. If you are hired as the driver for a known terrorist well you can expect to be in the line of fire. Married to one"? Well get a divorce, because your husband may have a missile with his name on it, and despite the best intentions to hit him when you are not home, they might make a mistake about that.
Your opinions are based on an ahistorical reading of events. The neighboring countries called for Jewish extermination too, as did the Palestinians prior to the formation of Israel. This is all established history.
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." - radio broadcast by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, the day before the 1948 invasion of Israel.
At the time that was pronounced the Arab League consisted of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Yemen. So yes the Arab countries have expressed their intention of genocide.
"Our forces are now entirely ready... to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland.... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." - Hafez Assad, Syrian Defense Minister
Note that this is only three years after the end of WWII and that local Arab Muslims had collaborated with Hilter in the massacre of Jews. So it's not paranoia on the part of Jews to view such statements as real threats and not bellicosity. The much respected Grand Mufti of Palestine, Muhammad Amin al-Hussein, was involved in the establishment of the Hanjar, Muslim Waffen SS Divisions. His writings and speeches advocating the extermination of the Jews are easily found, as is the fact that he was pleasing to the Egyptians to the extent that they offered him refuge.
You have to be living in one of Osama's caves to be concerned about the Middle East and yet still not know about this stuff.
Habib Issa said in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951):
The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.
The Iraqi prime minister in 1948 claimed that the Arabs would only need a few brooms to drive the Jews into the sea.
This of course does not mean that every Arab was out for Jewish blood. There was however an atmosphere of vocal calls for extermination of the Jews in the Middle East by Arabs. Given the historical context, unless you are going to start in with Holocaust denial, then I think it reasonable for Jews to not be trusting of the invading armies. The partition was settled by the UN and the Muslims got the vast majority of the lands partitioned. It wasn't peace the Muslims were after.
Oh, and the Arab behavior after this invasion was also horrendous. They stuck the Palestinians that fled the area at their behest in ghettos, refugee camps, and did not allow them to assimilate into their countries, while at the same time expelling Jews from there countries and stealing their property and land.
You don't trust sites run by Jews, well find original sources like Time Magazine Friday, Jun. 02, 1967.