Is Islam in accordance with rationality and science?

[bob x]

Why do u keep blaming me for your inability to connect the dots?

I lay claim to no telepathic powers. If you want to convey a picture, you should try transmitting more than disconnected dots. t s n m f t u c t m r p h t r.

You have overlooked a crucial detail (again).

You did not mention the "detail" so there was nothing there for me to overlook.

According to my position, anything created, does NOT possess inherent existence. Which means that even though that child in that painting is "real" and the painting is "life" neither the painting, nor the child actually exists. There is NO contradiction in this view. God did not kill anyone, because there is no one to kill.

The suffering of a child is very real, and I am beyond saddened that you do not understand even that much. You make it ever more clear what a dangerous and repugnant religion Islam is, why it hardens so many to callous cruelty.

This is what i meant by "God created the concept of 2+2=4" which you dismissed as not being relevant.

I said it doesn't even MEAN anything. It depends on some bizarre notion that 2+2 could be something else.

I also told you that I do not believe that neither you nor I actually exist.

Not much point in you posting, then... But seriously: no, you never told me that before, nor do I even now have a grip on what you could possibly mean by such a facially ludicrous sentence.

Secondly, in this view, what power does God actually have?

God is not a "person" taking actions within the world; God does not "want" some things and "not want" others, so there is no question about whether God "can" do what he "wants". The concept of "power" has no more to do with God than the concepts of "color" or "time" do to the equation 2+2=4.

He does not even know the future!

Are you thinking that God is a repository of information sitting here in the universe at the present time, containing information about other times?

??? What are you talking about !!!!

What "rule" ??? It was a "rule" that if a woman divorced her husband and married a relative of his that she had to have been forced ???

It was the RULE that if a woman divorced her husband, she could NEVER marry a relative of his, to avoid any question of improper influence or duress. This is how brothers were discouraged from flirting with sisters-in-law, by making it absolutely plain it could never go anywhere; and especially, fathers were not to think they could ever have their daughters-in-law, because the power fathers had over sons would make this particularly liable to be a case of duress. That is the rule the Qur'an takes for granted as existing, when it carves out a narrow exception.

I even told you it was Lord Curzon who said it.

I am sure you are equally deferential to his views about your own people?

Actually, they have:

The Zionist groups of Irgun and Lehi reverted to their 1937–1939 strategy of indiscriminate attacks...

I have always condemned the Likudniks (spiritual and institutional heirs to Irgun/Lehi). But if Israel as a whole took their attitude, Palestinians would have been exterminated long ago and you know it, so don't try to compare Israel to Hamas, who have only failed to exterminate the Jews because of sheer incapacity, not any lack of will.

Clearly, your claim that no other historian has ever claimed that Arabs even fled before the jewish offensive started is not accurate.

I never claimed that no Arabs fled earlier; I denied Chomsky's ludicrous claim that the whole Jewish offensive and the majority of the flights came before May 14 and before any Arab incursions. If you had read even a line further in your Wiki, you would have seen that from late April (as the British started withdrawing and the Arab League started moving in) to early July, the Zionist forces were taking control of the major cities within the "Jewish zone" (and about a quarter of a million Palestinians fled); then there were two major operations July 8-19 into the "triangle" from the coast to Jerusalem (about 70,000 Palestinians forcibly expelled) and extending their border in Galilee past Nazareth (all the residents there were left in place, now the "Israeli Arabs") which was when Israel expanded past the "Jewish zone"; this is what Chomsky claims had already happened before May 14.

Pharoah controlled Jerusalem at the time of Moses (pbuh) ??? Are you sure?

Yes indeed. Jerusalem wasn't a top-ranked city (Merneptah's Stele lists Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam as the dominant cities of Cana'an) but it does get mentioned among the Egyptian tributaries (it is in the Amarna correspondence). Egypt waned considerably after that, particularly when the Palestinians invaded under Ramesses III, but Pharaoh still controlled some cities in Cana'an as late as Solomon's time (he gave them to Solomon as dowry for his daughter).

Wait... so you actually thought I was just going to accept the Jewish version of the story and forget everyone elses??

Show me in the Qur'an where Jesus says the word of Moses is no good any longer.

because they see the Israeli army killing their civilians.

They were committing random murders decades before there was any such thing as the Israeli army. It won't do to claim the later event as the "cause" of the earlier.

In what universe are 12 year old kids throwing stones at tanks "combatants" ???

As I said before, I've never seen a case involving stones thrown at tanks. 12 year olds throwing rocks at soldiers I have seen, and yes indeed they are combatants, if very stupid and ineffective ones, more likely to get hurt or killed themselves than to accomplish anything.

You are not "certain" it was stolen, then why are you speaking as if you are certain that the people in the US did not elect Bush for a second time??

We should be certain that it was not stolen. Just as the outcome in Florida 2000 should have been determined by actually counting the votes, the questions about Ohio 2004 should have been investigated officially, not by stats professors in their spare time. An election has no legitimacy unless the correctness of the outcome is openly apparent.

If that's true, why is the US allied with Saudi Arabia?

Since, clearly, the public surely hates that nation as much as it loves Israel.

You are arguing that your government took all those risks and suffered all those losses just because of American sympathies, right? If that were true, then ALL American relations must be views through that paradigm, but CLEARLY this is not the case.

It takes an extraordinary degree of simple-mindedness to think that ALL political issues are driven by ONE paradigm. Of course we hate the Saudis: if they didn't have any oil, we would have bombed Mecca a long time ago; but they do, so we don't. Another incident like 9/11, however, and we might just say to hell with the oil, we're taking Islam out.

What are you lacing those camels with?

Not a thing, but I drink a lot of Mountain Dew, if that helps to explain it.

 

[c0de]

12 year olds throwing rocks at soldiers I have seen, and yes indeed they are combatants, if very stupid and ineffective ones,

I would like to start with this because I think it just illustrates your simple-minded hypocritical nature beautifully. So here, you say that: "12 year olds throwing rocks... are combatants" And so the Israeli soldiers are justified in shooting them dead.

You then go on to say that all the cases in which Israeli soldiers have killed such CIVILIANS they were actually fighting "combatants" and therefore, Palestinian civilian casualties are LOWER then Israel's ...

... (pause... wow moment... okay) .....

and in the same post, you said this:

You make it ever moreclear what a dangerous and repugnant religion Islam is, why it hardens so many to callous cruelty.

rite... ahan...

As I said before, I've never seen a case involving stones thrown at tanks.

Of course you haven't... You are after all blind to anything which
does not support your own sides paradigm.

This kid was shot in the neck and died 10 days after this picture was taken by an AP photogropher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faris_Odeh

according to you this kid was a "combatant" and deserved to be shot in the neck !! and you think my beliefs result in "callous cruelty" ??

I am sure you are equally deferential to his views about your own people?

Point being, the JEWS were blamed for the 1920 riots by someone who was not taking sides. So your argument claiming superiority for the jews is dead in the water.

They were committing random murders decades before there was any such thing as the Israeli army. It won't do to claim the later event as the "cause" of the earlier.

Excuse me? All this time you were trying to defend the Jews by arguing that the Arabs "started it" !! Now that point has been destroyed, and you are trying to fall back safely to a non-causal based view ?? Another proof of your shallow hypocricy! Why didn't you say this in the first place then?? (Not that it matters anymore anyway)

I have always condemned the Likudniks (spiritual and institutional heirs to Irgun/Lehi). But if Israel as a whole took their attitude, Palestinians would have been exterminated long ago and you know it, so don't try to compare Israel to Hamas, who have only failed to exterminate the Jews because of sheer incapacity, not any lack of will.

(LoL) WAKE UP!!!

You can't use this argument anymore! You needed to solidify the argument that the Jews were not the ones who started the trouble which radicalized the Arabs for this defense to work.

Because you lost that point, this is argument of yours DOES NOT work!

this is what Chomsky claims had already happened before May 14.

Well good for you.

... doesn't change a thing for your overall argument

I said it doesn't even MEAN anything. It depends on some bizarre notion that 2+2 could be something else.

try and think outside the box, for once

Do you know why 2+2=4 ???

Humans have (until very recently) taken these ideas as truth without asking the source of their truthfulness. This is the whole reason the "foundations of mathematics" program was created.

Here is quote on the difficulties the program ran into (from wiki)

"One attempt after another to provide unassailable foundations for mathematics was found to suffer from various paradoxes (such as Russell's paradox) and to be inconsistent: an undesirable situation in which every mathematical statement that can be formulated in a proposed system (such as 2 + 2 = 5) can also be proved in the system."

"In a sense, the crisis has not been resolved, but faded away: most mathematicians either do not work from axiomatic systems, or if they do, do not doubt the consistency of ZFC, generally their preferred axiomatic system. In most of mathematics as it is practiced, the various logical paradoxes never played a role anyway, and in those branches in which they do (such as logic and category theory), they may be avoided."

Clearly, you have no idea what's going on here... so i suggest you run your google searches and get back to me.

Are you thinking that God is a repository of information sitting here in the universe at the present time, containing information about other times?

I believe in a Absolutely Transcendent deity, who has knowledge of all times.

It was the RULE that if a woman divorced her husband, she could NEVER marry a relative of his,

WOMEN COULD NOT DIVORCE THEIR HUSBANDS IN PRE ISLAMIC ARABIA!

So like I said, where the hell are you getting this "rule" from ??? Are you just like making stuff up now??

Yes indeed. Jerusalem wasn't a top-ranked city (Merneptah's Stele lists Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam as the dominant cities of Cana'an) but it does get mentioned among the Egyptian tributaries (it is in the Amarna correspondence). Egypt waned considerably after that, particularly when the Palestinians invaded under Ramesses III, but Pharaoh still controlled some cities in Cana'an as late as Solomon's time (he gave them to Solomon as dowry for his daughter).

Wait a minute... That land was conquered by the Egyptians, and since the Jews were canaanits, it means that by re-conquering their own land, they were not functioning as seditionists. After all, they did not stay within Egypt proper, they got up and left for home. The fact that the had to retake their home (via the covenant) does not make them seditionists.

Show me in the Qur'an where Jesus says the word of Moses is no good any longer.

The original covenant was with Abraham (pbuh) and the Muslims believe Ismail (pbuh) was just as much a part of it as Isaac (pbuh). Meaning the Jews have no special relation to that land that can not be matched by the Arabs (if you want to try religious reasoning).

Also, what about the Jews who themselves believe that they do not have a right to posses the land of Israel until the coming of the messiah?? What happened to the covenant according to their view?

It takes an extraordinary degree of simple-mindedness to think that ALL political issues are driven by ONE paradigm. Of course we hate the Saudis: if they didn't have any oil, we would have bombed Mecca a long time ago; but they do, so we don't. Another incident like 9/11, however, and we might just say to hell with the oil, we're taking Islam out.

you actually think this saves your view from a gross contradiction?? One one hand, America supposedly supports Israel despite losing so much, only due to emotional attachment, but on the other it supports the Saudis despite intense emotional hatred...

yea, that makes sense

Not a thing, but I drink a lot of Mountain Dew, if that helps to explain it.

drinking mountain dew is a symptom, never the source of a person's stupidity.

 

[bob x]

you say that: "12 year olds throwing rocks... are combatants"

They ARE! I can't afford a ticket to China right now, or I'd be tempted to come to your place and throw rocks at you, and ask if you feel assaulted. Of course, if I throw hard enough, you'll stop feeling anything: it has been a favored method of capital punishment in the Middle East for millennia, after all (ever since metal was unknown, and obsidian blades a rarity).

This kid was shot in the neck and died 10 days after this picture was taken by an AP photogropher.

I will agree that he was not likely to any damage to the tank, and that there is no justification in killing or harming someone except to prevent him killing or harming someone else. But he wasn't shot for what he was doing in that picture: he was shot while throwing at people, who were themselves "combatants" of course (better than the usual Palestinian targetting of non-combatants), but so was he. I do feel for his parents, who according to the article tried everything to stop him from continuing down that road; but I have less than zero sympathy for the people putting up posters of him as a role model for what kids should aspire to (alongside Muhammad Durrah, shot by a stray bullet from the Palestinian side-- at least I hope it was a stray bullet).
And you: you seem to feel, "Oh look, how cute, a kid throwing rocks!"

Point being, the JEWS were blamed for the 1920 riots by someone who was not taking sides.

He was "taking sides"; and I don't feel obliged to defer to his opinion about what is a sufficient excuse for killing people.

All this time you were trying to defend the Jews by arguing that the Arabs "started it" !!

Started the killing? Yes, certainly they did. You may feel they had an excuse for killing, but the "cause" you offered, that they only kill because the Israeli army does, was blatantly wrong: they started it long before the Jews even had an army, before any Jew had killed any Arab, decades before in fact.

Do you know why 2+2=4 ???

Because the definition of "4" is "1 more than 3" and the definition of "3" is "1 more than 2" so the word "4" means more than "2" by "1 more than 1" which happens to be the definition of "2".

Clearly, you have no idea what's going on here... so i suggest you run your google searches and get back to me.

I have a graduate degree in mathematics, and have written on "foundational" issues: your smug sense of superiority is particularly "unearned" in this case. There are many deep problems with the "arithmetic" of infinite quantities, but no: there is no problem about 2+2 equalling 4.

I believe in a Absolutely Transcendent deity, who has knowledge of all times.

I don't believe the deity functions as an "informational storage device" or that an anthropomorphizing term like "knowledge" is really applicable at all.

WOMEN COULD NOT DIVORCE THEIR HUSBANDS IN PRE ISLAMIC ARABIA!

So correct my sentence, then, to "It was the RULE that if a woman was divorced by her husband, she could NEVER marry a relative of his."

So like I said, where the hell are you getting this "rule" from ??? Are you just like making stuff up now??

Rules against "in-law-cest" are in the Torah (as well as many other codes from the early Middle East) and commentators explain the reasons, for those who don't find them self-evident. Why, in your opinion, is the Qur'an even talking about their being any concern over whether Muhammad should be allowed to marry Zaid's divorced wife, and giving a special revelation about it, if you don't believe that there had ever been any problem about such things?

Wait a minute... That land was conquered by the Egyptians, and since the Jews were canaanits, it means that by re-conquering their own land, they were not functioning as seditionists. After all, they did not stay within Egypt proper, they got up and left for home. The fact that the had to retake their home (via the covenant) does not make them seditionists.

Wait a minute... That land was conquered by the Ottomans, and since the Jews were Canaanites, it means that by re-conquering their own land, they were not functioning as seditionists. After all, they did not attack Turkey proper, they got up and left for home. The fact that they had to retake their home (via the covenant) does not make them seditionists.

The original covenant was with Abraham (pbuh) and the Muslims believe Ismail (pbuh) was just as much a part of it as Isaac (pbuh).

THAT was the covenant that if he circumcised his sons as a mark of worshipping the One God and no other, that his descendants would be multiplied and spread out over wide territories. Jews, also, believe that the Ishmaelites were included in that.

Meaning the Jews have no special relation to that land that can not be matched by the Arabs (if you want to try religious reasoning).

The covenant at Sinai, about the land of Cana'an specifically, if they remembered the Torah (temporary expulsions to be the penalty for not observing it), was separate, the "covenant of Moses" as opposed to the "covenant of Abraham".

Also, what about the Jews who themselves believe that they do not have a right to posses the land of Israel until the coming of the messiah?? What happened to the covenant according to their view?

I know of the existence of such people, but no more about the details of their views than what you have said.

you actually think this saves your view from a gross contradiction?? One one hand, America supposedly supports Israel despite losing so much, only due to emotional attachment, but on the other it supports the Saudis despite intense emotional hatred...

What pushed America to arm Israel, despite the cost to us from that, was that the Palestinians attacked on our soil; during the Six-Day War, regardless of which side we rooted for, it was "not our fight" but RFK and the hijackings changed that. And we don't like it, one bit, that the Saudis silence and muffle their women, and have preachers spewing hateful nonsense, etc., but it is "not our problem" so we hold our noses and do business with them. 9/11, with all but one hijacker Saudi, could have changed all that: the whole Muslim world owes Dubya a great debt of gratitude (yep, you heard me right!) for his masterful deflection, convincing a lot of the hyper-emotional people that Saddam Hussein somehow was responsible, so we could take out our vengeful anger by invading Iraq. We should, of course, be occupying Mecca rather than Baghdad, and if we are attacked by Saudis on our own soil again, it may yet come to that: we may not be able to destroy Islam with one blow, but we could knock out one "pillar".

drinking mountain dew is a symptom, never the source of a person's stupidity.

I must be smarter today, then: I'm getting my caffeine fix from coffee!

 

[c0de]

I can't afford a ticket to China right now, or I'd be tempted to come to your place and throw rocks at you, and ask if you feel assaulted.

Bottom line: the Israeli government uses infantry to tackle 12 year olds with rocks! And you think they are morally superior?

He was "taking sides"; and I don't feel obliged to defer to his opinion about what is a sufficient excuse for killing people.

He was not taking any side! And by rejecting his verdict on the issue, you just lost this debate.

You yourself already said that his opinion of "my people" was not that high either (obviously, he was a colonist). So you have no excuse to reject his opinion other then sheer bias.

Started the killing? Yes, certainly they did.

CONTRADICTION:

When Israeli soldiers supposedly "defend" themselves by "starting" to fire bullets at kids with rocks, they have sufficient justification? But when the Arabs started the violence (with due prior provocation, according to Lord Curzon) they are morally inferior?

Hypocrisy, plain and simple!

Because the definition of "4" is "1 more than 3" and the definition of "3" is "1 more than 2" so the word "4" means more than "2" by "1 more than 1" which happens to be the definition of "2".

I have a graduate degree in mathematics, and have written on "foundational" issues: your smug sense of superiority is particularly "unearned" in this case. There are many deep problems with the "arithmetic" of infinite quantities, but no: there is no problem about 2+2 equalling 4.

!!

Do you even know what the hell I was saying ???

I didn't say there was a "problem" with 2+2 equaling four, professor! I asked you WHY does it equal four? You replied by saying because it can ONLY equal four, and there was no other possibility. But it is a FACT that sufficient reasoning can be provided for 2+2 equaling 5 in another model which would be just as equally mathematically valid as our universe! So why did our model come into existence and not another???

What this shows is that the foundations of mathematical truth are completely elusive and hence the "definitions" are arbitrary. God set up this world the way it is, which means He created ALL the concepts. It follows that HE was the one who DEFINED what "Four" is and this is not a concept that existed before God defined it.

I don't believe the deity functions as an "informational storage device" or that an anthropomorphizing term like "knowledge" is really applicable at all.

God does not "store" information, He creates it.

So correct my sentence, then, to "It was the RULE that if a woman was divorced by her husband, she could NEVER marry a relative of his."

But that is NOT what happened! She was not divorced by Zaid (ra) she never wanted to marry him in the first place! The marriage was itself arranged by the Prophet who she wanted to marry!

Rules against "in-law-cest" are in the Torah (as well as many other codes from the early Middle East) and commentators explain the reasons, for those who don't find them self-evident. Why, in your opinion, is the Qur'an even talking about their being any concern over whether Muhammad should be allowed to marry Zaid's divorced wife, and giving a special revelation about it, if you don't believe that there had ever been any problem about such things?

Because the "rule" that was being over turned was there is no difference between adopted and blood relatives. This itself is the reason for the verse. There is no justification for you insinuation that there was duress here. You are just assuming that because of your biases against the Prophet.

Wait a minute... That land was conquered by the Ottomans, and since the Jews were Canaanites, it means that by re-conquering their own land, they were not functioning as seditionists. After all, they did not attack Turkey proper, they got up and left for home. The fact that they had to retake their home (via the covenant) does not make them seditionists.

Exactly!! (thankU again!) and like I said: the right of force is ALL that is in play here: hence, no one has the moral high-ground!

I know of the existence of such people, but no more about the details of their views than what you have said.

Well, they believe the Jews have no right via the covenant to have a state in Israel. Why? Because they believe the Messiah has to redeem them because they broke the covenant and got booted out of the land by God. Which kinda makes sense, because even today most of the Jews are living OUTSIDE Israel.

What pushed America to arm Israel, despite the cost to us from that, was that the Palestinians attacked on our soil; during the Six-Day War, regardless of which side we rooted for, it was "not our fight" but RFK and the hijackings changed that. And we don't like it, one bit, that the Saudis silence and muffle their women, and have preachers spewing hateful nonsense, etc., but it is "not our problem" so we hold our noses and do business with them. 9/11, with all but one hijacker Saudi, could have changed all that: the whole Muslim world owes Dubya a great debt of gratitude (yep, you heard me right!) for his masterful deflection, convincing a lot of the hyper-emotional people that Saddam Hussein somehow was responsible, so we could take out our vengeful anger by invading Iraq. We should, of course, be occupying Mecca rather than Baghdad, and if we are attacked by Saudis on our own soil again, it may yet come to that: we may not be able to destroy Islam with one blow, but we could knock out one "pillar".

Yea, nice try, but it does NOT solve the glaring contradiction in your argument, according to which the US should have bombed Saudi Arabia for 9/11, but it didn't. But the same emotions supposedly were the sole cause of supporting Israel at (supposedly) great strategic costs to the United States for the past half a century.

It is a nonsensical view.

I must be smarter today, then: I'm getting my caffeine fix from coffee!

I advise you to detoxify yourself

 

[c0de]

.\

p.s.


Since you have a degree in mathematics, I am actually interested in your opinion on this issue but you have to actually make an effort instead of dismissing the issue superficially.

So, to recap:

• My position is that the fundamental "truths" about the universe were defined by God, including the laws of mathematics and definitions of good and evil.

• Your position is that these laws exist independently.

• My objection is this: how can you claim this as a certainty when the foundations of mathematics itself lies in uncertainty, and other systems (in which 2+2 can equal 5) can also be shown to be valid?

 

[bob x]

Bottom line: the Israeli government uses infantry to tackle 12 year olds with rocks!

They use their infantry to patrol the border and to hunt down rocket-launchers and the planners of suicide bombings and suchlike attacks. Teenagers with rocks stupidly inject themselves into the fight, but are not what the Israelis are looking for. Generally the Israelis prefer to ignore them if they do not get so close as to be able to assault them seriously, and if they do, the Israelis fire rubber bullets since they are less likely to be lethal, although of course they can be, as in the unfortunate case of this youngster who took one to the carotid artery.

On another board a story was posted about a persistent rock-thrower whom the Israeli soldiers managed to grab and tie to their car to keep him under control. The other Palestinian kids then started taunting him and throwing rocks at HIM. The poster was incensed, and thought we should all be angry too, AT THE ISRAELIS for "endangering" this boy. Well, he wasn't in any danger except from his so-called "friends"! And the pro-Palestinians on that board, just like you, don't seem to think there is anything wrong with throwing rocks at people in the first place.

And you think they are morally superior?

To the Palestinians? The Palestinians teach their kids from a young age to attack people, to get them in the right frame of mind to grow up to be rocket-launchers or suicide bombers. They encourage them to go out and attack armed men, pointlessly, evidently wanting their own children to get badly hurt or killed so they can whine about how evil the Israelis are. It is as if they tell their kids to play on the freeway, and call it the drivers' fault if some of them get hit.

He was not taking any side!

??? He was taking the Arab side. That's why you're quoting him.

And by rejecting his verdict on the issue, you just lost this debate.

Who appointed him as ruler over me? I do not defer to "George Nathaniel Curzon, that most superior person, so pink his cheek, his hair is sleek, he dines at Blenheim twice a week!"

You yourself already said that his opinion of "my people" was not that high either (obviously, he was a colonist).

As Viceroy he did favor the Muslims over the Hindus: is that why you think he is unquestionable? But this was (as his own correspondence shows) a purely cynical divide-and-rule tactic; later, as Foreign Secretary for Eastern Affairs (the role he was in when you quote him) he said the Arabs could be trusted to remain loyal subjects because "We have broken their moral strength, the Caliphate of Islam." He then was driven deeper and deeper into the political "wilderness" partly because other British politicians could not stand his insufferably smug personality, but also because "his war-mongering among all peoples" (as one observer put it) was perceived as having endangered the stability of British control over the Raj and the Mandates.

So you have no excuse to reject his opinion other then sheer bias.

Indeed I have a bias against snobbish imperialists.

When Israeli soldiers supposedly "defend" themselves by "starting" to fire bullets at kids with rocks, they have sufficient justification? But when the Arabs started the violence (with due prior provocation, according to Lord Curzon) they are morally inferior?

The only "due" provocation for violence is to stop violence from the other side. No Jew had killed or threatened any Arab, so far as I know (contradict me if you can), when the Arabs determined to kill all the Jews, not only the immigrants but communities like East Jerusalem and Hebron who had been there for centuries since the Ottomans invited them, and even communities like Tzefat, which had been there continuously since before the Arabs.

But it is a FACT that sufficient reasoning can be provided for 2+2 equaling 5 in another model which would be just as equally mathematically valid as our universe!

No. What is true is that it is possible to state foundational axioms for set theory which sound perfectly plausible, but lead to contradictions-- and from a contradiction, anything can be derived, which is the point of mentioning that "2+2=5" can be derived: that is meant to tell you that every statement can be proven true, and also proven false, under these models, which are thus not exactly "equally valid"!

Do you know the old chestnut (from medieval times), "Grant me that 2+2=5, and I can prove that I am both Pope and Emperor"? I think that is what they are referring to. It goes like this: 2+2=5, datum ("given"). Equals taken from equals leave equals, axiom. So take two from each side, hence 2=3. Then take one from each, hence 1=2. I and the Pope and the Emperor are three, ergo we are two, ergo we are one, quod erat demonstrandum!

But Goedel showed that any model which does not lead to contradictions must lead to unresolvable questions. Under the Zermelo-Frankel axioms, there are no contradictions (2+2=4, not 5) but two questions about infinities are known to be unresolvable: the Axiom of Choice (out of an uncountably infinite set, it is always possible to distinguish one element as "your favorite") and the Continuum Hypothesis (any set smaller than the set of real numbers is countable, that is, either finite or of the same infinite size as the set of natural numbers) can neither be proven true nor false (no contradictions arise from adding either one, or the denial of either one, to the Z-F axiom set) and they are independently so (adding Axiom of Choice does not let you prove or disprove the Continuum Hypothesis or vice versa). You can put "God" in here if you like: either He created the kind of universe I believe in, where Choice is true, or the kind you believe in, where Choice is false, and He made some "decision" about the Continuum and maybe other mathematically unresolvable issues we have not identified.

God does not "store" information, He creates it.

Whatever: it is not the same as "knowing" if that word is intended as a crude analogy to our own brain processes, is what I am saying. I do not believe in the "Akasha Chronicle" (the set of all information about future times, regarded as an entity existent within the present time): not that I claim that it is provably a false concept (the "superdeterministic" model you prefer to believe in is logically consistent; I just don't have faith in it).

But that is NOT what happened! She was not divorced by Zaid (ra) she never wanted to marry him in the first place! The marriage was itself arranged by the Prophet who she wanted to marry!

If you say so: I do not know the extra-Qur'anic sources explaining the story further; the Qur'an itself is rather vague here, you know. A woman betrothed to or promised to another was regarded as equally untouchable as a woman already married to him.

Because the "rule" that was being over turned was there is no difference between adopted and blood relatives...

...for purposes of forbidding a marriage to a woman who "belonged" to, or ever had "belonged" to, a relative.

There is no justification for you insinuation that there was duress here.

I have repeatedly tried to clarify that I do not make any accusation that there was duress in this particular case: but the existence of the old "bright line" rule that you just "don't go there!" was to deter any such duress or other improper influence by making it ineffectual.

Exactly!! (thankU again!) and like I said: the right of force is ALL that is in play here

Not in the period that we are speaking of, when the Jews had no armed force yet, only money on their side: they were peacefully entering as purchasers. They were expecting, indeed demanding, to be treated as citizens with the right of political participation in their new home, not to be treated as vassals of Muslim overlords: you likewise do not seem to approve of the ritual humiliations the dhimmi of Palestine were subjected to, and indeed, neither did most of the Muslim world, in which such customs had long been abolished or had never taken root in the first place (Palestine was particularly retrograde). Yes, as you have educated me, many of the Zionists expected to overwhelm the Arabs by sheer numbers, politically dominating them within a "Jewish state"; but the Jews did not at that time have the force to compel such an outcome. It was the British who had the force on their side, and as you point out, while they encouraged Jewish immigration up to a point, they were not inclined to allow the Jews to become a majority or to relegate the Arabs to political inferiority or irrelevance.

Yea, nice try, but it does NOT solve the glaring contradiction in your argument, according to which the US should have bombed Saudi Arabia for 9/11, but it didn't. But the same emotions supposedly were the sole cause of supporting Israel at (supposedly) great strategic costs to the United States for the past half a century.

Occupying or destroying Mecca would obviously be a far more radical, costly, and dangerous move than arming Israel. How would you, personally, have reacted if the headlines on September 12, 2001 had been about a hundred-megaton H-bomb melting the Kaaba and its environs, and maybe another one dropped on Medina? How about more radical Muslims of your acquaintance? While the desire to do that was the first thought on my mind (and the mind of many others throughout the United States) on September 11, I realized that it was probably not really a good idea.

 

[c0de]

.

No. What is true is that it is possible to state foundational axioms for set theory which sound perfectly plausible, but lead to contradictions-- and from a contradiction, anything can be derived, which is the point of mentioning that "2+2=5" can be derived: that is meant to tell you that every statement can be proven true, and also proven false, under these models, which are thus not exactly "equally valid"!

---
But Goedel showed that any model which does not lead to contradictions must lead to unresolvable questions.
---

Okay, questions:

1. You and Goedel are both Platonists, but Platonism has major philosophical objections. For example, if you believe things like "4" or "good" or "triangles" exist independently of our (or God's) definitions, then where are they?? Do they exist somewhere in this universe?? Have you or Godel ever actually seen a "4"; or a "triangle"; or an entity called "good"??
2. Most mathematicians are basically neoplatonists, but not ALL of them. What about Formalism? Hilbert (after Goedel's work) believed that there was no actual meaning in mathematics whatsoever. So definitions of "4" are just as arbitrary as anything else because all the proof that goes into proving that 2+2 equals 4 is just a "consequence of string manipulation rules"
3. According to Goedel, formal systems contain at least one "true but improvable" statement. But how can a statement be considered "true" (in rational terms) if it is improvable?
4. If it is possible to state a "foundational axiom for set theory" which is perfectly plausible for 2+2 equaling 5, then doesn't this itself reveal a problem in set theory and the fundamental system of math?

You can put "God" in here if you like: either He created the kind of universe I believe in, where Choice is true,or the kind you believe in, where Choice is false, where Choice is false, and He made some "decision" about the Continuum and maybe other mathematically unresolvable issues we have not identified.

Interesting.

Whatever: it is not the same as "knowing" if that word is intended as a crude analogy to our own brain processes, is what I am saying.

An All-Knowing Creator would know all (duh!) by whatever transcendent method.

Yes, as you have educated me, many of the Zionists expected to overwhelm the Arabs by sheer numbers, politically dominating them within a "Jewish state"; but the Jews did not at that time have the force to compel such an outcome.

So the Arabs should have waited until the Jews actually gained the force to overwhelm them (in terms of weapons, numbers, and political power) before they started rioting??

It has been made clear to you (and you accept) that the Jews, and the Arabs and the British knew the intentions of the Zionists. But if you still want to deny that the Arabs were provoked... then what can I say?

It is clear neither you nor I are going to budge on this. You can keep believing Israel is morally superior, but I dont think anyone in this conflict is.

I do not defer to "George Nathaniel Curzon, that most superior person, so pink his cheek, his hair is sleek, he dines at Blenheim twice a week!"----Indeed I have a bias against snobbish imperialists.

No Jew had killed or threatened any Arab, so far as I know

Well, I think he gave a reasoned analysis of the situation on the ground prior to the 1920 riots. He said the Jews provoked the Arabs due to their impatience to achieve independence.

And the pro-Palestinians on that board, just like you, don't seem to think there isanything wrong with throwing rocks at people in the first place.

Wait... so 12 year old Palestinians are "combatants"
... but the Israeli soldiers just "people" ?

... Tell me something honestly, do you think hiroshima, nagasaki and all the firebombing was just "collateral damage" ??

...for purposes of forbidding a marriage to a woman who "belonged" to, or ever had "belonged" to, a relative.

If the verse makes it clear that blood relatives are not the same as adoptive relatives, then it becomes a general principle and can be applied to everything.

That is the point of the verse, like I have been telling you all along. The first response I gave to you (which you dismissed as irrelevant without proper consideration) said clearly that adopted children should always be told that they are adopted because their identity is their right. It is this verse in the Quran which promotes this understanding.

Occupying or destroying Mecca would obviously be a far more radical, costly, and dangerous move than arming Israel. How would you, personally, have reacted if the headlines on September 12, 2001 had been about a hundred-megaton H-bomb melting the Kaaba and its environs, and maybe another one dropped on Medina? How about more radical Muslims of your acquaintance? While the desire to do that was the first thought on my mind (and the mind of many others throughout the United States) on September 11, I realized that it was probably not really a good idea.

Firstly, the US is actually restraining sales to Israel (and has been for a while) because Israel has a habbit of forwarding that tech to China. Even though the Israeli public has a very positive emotional response to the US, its government still considers it okay to screw it.

Also, your Mecca/Medina argument still does NOT solve the contradiction. Your nation didn't have to destroy Makka/Medina but just oust the Saudi family who has supported the wahabis for over a century and occupy the oil fields in the process. I bet even the Muslims would have secretly cheered the Americans for finally booting out the Sauds along with like 99% of Americans.

Public opinion has no direct control over policy but is part of a feedback loop. So the idea that the US has only been supporting Israel due to the american public's view of the middle east is gross over simplification.

 

[c0de]

.


p.s.

About Socrates himself, there is a self-contradictory aspect to Plato's entire narrative about him, which I feel might even be evidence that Plato has corrupted his message (just like other contemporaries of his who put their own words in Socrates' mouth.)

For example, Socrates (supposedly) makes the claim that the key to a virtuous life is knowledge. But his entire claim to fame was that he was the only one who knew that he knew nothing. So how can he claim that knowledge was the key to virtue and simultaneously hold the position that no one (including him) had any claim to what "knowledge" was?

What we do know about Socrates is that he considered his duty to go to the "wise" who claimed that they had knowledge of the real world and tear apart their arguments. He was exceptionally good at that, so the idea that he would end up making the same mistake as them doesn't follow. (which also explains the real meaning of the cave analogy, which most people completely misinterpret).

This is why I think that the idea that "good is independent of God" and the (absurd) "world of ideas" stuff might be Plato, and not Socrates. There are obvious flaws in such views and I think Socrates was smarter then that. Plus, I think that If Socrates really did have such strong notions about the nature of reality, he would not have left his own ideas and thoughts in the care of a 25 year old student (Plato) but would have written about it himself. In fact, I am sure that if Socrates was alive at the time of Plato, he would have gone to Plato's school and given him the same treatment that he gave the "wise" of his own generation.

 

[Muslimwoman]

And you: you seem to feel, "Oh look, how cute, a kid throwing rocks!"

To the Palestinians? The Palestinians teach their kids from a young age to attack people, to get them in the right frame of mind to grow up to be rocket-launchers or suicide bombers. They encourage them to go out and attack armed men, pointlessly, evidently wanting their own children to get badly hurt or killed so they can whine about how evil the Israelis are. It is as if they tell their kids to play on the freeway, and call it the drivers' fault if some of them get hit.

This blog post has 6 video's of children throwing rocks

please note that one of the children throwing rocks from the rooftop is barely out of nappies (diapers)

Israeli Children throw rocks/attack/riot against Palestinians and International Humanitarian Aid Workers | MR's Blog

so by your standard their parents have taught them to hate and to be violent (throwing rocks), they are combatants and they deserve to be shot.

...

....


...

Of course these are Jewish Israeli children, so I wonder how many have been shot and killed?

 

[bob x]

[*]You and Goedel are both Platonists

I don't believe that is at all an accurate description of Goedel, and I know it isn't of me.

if you believe things like "4" or "good" or "triangles" exist independently of our (or God's) definitions, then where are they??

I do not in the least believe they are independent of our definitions. My proof of "2+2=4" if you recall depended entirety on the (human) definitions of the words "two, three, and four".

[*]According to Goedel, formal systems contain at least one "true but improvable" statement. But how can a statement be considered "true" (in rational terms) if it is improvable?

As I said, you can throw God in at THIS point if you like. It is unprovable ("improvable" in English means "capable of being improved" not "incapable of being proven") whether Choice is true or No Choice is true. A universe would contain no contradictions either way, and God could create either.

[*]If it is possible to state a "foundational axiom for set theory" which is perfectly plausible for 2+2 equaling 5, then doesn't this itself reveal a problem in set theory and the fundamental system of math?

No, it simply reveals the fallibility in our perceptions of "plausibility": Frege's axioms looked perfectly plausible, but contained the possibility of self-referential objects (sets could be members of themselves, or not: in Russell's example, the set of all rabbits is not itself a rabbit, and the set of all non-rabbits is not a rabbit either, so the set of all rabbits is not a member of itself, but the set of all non-rabbits is a member of itself), and therefore contained both unprovables (whether the "set of all sets which are members of themselves" is a member of itself, or not, is incapable of determination: declare whichever one true you prefer) and contradictions (the "set of all sets which are not members of themselves"), from which "2+2=5" can be proven along with "2+2 does not equal 5" and every other statement, and its opposite.

An All-Knowing Creator would know all (duh!) by whatever transcendent method.

"Transcendent" here appears to be code for "I don't have a clue what I mean." The word "know" implies a close analogy to our own brain's methods, which is why I regard it as completely inappropriate, a relic of crude anthropomorphic concepts of God.

So the Arabs should have waited until the Jews actually gained the force to overwhelm them (in terms of weapons, numbers, and political power)

The British at the time did not allow the Jews to have any weapons, and would not allow Jewish immigration beyond the numbers of Arab immigration (to make sure the Arabs continued to outnumber them), and had no intentions of giving political power to anyone except on their own terms.

Well, I think he gave a reasoned analysis of the situation on the ground prior to the 1920 riots. He said the Jews provoked the Arabs due to their impatience to achieve independence.

Just as he thought those shot at Amritsar had it coming. Curzon believed that anyone who did not accept being ruled by the British needed to be killed, just like the Mufti believed that anyone who did not accept being ruled by Muslims needed to be killed; Curzon would equally have favored killing Arabs by the car-load if he had lived long enough to realize that they weren't as broken and docile subservients as he thought. You, with your view that governments are always in the right to kill dissenters, cannot see any moral problem here-- but you should know better than to think Americans will ever view your position as anything less than profoundly disgusting.

Wait... so 12 year old Palestinians are "combatants"
... but the Israeli soldiers just "people" ?

HOW MANY TIMES have I repeated to you that Israeli soldiers are, of course, "combatants" and therefore that the kids attacking them are at least not acting as disgustingly as the Palestinian "adults" who seldom attack anyone except non-combatants? But when the kids throw themselves into combat, they're likely to get hurt. Unlike the Palestinians, the Israelis do not go hunting for children to kill; and when the kids inject themselves, the Israelis prefer to ignore them, restrain them, or fire lethal ammo, but naturally there are going to be fatal outcomes sometimes. The Palestinians WANT their own kids killed, so they can try to pretend they have as long a list of innocent victims as the other side, but the list of kids is still too short, so they even have to draft as "victims" kids like Muhammad Durrah, whom they shot themselves.

Also, your Mecca/Medina argument still does NOT solve the contradiction. Your nation didn't have to destroy Makka/Medina but just oust the Saudi family who has supported the wahabis for over a century and occupy the oil fields in the process.

To satisfy the public emotions? Oh no no no: the public emotions want ISLAM destroyed; the American public is not big on distinguishing among your various sects, and mostly would not recognize the word "wahabi". Nor, in fact, do I really think that destroying the Wahabi sect alone would really get to the root of the problem, which as you have amply demonstrated in this thread is indeed within the nature of Islam itself.

But suppose that ousting the Saudi family would suffice. Who would we replace them with? The country does not seem to be filled with incipient Thomas Jeffersons. Iraq at least had a large class of educated and secular-minded people, but look how long it took for any semblance of elected institutions to take root there. We would have to OCCUPY Arabia for decades, and would American troops in Mecca really cost us much less in anger in the Muslim world, and the consequent danger of a world war with a billion foes, than just nuking the place and getting it over with?

This blog post has 6 video's of children throwing rocks...so by your standard their parents have taught them to hate and to be violent (throwing rocks), they are combatants and they deserve to be shot.

They certainly need to be forcibly restrained; how forcibly, as with the Palestinian punks, depends on how much danger of serious assault they are presenting, but if some of them get killed, that is definitely the fault of the people who taught them to be that way.

Of course these are Jewish

I don't give a Goddamn which religion they are. Punks are punks.

 

[c0de]

I don't believe that is at all an accurate description of Goedel, and I know it isn't of me.

Goedel was a CONFIRMED platonist. In a lecture at Brown in 1951 he stated: “The truth, I believe, is that these concepts form an objective reality of their own, which we cannot create or change but only perceive and describe”

And as for you: this is what you said in post #173: "Here I profoundly disagree with you, and take rather the position of Socrates that "nothing is good because gods say so; rather, the gods say so because it is good."

Both of these statements by you and Goedel are prototypical platonist positions. So you are contradicting yourself when you say that definitions of "4" are human constructs because that is an anti-platonist view. You can not hold two contradictory positions and be taken seriously (choose a side and be consistent, like Goedel).

So would you like to adjust your position on the following issue: "Good is defined by God and does not precede Him?"

No, it simply reveals the fallibility in our perceptions of "plausibility":

If mathematicians can't even prove that every even number is the sum of two prime numbers, then those who want to make (current) mathematics seem as the foundation of all human knowledge are screwed.

Everyday engineers who are building dams or whatever don't care obviously, but people like Hilbert were psychologically devastated by Goedel's theorems. Hilbert never published in that field again. Even Russel said "Does this mean 2+2=4.0001 ? I'm glad im not working in mathematical logic these days!"

"Transcendent" here appears to be code for "I don't have a clue what I mean." The word "know" implies a close analogy to our own brain's methods, which is why I regard it as completely inappropriate, a relic of crude anthropomorphic concepts of God.

#1: Of course I have no clue how God does what He does.

#2: the statement "true but improvable" isn't that far off from this actually.

#3: That standard accusation of anthromorphicism does not apply to my philosophy. You are again forgetting my position on human existence (or the lack thereof).

The British at the time did not allow the Jews to have any weapons

And did this justify their start of violence against the British? Remember, they were the ones who started the trend of suicide bombing.

If you say the Jews were justified, then you are again in total contradictions of your own previous statements.

You, with your view that governments are always in the right to kill dissenters, cannot see any moral problem here-- but you should know better than to think Americans will ever view your position as anything less than profoundly disgusting.

Yea whatever

I can see how logical views of Americans like yourself are on this issue.

Your argument that the Jews had the moral highground is a total wasteland.

The Palestinians WANT their own kids killed,

rrrrrrite

To satisfy the public emotions? Oh no no no: the public emotions want ISLAM destroyed;

Then what is your government doing in Afghanistan and Iraq?? Beating around the bush?? (pun intended) In fact, why are you planning on leaving Iraq and Afghanistan???

Nor, in fact, do I really think that destroying the Wahabi sect alone would really get to the root of the problem, which as you have amply demonstrated in this thread is indeed within the nature of Islam itself.

You ignored my question: Do you believe nagasaki, hiroshima, and the firebombing was "collateral damage" ??

You thought I wouldnt notice? And your still accusing my beliefs to inspire violence? Even when I am not the one who is claiming moral supremacy for any side int his conflict?

They certainly need to be forcibly restrained; how forcibly, as with the Palestinian punks, depends on how much danger of serious assault they are presenting, but if some of them get killed, that is definitely the fault of the people who taught them to be that way.

I don't give a Goddamn which religion they are. Punks are punks.

So it is clear that Palestinians are not the only ones who teach hatred to their progeny. Clearly, as that video evidence proved, the settlers in Israel are just as mental as the Palestinians (which is a known fact within Israel.)

 

[Muslimwoman]

So it is clear that Palestinians are not the only ones who teach hatred to their progeny. Clearly, as that video evidence proved, the settlers in Israel are just as mental as the Palestinians (which is a known fact within Israel.)

This is really the crux of the matter, to suggest one side has a right to defend itself and it's land but not the other is just plain crazy. To support one side totally while the other is living in a forced ghetto is plain wrong. To say a country is breaking international laws by continuing to steal land and do nothing about it is to support everything that country does and stands for.

To then say children throwing rocks in a war zone deserve to die is just plain inhumane (oh and Bob x .. it's easy to say they should be punished but not killed but when you defend Israel and say the child throwing stones at a tank was not killed that day but on a day he was throwing rocks at heavily armed soldiers then you ARE saying he deserved to die because you are defending his murderers).

We saw the Israeli's welcoming their troops back from the flotilla and shouting "death to the arabs", we saw young Israeli schoolgirls writing messages of hate on bombs about to be dropped on the civilian population of Gaza last year .... and yet all we hear from Israel and it's defenders is it's nothing to do with hatred, they are just defending themselves.

 

[bob x]

Sorry to have been away for so long.

c0de: it is very hard to talk because it is not just your answers to philosophical questions which I find so wrong-headed, but the very language in which you frame the issues in the first place. You cannot even see how much anthropomorphism you have inflicted on your concept of "God": the fact that you disregard real, actual people is irrelevant to the fact that the imaginary being to which you do pay regard is based on what people are like. You think in terms of God "choosing" whether 2+2 is going to equal 4 or 5 the same way I think about choosing whether breakfast is going to equal donuts or a bowl of cereal. It is odd to me that you think the choice about breakfast is "superdetermined"; but it is downright bizarre to me that you think the "choice" about 2+2 is a free-will contingency: nothing could possibly be more superdetermined than that. This is not to say that God has no freedom: the choice as to whether anybody else has free choices is, itself, strictly a free one. That, to me, is the supreme marvel of the universe and the Creator: your contempt for everything God made, and wish that God would hurry up and create something else instead, just strikes me as sad. And there is something very odd, too, about the way that you take your style of thought so much for granted, berating me for not picking up immediately that you mean these concepts which would never occur to me, and thinking that no-one could possibly disagree with them without buying into the whole baggage of "Platonism".

As to Hiroshima/Nagasaki: there were debates at the time, too, about whether it was appropriate to drop such weapons on cities. One proposal was to blow off the top of Mt. Fuji as a demonstration: but would that just have conveyed the notion that we would never really use the weapon? Or to blow up the Imperial compound in Kyoto, to bring it home to those truly responsible: but would that have undercut the emperor so badly that no-one anymore would have the authority to tell Japan to stop? Or to wait a long time, certainly not just days, after the first one to see if that was enough: but would Japan think it was a one-time wonder and that we couldn't make more? Look: we didn't start that war. After WWI, we rejected Wilson's plea to help "police the world", and returned to a minimalist military and our old policy of staying far away from Eurasia's fight. We were violently dragged into that war; we didn't start it, but we damn sure finished it (along with the UK and, especially, the USSR). The estimated butcher's bill for finishing it conventionally was over a million deaths on each side-- and that may even have been an underestimate of Japan's reluctance to stop (after the atomic bombings, there was still a faction that tried to sieze Tokyo's radio station and steal the recording of the surrender announcement, to prevent its broadcast). Because we decisively ended that war, large regions of the world, including Japan, have known peace, continuously, for an entire human life-span, something never before recorded in all the history of the species. You think that accomplishment is nothing, but it isn't; just like you think prosperity doesn't matter, but it does.

Sally: I would be glad to come to your home and throw rocks at your head, if you think you would find that endearing. I suspect that like most people, you would not, and would insist that I be stopped, as forcibly as need be. Yes, it is better if those punks can be ignored, or detained, or deterred non-lethally, but if they get themselves killed, they are way way way down on my list of people to mourn. We have, in our grittier cities, lots of punks who like to pick fights with people, and sometimes they pick fights with people who have guns, and so they get killed; I'm not happy to hear of it, but as with a teenager who gets rip-roaring drunk and crashes his car, I shrug, reserving my tears for the case where the drunk kills people who did nothing to ask for it, which is the case that you just don't give a damn about.

 

[c0de]

and thinking that no-one could possibly disagree with them without buying into the whole baggage of "Platonism".

This is just precious.

YOU were the one who said you believed in the Platonic conception of goodness !!! And now, when I point out its fundamental weaknesses, you are trying to backtrack (unsuccessfully even! observe):

It is odd to me that you think the choice about breakfast is "superdetermined"; but it is downright bizarre to me that you think the "choice" about 2+2 is a free-will contingency: nothing could possibly be more superdetermined than that.

(lolz) this is the SAME position as Plato!! And is just as logically stupid today as it was millenia ago. i thought u didnt want all that baggage>??

You cannot even see how much anthropomorphism you have inflicted on your concept of "God":

this comin from a guy who thinks God talks to him...

(lolz)

the fact that you disregard real, actual people

Do you even know what "real" is in the terms we are speaking of?

Keep your subjective "warm and fuzzy feelings" out of it.

As to Hiroshima/Nagasaki: there were debates at the time, too, about whether it was appropriate to drop such weapons on cities. One proposal was to blow off the top of Mt. Fuji as a demonstration: but would that just have conveyed the notion that we would never really use the weapon? Or to blow up the Imperial compound in Kyoto, to bring it home to those truly responsible: but would that have undercut the emperor so badly that no-one anymore would have the authority to tell Japan to stop? Or to wait a long time, certainly not just days, after the first one to see if that was enough: but would Japan think it was a one-time wonder and that we couldn't make more? Look: we didn't start that war. After WWI, we rejected Wilson's plea to help "police the world", and returned to a minimalist military and our old policy of staying far away from Eurasia's fight. We were violently dragged into that war; we didn't start it, but we damn sure finished it (along with the UK and, especially, the USSR). The estimated butcher's bill for finishing it conventionally was over a million deaths on each side-- and that may even have been an underestimate of Japan's reluctance to stop (after the atomic bombings, there was still a faction that tried to sieze Tokyo's radio station and steal the recording of the surrender announcement, to prevent its broadcast). Because we decisively ended that war, large regions of the world, including Japan, have known peace, continuously, for an entire human life-span, something never before recorded in all the history of the species. You think that accomplishment is nothing, but it isn't; just like you think prosperity doesn't matter, but it does.

bla bla (and yet more) bla.

in other words your position is: "Yes I believe we were right to firebomb all of Japan and then nuke em!"

 

[Dogbrain]

This is really the crux of the matter, to suggest one side has a right to defend itself and it's land but not the other is just plain crazy.

Gee, that's what the Palestinians and their cheerleaders say--the Palestinians get land, and the Isrealis get pushed into the sea.

Looks like there's plenty of evil to go around.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Sally: I would be glad to come to your home and throw rocks at your head, if you think you would find that endearing.

and if I threw you out of your home, shot your friends and kept you in an open prison I would expect you to come and throw rocks at me.

The boy in the picture above ... if he wasn't dead ... could be subject to up to 20 years, through a military court where he has no right to see a lwyer before the trial, for throwing that rock at a tank or even for throwing one at the concrete partition wall. So please explain to me why you feel this is a suitable punishment or defines justice.

reserving my tears for the case where the drunk kills people who did nothing to ask for it, which is the case that you just don't give a damn about.

Can you please find me any comment I have made stating I do not give a damn about innocent victims of crime or conflict and if not please retract that statement.

 

[bob x]

YOU were the one who said you believed in the Platonic conception of goodness !!!

The Socratic conception, not Plato's elaborations.

And now, when I point out its fundamental weaknesses, you are trying to backtrack

You have pointed out no weaknesses at all. I continue to maintain that a "commandment" system is NOT MORALITY AT ALL, but rather a complete abdication of the moral sense.

(lolz) this is the SAME position as Plato!!

Actually, the impossibility of logical contradictions was formulated by Aristotle, not Plato. You seem to use "Platonist" to mean anyone who doesn't believe in absolute nonsense; and of course, as usual berate me for not understanding that you have some unique and peculiar use of words. "Platonist" as I understand the word involves his notion that all material things are inaccurate copies of some Ideal: that there is, for example, an Ideal Dog which all dogs imperfectly reflect. I, of course, believe with the evolutionists that the "essence" of a dog, or any other living creature, is transient, constantly mutable, and thus inherently fuzzy; with the Buddhists that this applies to all material objects; with the nominalists that the labels we apply to categorize material objects are just sloppy concepts for our convenience.
I do distinguish the necessary from the contingent: oddly, it seems that you do also, except that you have everything exactly backwards.

this comin from a guy who thinks God talks to him...

I explained carefully to you that I outgrew such a simplistic notion of what was happening a very long time ago. Muhammad never did.

Do you even know what "real" is in the terms we are speaking of?

Yes. I am referring to the real world that we all actually live in, even you, despite your bizarre fantasizings.

in other words your position is: "Yes I believe we were right to firebomb all of Japan and then nuke em!"

As opposed to allowing them to continue their militaristic behavior forever and ever, at the cost of millions of lives? We did not have the option of living at peace with them: they would not allow us that. When someone starts a course of violence, the appropriate response is to do whatever it takes to bring it to an end.

and if I threw you out of your home, shot your friends and kept you in an open prison I would expect you to come and throw rocks at me.

The Palestinians are in prison because of their record of tens of thousands of random murders, going back to the decades when nobody was being thrown out of their homes except Jews, and their insistence on continuing this conduct. The keys to their prison are in their own hands, always have been.

The boy in the picture above ... if he wasn't dead ... could be subject to up to 20 years, through a military court where he has no right to see a lwyer before the trial, for throwing that rock at a tank or even for throwing one at the concrete partition wall.

That does not appear to be fact. Some posts back, I mentioned a case where a boy throwing rocks at the soldiers' heads was caught and tied to the car to stop him (we were all supposed to be outraged that the soldiers would do such a thing); more usually, the stone-throwers are ignored as far as possible.

Can you please find me any comment I have made stating I do not give a damn about innocent victims of crime or conflict and if not please retract that statement.

I do not find any comment you have ever made about the Palestinian custom of random murders. No comment whatsoever. That is precisely my point.

 

[Dogbrain]

[/SIZE][/SIZE]
"Platonist" as I understand the word involves his notion that all material things are inaccurate copies of some Ideal: that there is, for example, an Ideal Dog which all dogs imperfectly reflect. I, of course, believe with the evolutionists that the "essence" of a dog, or any other living creature, is transient, constantly mutable, and thus inherently fuzzy;

The realm of the ideal (eidos) is supposed to be a realm of unitary and perfect "real forms". That is, the "ideal" Dog would only have the quality of being "Dog". It would not be small, large, dark, light, friendly, unfriendly, stupid, smart, or have any other quality other than "Dog". It would not be a conglomeration of all dogs. It would be free of any concept or trait that is not solely "Dog". Likewise, all of these traits would have a single ideal existence. There are no large things in the ream of the eidos. There is only ideal largeness that is a thing but is no other thing.

Aristotle ripped Platonic metaphysics a few huge holes.

 

[c0de]

Yes. I am referring to the real world that we all actually live in, even you, despite your bizarre fantasizings.

(lolz) you mean the "real" world in which you can't even determine the position and velocity of an electron? That "real" world?

I explained carefully to you that I outgrew such a simplistic notion of what was happening a very long time ago.

This is what you said in post #179

"What God tells me, I listen to."

So does God talk to you or doesn't He??? Because if He does not then you can't say that you require no external system of morality. Only if you believe that God talks to you Personally can you claim that you do not require any commandments. And since we already know this is your position, here is a passage I picked out especially for you:

[FONT=&quot]'The most dangerous men in the world are contemplatives who are guided by nobody. They trust their own visions. They obey the attractions of an interior voice... The sweeter and warmer the feeling, the more they are convinced of their own infallibility.. The world is covered with scars that have been left in its flesh by visionaries such as these'[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]-Thomas Merton [/FONT]​

Case in point:

As opposed to allowing them to continue their militaristic behavior forever and ever, at the cost of millions of lives? We did not have the option of living at peace with them: they would not allow us that. When someone starts a course of violence, the appropriate response is to do whatever it takes to bring it to an end.

^^ Firebombing Japanese CIVILLIANS and NUKING TWO of their cities is the course of action which YOU are backing.

Here's a FACT: Strategically: the US had ALREADY won he war when the nukes were dropped. Japan was surrounded. Germany was finished. The War was essentially over. The only reason your government dropped the bomb was to save military casualties and money that would be spent in an invasion. They traded Japanese civilians for their soldiers. A cold, rationalistic, utilitarian calculation.

Even if that were NOT the case. The fact that you are supporting the killing of civilians in DIRECT attacks (under WHATEVER circumstances) just shows how TWISTED you and all those like you are.

The Socratic conception, not Plato's elaborations.

No, it's the "Socratic" conception as interpreted by PLATO. You said Good precedes God, correct? That is PLATO interpreting SOCRATES. The Greeks themselves thought that the closest to Socrates was not Plato, but Aistethenes and his follower Diogenes ridiculed Plato's conception of your "good preceding God" conception thus:

"Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.

"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."

Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"

Plato nodded.

"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.

Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."


^ This is how stupid your conception of "good" is.
No wonder you support nuking civilians

I continue to maintain that a "commandment" system is NOT MORALITY AT ALL, but rather a complete abdication of the moral sense.

As opposed to your system, which is based in utter stupidity, not to mention promotes nuclear holocaust.

Actually, the impossibility of logical contradictions was formulated by Aristotle, not Plato.

Did I say it was? I was referring to your implication that "4" has its own essence and can never be anything other then the result of 2+2. A platonist position that is mathematically unfounded and philosophically absurd. But at least it is consistent... which is a step up for you. Good job.

 

[Dogbrain]

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."

An excellent illustration of how Plato is the precursor of modern totalitarianism.