Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday May 18 2018, @02:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the war-crimes dept.

Democracy Now! reports
Meet Tarek Loubani, the Canadian Doctor Shot by Israeli Forces Monday While Treating Gaza's Wounded (Transcript)

As Palestinians vow to continue protesting against the Israeli occupation of Gaza, we speak to a Canadian doctor who was shot by Israeli forces in both legs Monday [May 14] while he was helping injured Palestinians. Israeli forces shot dead at least 61 unarmed Palestinian protesters taking part in the Great March of Return Monday, including one doctor. Canada, Britain, Germany, Ireland, and Belgium have called for an investigation into the killings. The United Nations Human Rights Council has announced that it will hold a special session Friday to discuss escalating violence in Gaza. We speak with Dr. Tarek Loubani, an emergency room medical doctor, one of 19 medical personnel shot in Gaza on Monday.

Audio and video links at the top of the page.

Pacifica Radio KPFK has a partial audio file, available till mid-July, ~7MB for the story. (KPFK is in fund drive mode.)
Gaza coverage begins at 13:25. The doctor's story is from 15:15 - 31:30.
He notes that the doctor who treated him was subsequently shot, resulting in his death--this, while he was wearing high-visibility clothing to denote his first-responder status.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 18 2018, @06:29PM (27 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 18 2018, @06:29PM (#681318) Journal

    We, various members of Soylent, have discussed that idea, a few times.

    You can't equate Christianity to Islam. The founder of Christianity commanded that his followers turn the other cheek. The founder of Islam commanded that everyone not Muslim should die, or be enslaved, with a couple notable exceptions.

    No, it isn't the same God. Mohammed drew a caricature of Jehovah, and placed that caricature at the top of his religion.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Underrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 18 2018, @07:22PM (21 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday May 18 2018, @07:22PM (#681334) Journal

    Jesus commanded people turn the other cheek because any day, Real Soon Now (TM), Yahweh would rain hellfire and brimstone down on the entire world, destroy everyone he didn't approve of (NB: destroy, *not* "broil alive for eternity," that's not what the text says if you can read the originals...).

    In other words, the difference between the two religions is mostly a matter of how much patience their followers are told to have. Christians are no better than Muslims without a few centuries of Enlightenment thinking beating them down.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @08:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @08:32PM (#681368)

      Gotta admit it was a good trick to try and get people to be nice. "Don't worry, the assholes will burn eventually so focus on being a decent human bean."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @11:13PM (19 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @11:13PM (#681429)

      "Turn the other cheek" does not mean pacifism. Jesus also told his disciples to buy a sword at the appropriate time. But neither does that mean conversion at sword-point, as Islam commands.

      But that's all beside the point, anyway.

      The point of Christianity is that all people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is no one righteous in God's eyes. And therefore all people require forgiveness of sin through the blood of Christ.

      Therefore, no one is better than anyone else. God loves all people equally, as Christ died to redeem all people. Those who choose to wash their sins away through faith in Christ are redeemed; those who choose not to, are not.

      So when you say that there's essentially no difference between Islam and Christianity, you're simply lying. If you are being honest about how you've studied the original texts, ignorance is no excuse. Your bitterness and anger are blinding you of the truth, and unless you repent, you will die in your sin.

      So it's up to you: you can keep blaming God for all the misery in your life--or you can realize that you're not as special as you think you are, that God hasn't uniquely chosen you to suffer among humankind, and that evil is perpetrated by evil people who reject God. God has shown his hand freely; it's up to you to accept the offer He's made. Or you can keep whining about how mad at God you are, but that is really a waste of everyone's time, and quite boring.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 19 2018, @03:43AM (18 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday May 19 2018, @03:43AM (#681515) Journal

        ...you, er, don't seem to know who you're talking to here. I'm not an atheist. I believe in God. YOU don't. What you worship is either mythological or demonic, and in either case, it's turned you into an amoral zombie. Your post is one of the best illustrations of this I could have hoped for, and I thank you for it :)

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @06:31AM (17 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @06:31AM (#681538)

          LOL what?

          I know exactly who you are. I have followed your comments on SN for a long time. I know you believe in God, and I know that you hate Him because you think He is responsible for the abuse you have suffered. I know that you are rebelling against Him in spite. And I know that your head is full of Satan's lies, in which you ruminate constantly. And you are not satisfied to merely be as you are: you delight in spreading your hate and misery to others, just as Satan wants. You are serving Satan. And you want to, because you hate God.

          And you are so deluded by lies that you can't even see clearly who's around you. You think black is white and white is black. You are so confused and deluded, yet so certain in your delusions, that you might even be legitimately demon-possessed; only God knows.

          Unfortunately, it will probably take a significant, life-changing event for you to confront your delusions and seek the truth. (Yeah, yeah, you studied the ancient texts and original languages, you're an expert, you sought the truth, blah blah--spare me. You were not seeking the truth, but rather to confirm your own preconceptions and hatred of the image of God you hold in your heart.)

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 19 2018, @04:57PM (16 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday May 19 2018, @04:57PM (#681609) Journal

            Do yourself a favor and don't quit the comedy circuit for psychoanalysis, okay? And maybe log in (Freeman? Bot?) if that's actually you, rather than wasting electrons as AC?

            You're wrong again: it's not God I have a problem with, it's God's various fan clubs, especially the Abrahamic ones, and what they *say* about the nature of God. You people are nuttier than squirrel diarrhea and several orders of magnitude more corrosive. Your previous post exposes your fundamental and wide-ranging ignorance of the roots of your own religion. Between the two of us, you are the one who has no actual morals and may "even be legitimately demon-possessed."

            Assuming you have the cognitive and logical tools for it, I'd be happy to walk you through, step by step, why your meta-ethics is void and therefore your morals a null set, for example. Then there's the incompatibility of your God-figure's supposed attributes, both with one another and with observable reality. Finally, there's the fact that no member of any reasonably-sized modern "church" believes anything closely resembling what Jesus himself did; the closest sects would probably be the Jews-for-Jesus weirdos, or possibly the few tiny enclaves of Nestorians still surviving.

            Oh yes, and "you're angry, therefore you're wrong" is a bullshit tone argument. if I were your God, I'd throw you into Hell for using it just for making me and my religion look bad :D

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @12:09AM (15 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @12:09AM (#681711)

              > You're wrong again: it's not God I have a problem with, it's God's various fan clubs, especially the Abrahamic ones, and what they *say* about the nature of God.

              Nah, you're just deflecting. You do hate God, so you have created your own image of what you think God is, and declare all else invalid. It's your way of spiting God while trying to balance against the fact that you know God exists.

              > You people are nuttier than squirrel diarrhea and several orders of magnitude more corrosive.

              What other people believe or say about God is irrelevant to whether God exists and what attributes he has. Come now, you're smarter than that.

              > Your previous post exposes your fundamental and wide-ranging ignorance of the roots of your own religion.

              You make many fundamental and wide-ranging assumptions.

              > Between the two of us, you are the one who has no actual morals and may "even be legitimately demon-possessed."

              You're just being silly here. Another example of your self-delusion.

              > Assuming you have the cognitive and logical tools for it, I'd be happy to walk you through, step by step, why your meta-ethics is void and therefore your morals a null set, for example.

              Go ahead.

              > Then there's the incompatibility of your God-figure's supposed attributes, both with one another and with observable reality.

              Smarter people than you have observed otherwise in the millennia past. I observe otherwise, myself.

              > Finally, there's the fact that no member of any reasonably-sized modern "church" believes anything closely resembling what Jesus himself did

              LOL, oh come on! You talk about bullshit arguments, and you say this? Appeal to popularity? Stop trolling me; at least be sincere, because that seems like one thing you can do, when you choose to.

              > Oh yes, and "you're angry, therefore you're wrong" is a bullshit tone argument.

              Come on, another strawman? I never said that. Stop bullshitting me.

              You're not wrong because you're angry--you're angry because you're wrong (i.e. because you don't have a proper understanding of God). Note that it's not always necessarily wrong to feel anger toward God, but your deep-seated, permanent anger toward God is based on deception. Of course, as they say, it's easier to deceive someone than to convince them that they've been deceived. And that other saying, that it's hard to get someone to understand something when their current state depends on them not understanding it, also applies here: although deeply angry, you are accustomed to your feelings, and you revel in them, so you have little desire to confront the truth and change who you fundamentally are. You're comfortably angry and rebellious and smug. Changing would mean having to humble yourself and essentially reboot your life, which would bring its own set of problems. Of course, in the end, it would be worth it.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 20 2018, @07:10PM (14 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday May 20 2018, @07:10PM (#681926) Journal

                I'm not even sure it's worth engaging you if you have this level of delusion. You're doing nothing more than the standard proselytizing tactics, which don't work on anyone with the self-awareness and critical thinking skills of a cucumber. Your last paragraph is pure insults, and not even ones with any basis in reality.

                It sounds to me, frankly, like you're one of those "I used to be an atheist until [I had an NDE/someone I loved died/I got wrecked on LSD and saw Hell] and now I'm scared straight" types, and you assume everyone who doesn't believe like you is at the same early stage of your life. Hate to break this to you, pal, but I was *raised* Christian, and of my three siblings, I was the one it stuck with. I got into studying these things because I genuinely wanted to be a better believer...and then slowly, bit by bit, as I found out the truth across over half a dozen interconnected fields of study...well, I found the truth all right, but it's not what I was hoping for.

                I had the choice of either sticking my head in the sand and pretending the last almost 13 years didn't happen, or facing what I found. What i gave up on wasn't God; what i gave up on was human error.

                The one thing you said that isn't content-free claptrap is your challenge to prove the nullity of your meta-ethics. That I will happily oblige: tell me where morals come from. Not ethics. Morals. Right and wrong. How do we know, with what sense or organ or process do we know, how do we know we're not mistaken, and what if any error-correcting mechanisms exist in case we *do* get it wrong?

                I already know what you're going to say, but we need to Socratic-dialog this out :/ And I fully expect that you, like the last six or seven arrogant apologist jackoffs I tried this with, will bluster and threaten and talk down to me but never actually answer anything.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @02:50AM (13 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @02:50AM (#682026)

                  > I'm not even sure it's worth engaging you if you have this level of delusion. You're doing nothing more than the standard proselytizing tactics, which don't work on anyone with the self-awareness and critical thinking skills of a cucumber. Your last paragraph is pure insults, and not even ones with any basis in reality.

                  LOL, you call me delusional, you call me insulting, and then you say stuff like this. More evidence of your own delusion.

                  > It sounds to me, frankly, like you're one of those "I used to be an atheist until [I had an NDE/someone I loved died/I got wrecked on LSD and saw Hell] and now I'm scared straight" types, and you assume everyone who doesn't believe like you is at the same early stage of your life.

                  More wide-ranging assumptions from you.

                  > Hate to break this to you, pal, but I was *raised* Christian, and of my three siblings, I was the one it stuck with

                  And you suffered abuse, just like many other people, and since your parents were supposedly Christian, you can't reconcile the abuse you suffered with their being Christian. Therefore, the god they claim must be false, and the real god must be nasty and hateful, and the abuse you suffered is all that god's fault.

                  > I got into studying these things because I genuinely wanted to be a better believer...and then slowly, bit by bit, as I found out the truth across over half a dozen interconnected fields of study...well, I found the truth all right, but it's not what I was hoping for.

                  So you found some academic writings from high-brows who don't believe in God, and you use them as an excuse to justify your disbelief in YHWH. How convenient. How enlightened you are. Just think of all those supposedly intelligent people throughout the millennia who actually believed in the Christian god! How delusional they all were! Good thing we finally figured out the truth now, after all this time, thanks to science and psychology!

                  > I had the choice of either sticking my head in the sand and pretending the last almost 13 years didn't happen, or facing what I found. What i gave up on wasn't God; what i gave up on was human error.

                  Another bullshit excuse. As if the creator of the universe can't work and communicate through and despite human error.

                  > The one thing you said that isn't content-free claptrap is your challenge to prove the nullity of your meta-ethics. That I will happily oblige: tell me where morals come from. Not ethics. Morals. Right and wrong.

                  Morals come from the creator. That is the sole source. IOW, were we not created, there would be no such thing as morality, and what we know as such would be merely utilitarian in the sense that it allows society to stabilize and progress.

                  > How do we know, with what sense or organ or process do we know, how do we know we're not mistaken, and what if any error-correcting mechanisms exist in case we *do* get it wrong?

                  We know by the word of God. However, being made in the image of God, we also have an innate sense of morality--which is notably fallible, and does not force anyone to abide by it. God gave us free will, so we may freely choose to ignore morality.

                  > I already know what you're going to say, but we need to Socratic-dialog this out :/ And I fully expect that you, like the last six or seven arrogant apologist jackoffs I tried this with, will bluster and threaten and talk down to me but never actually answer anything.

                  More unfounded assumptions from you. Not surprising.

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 21 2018, @04:45AM (12 children)

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday May 21 2018, @04:45AM (#682049) Journal

                    Well, so far you're keeping up your batting average of 0.000 regarding my background and upbringing (no, neither parent was abusive). Good grief, doesn't it ever bother you to be this predictable? You've actually surprised me with just how completely you're sticking to the script so many before you have followed. I'm almost wondering if you're actually a sophisticated (well, "sophisticated...") Markov bot rather than an actual person.

                    Nice to see you've kept your batting average of 0.000 regarding my upbringing and history, too; I wasn't abused, only one of my parents is a Christian, and there was a time I wanted to be a missionary. That, in fact, was what precipitated my in-depth study of my religion.

                    I also want to thank you for managing to step on every single fallacious landmine it is possible for the believer to step on during your clumsy tap-dance across the field of moral epistemology. You're so earnest, so ready to reply, so simple, and so *wrong* it's almost heartwarming. Unfortunately, your responses also imply that you probably don't have the analytical tools necessary to understand *why* you're wrong, which makes me suspect that even if you're the sort to be honest enough with yourself to admit when you're wrong, getting you to see the flaws in your worldview may not be possible.

                    Don't feel too bad; it took me months of study to figure some of these things out myself! Epistemology is tricky business, like trying to look at the back of your own head by rolling your eyes up into your skull. A little humility (isn't that a Christian virtue?) will go a long way toward helping you with that though. ...which probably means you're gonna stay right where you are, but nevertheless...

                    > Morals come from the creator. That is the sole source.

                    How Do You Know That? (TM). And don't tell me "because the Bible says so." Back the position up: how do you know that morals can only come from a creator? What standard does said creator use when creating them? What obligation would any of its creations have to follow them? How can its creations be sure that they are receiving proper morals? Why is there any need for morals in the first place?

                    > IOW, were we not created, there would be no such thing as morality, and what we know as such would be merely utilitarian in the sense that it allows society to stabilize and progress.

                    Bare naked assertion.

                    > As if the creator of the universe can't work and communicate through and despite human error.

                    You don't seem to understand the implications of "omnipotent" and "absolutely-sovereign."

                    > We know by the word of God.

                    Prove it. HOW do we know, by what mechanism, etc etc etc, basically all of the above questions again. Revelation is by necessity private; I hope you can at least understand why this is so.

                    > However, being made in the image of God--

                    Prove it. Though considering our penchant for murder, warfare, and genocide, you may actually have an inductive argument there...

                    > we also have an innate sense of morality

                    Indeed we do :) Hold onto this thought: you will need it in order not to go yammering bugfuck insane on moral nihilism when the other shoe finally drops.

                    > --which is notably fallible--

                    Indeed it is

                    > and does not force anyone to abide by it.

                    Wrong. Everyone acts for what they perceive to be the good. There are just so very many different opinions about that, and some of them aren't worth the oxygen used to voice them.

                    > God gave us free will--

                    Whoa-hoooo, Dan, did you ever step in it hip-deep with that one. You can't just assert this. Good grief. PROVE IT. Prove that free will is possible for any being that is not-God, that we have it, that it is the specific type of libertarian free will assumed by virtually all Christian (and Jewish, and Muslim, and really every religion's...) apologetics, etc.

                    So far this is the usual bog-standard, emphasis on the word "bog," apologia I've seen a few hundred squintillion times from the apologetic equivalent of fresh-off-the-boat cannon fodder. This is...not impressive. At least 3/4th of it was bombast and rhetoric. Step up your game.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:48AM (11 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:48AM (#682549)

                      > Well, so far you're keeping up your batting average of 0.000 regarding my background and upbringing (no, neither parent was abusive).

                      Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, aren't you a homosexual? You've been abused. Homosexuality doesn't arise spontaneously.

                      > Good grief, doesn't it ever bother you to be this predictable? You've actually surprised me with just how completely you're sticking to the script so many before you have followed. I'm almost wondering if you're actually a sophisticated (well, "sophisticated...") Markov bot rather than an actual person.

                      LOL, and you complain about my being predictable. Every message you've ever posted on this site follows this same formula, wantonly touting your intellectual (and every other form of) superiority, and haughtily laughing at the peons beneath you, who "don't have the tools" to get on your level. How boring. Don't you ever get tired of this diatribe? Are you a bot?

                      > Nice to see you've kept your batting average of 0.000 regarding my upbringing and history, too; I wasn't abused, only one of my parents is a Christian, and there was a time I wanted to be a missionary. That, in fact, was what precipitated my in-depth study of my religion.

                      Only one of your parents being a Christian was itself a problem, for Paul warns against this, and that one of your parents didn't believe created a conflict, which is obviously troubling for a young mind that naturally leans toward their parents being correct in their understanding. If Christ is real, then why didn't both of your parents believe in Him? Why would a loving god allow one of your parents to remain unsaved?

                      > I also want to thank you for managing to step on every single fallacious landmine it is possible for the believer to step on during your clumsy tap-dance across the field of moral epistemology. You're so earnest, so ready to reply, so simple, and so *wrong* it's almost heartwarming. Unfortunately, your responses also imply that you probably don't have the analytical tools necessary to understand *why* you're wrong, which makes me suspect that even if you're the sort to be honest enough with yourself to admit when you're wrong, getting you to see the flaws in your worldview may not be possible.

                      Yawn. You coulda ripped that from any of your other posts on this site. I should turn it into copypasta. The irony is that you think you're uniquely intelligent, while you're actually so boringly repetitive.

                      > Don't feel too bad; it took me months of study to figure some of these things out myself!

                      Wow, months? Gee, that's so much faster than all of the ancients! You really are smarter than everyone else who's ever thought about this stuff!

                      > Epistemology is tricky business, like trying to look at the back of your own head by rolling your eyes up into your skull. A little humility (isn't that a Christian virtue?) will go a long way toward helping you with that though. ...which probably means you're gonna stay right where you are, but nevertheless...

                      Spare me the filler. I don't know why you bother. It must be boring to write. Maybe you are copy-pasting it...

                      > How Do You Know That? (TM). And don't tell me "because the Bible says so." Back the position up: how do you know that morals can only come from a creator?

                      Because if we weren't created, nothing would have the authority to define them. Hello? Don't play dumb here.

                      > What standard does said creator use when creating them?

                      Whatever standard he wants, just like anyone who makes a board game can use whatever "standard" they want to create the rules. What kind of a question even is that?

                      > What obligation would any of its creations have to follow them?

                      As much or as little as the creator declares. Again, what kind of a question even is that? Can we skip the 101-level questions, or do you want to keep wasting time?

                      > How can its creations be sure that they are receiving proper morals?

                      This question branches off the matter of whether morals exist and from where they come. It also raises the questions of what it even means to "receive" morals, and how they may be received.

                      The Christian answer would be, "by faith." And that's really the only sufficient answer in the end, because one can present all the evidence of God and God's revelation one wants, but it won't necessarily convince anyone else, or prove it to an arbitrary standard. Case in point: you.

                      ["comment too long"...]

                      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:53AM (10 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:53AM (#682554)

                        > Why is there any need for morals in the first place?

                        Do you really want to go off on these rabbit trails?

                        Who says that morals are "needed"? YHWH? Bentham? For what purpose(s)? You can argue that societies stabilize and advance with them, yet as corrupt as humanity is, you could also argue that they do so without them. It's a matter of opinion. And if you don't believe they come from a creator, then it doesn't even matter: just do whatever you can get away with to maximize your own enjoyment, because we're all just water, and what does it matter if some water is "happier"--the sun's still going to blow up and wipe out the planet, anyway.

                        > > IOW, were we not created, there would be no such thing as morality, and what we know as such would be merely utilitarian in the sense that it allows society to stabilize and progress.

                        > Bare naked assertion.

                        WTF? You asked me a question, I answered it. I'm not going to write a dissertation on it (especially since you've supposedly read so many of them already). If you disagree, say why. If not, then WTF is that supposed to mean? You're not a professor, and I don't care what grade you give me. According to you, you don't need to see my work, so get on with it.

                        > > As if the creator of the universe can't work and communicate through and despite human error.

                        > You don't seem to understand the implications of "omnipotent" and "absolutely-sovereign."

                        If you're being sincere, that's a bizarre thing to say in response, and it causes me to seriously doubt your claimed qualifications. You need to show your work here, or I don't think I can take you seriously. Or maybe you're just trolling, which you undoubtedly would enjoy since you hate Christians so much.

                        > > We know by the word of God.

                        > Prove it. HOW do we know, by what mechanism, etc etc etc, basically all of the above questions again.

                        Because if God created us, God defines them, and we can only find them out by what he chooses to communicate to us. It's not that complicated. If you don't believe that God created us, or if you don't believe he's communicated them to us, then it's a moot point.

                        > Revelation is by necessity private; I hope you can at least understand why this is so.

                        That depends entirely on how you define revelation. Thousands of years of theologists would disagree with you. If Christ was God on Earth, then he was by no means "private," for he walked and talked with thousands. And if the existence of Creation itself is revelation, neither is it private.

                        Of course, if you define revelation as "a theophany, the authenticity of which only I can testify to, because only I experienced it," then you've built a nice little empty box for yourself to look for proof in.

                        > > However, being made in the image of God--

                        > Prove it.

                        Come on, this is SN, not a symposium. Obviously, since I am a Christian, I believe that. I don't expect anyone else to believe it. I'm certainly not going to reiterate the arguments for you, since you know them all already, right?

                        > Though considering our penchant for murder, warfare, and genocide, you may actually have an inductive argument there...

                        That depends on what it means to be "made in the image of God." If you mean, "God is supposed to be perfect, so everything 'made in his image' should be perfect, or else a) God isn't perfect, or b) these things aren't made in his image," then you've created another nice little box for yourself to reason in.

                        > > we also have an innate sense of morality

                        > Indeed we do :) Hold onto this thought: you will need it in order not to go yammering bugfuck insane on moral nihilism when the other shoe finally drops.

                        Oooh, I'm on the edge of my seat! I've never thought about nihilism before, and I just looked it up on Wikipedia! Teach me, professor!

                        > > and does not force anyone to abide by it.

                        > Wrong. Everyone acts for what they perceive to be the good. There are just so very many different opinions about that, and some of them aren't worth the oxygen used to voice them.

                        Oh please! For all your boasting about your supposed expertise, this is really laughable. Your life and mine are both living proof that people do not always act for what they perceive to be the good. The rest of humanity is as well. You really have become captive to, as Paul would say, a "hollow and deceptive philosophy." You think you're so open-minded and enlightened, when you're actually stuck thinking in a very small box. It must be cozy, though, because you're so content to remain in it.

                        > > God gave us free will--

                        > Whoa-hoooo, Dan, did you ever step in it hip-deep with that one. You can't just assert this. Good grief. PROVE IT. Prove that free will is possible for any being that is not-God, that we have it, that it is the specific type of libertarian free will assumed by virtually all Christian (and Jewish, and Muslim, and really every religion's...) apologetics, etc.

                        Oh, stop. LOL, you're not actually a determinist, are you? LOL. Oh man, if that is so, you're way worse off than I realized. You really have been taken captive.

                        Prove that we don't have free will. Show me the neuron-by-neuron brain scans that show that X stimuli = Y reaction. Go ahead, I'll wait.

                        The funniest part of all this is that, in a very real way, you have more faith than I do, because what you believe requires more faith, because it has less evidence.

                        > So far this is the usual bog-standard, emphasis on the word "bog," apologia I've seen a few hundred squintillion times from the apologetic equivalent of fresh-off-the-boat cannon fodder. This is...not impressive. At least 3/4th of it was bombast and rhetoric. Step up your game.

                        Step up yours. I've read this same drivel from you (and others) many times before. I wouldn't be surprised if much of it is indeed copy-pasted (and if not, do it, and stop wasting your time retyping it! You're on a computer, after all. No need to waste my time and yours).

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:58PM (9 children)

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:58PM (#682709) Journal

                          From just skimming your reply, I am beginning to despair of ever making any inroads with you :/ Your problem isn't just lack of knowledge, it's pride. You're missing entire epistemic frameworks necessary to have this sort of discussion, and all you reply with is condescension you don't even come close to having the right to display.

                          There is a rule, my fine anonymous friend: if you make a claim, you bloody well back it up. Your previous posts have been entirely bare-naked assertions, and whether or not this is a symposium, the previous still applies. Show. Your. Work. It's fairly obvious to me that you can't actually back up anything you've been saying, as this most recent post reduces down to "screw you, I don't have to." Well, the parts of it that aren't petty insults.

                          You can start by defining your terms. All of them.

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23 2018, @04:09AM (8 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23 2018, @04:09AM (#682941)

                            Ha! It's no wonder that (according to you) everyone who talks to you gives up. You're a fucking hypocrite of the highest order.

                            You accuse me of pride, when you constantly exhibit a gross superiority complex every time you write. You accuse me of condescension in the same sentence that you exhibit it to the highest degree. You demand that I "Show. Your. Work" and define my terms, "All of them," when you have refused to answer any of the questions I just asked you--which are far fewer than the numerous questions you've demanded I answer, and fewer than the answers I've already given. You accuse me of "petty insults", when every post you make is full of them. You accuse me of "bare-naked assertions," when that is all you yourself have done! W. T. F.

                            You are an excellent example of bullshit asymmetry. You demand that I answer your questions while refusing to answer any of mine. You expect me to present myself before you on a silver platter so you can attempt to dissect me for theatrical and self-gratifying purposes, but you will not answer even one question I asked you.

                            It's no wonder that people stop responding to you, because once you reveal your true agenda, there is no point. And it's no wonder that you then claim victory, as if their unwillingness to prostrate themselves before you and meet your arbitrary standards demonstrates their inability to think as highly as you, because it assuages your enormous, lighter-than-air ego, which continues to delude you and prevent you from even seeing the truth.

                            You're just an elaborate troll. You're not sincere. You don't care about truth. You don't care about finding the truth or helping anyone else find it. You're just here to entertain yourself by verbally masturbating about how superior you are.

                            You don't even have the guts to try to prove how superior you are. You didn't answer even one question I asked in my last post.

                            Or, to quote you:

                            It's fairly obvious to me that you can't actually back up anything you've been saying, as this most recent post reduces down to "screw you, I don't have to." Well, the parts of it that aren't petty insults.

                            That applies completely and exactly to the comment you just made. You're a hypocrite and a coward. Absolutely pathetic. And it's entirely your choice to be so.

                            If you have an ounce of courage and sincerity left, get off your fucking high horse and answer the questions I asked you. Unlikely, though, because you are a coward, and you are afraid of the truth, so you are afraid to engage with anyone who might cause you to see it. Satan has a firm grip on your mind, and you have submitted yourself to him.

                            From now on, every time I see you post a comment boasting about how stupid apologists can't keep up with your intellect and bail out at the first apparent contradiction, I will happily link this post of yours showing where you have steadfastly refused to engage in actual discussion and accused me of everything that you yourself are guilty of a thousand times over. On top of everything else, you're a filthy liar as well--and not only to others, but to yourself. Pathetic.

                            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 23 2018, @05:25AM (7 children)

                              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday May 23 2018, @05:25AM (#682966) Journal

                              Okay, let's get down to brass tacks then.

                              Your meta-ethical position is known as Divine Command Theory. Assuming you're able to stay on topic and follow the thread, I will walk you through where DCT fails and why, therefore, you have no actual morals (because it logically follows that if one's metaethics fails, the morals it produces will be an empty set). This is going to take a few iterations, as there are several common, predictable responses the apologist will give to the first counter, and the counters to *those* build on the first.

                              So, here's your first thing to consider: does God command us to act in certain ways because those acts or those ways of acting are inherently good, or are those acts/ways of acting good solely because God commands them?

                              Think carefully before you answer this one.

                              --
                              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:07AM (6 children)

                                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:07AM (#683452)

                                "Euthyphro, is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?"

                                I assume you've read that before, so let's skip to the point.

                                Which, as I have already explained, is: were we not created, morality would be arbitrary, and ultimately pointless, because humanity would have no innate value, and would ultimately cease to exist, just like everything else in the universe. If we are nothing more than animals, mere collections of matter that spontaneously animated, we are ultimately no more valuable than rocks. In which case, take what you can get, enjoy life as much as you can, because, just as it doesn't matter whether you step on an ant or a blade of grass, neither does it matter what you do to other humans. (One could speculate that, were human lifespans longer, one would have more opportunity to benefit from a more advanced society, which advances further and faster when people abide by certain standards of behavior, but I don't think that's generally the case for any certain person.)

                                Therefore, what is good is good because God deems it so. Just as the creator of a board game defines the rules, objectives, rewards, and consequences for the players, so God does for us.

                                Gee, I hope I get a good grade on this discussion question! Maybe I'll finally get on the professor's good side!

                                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:19PM (4 children)

                                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:19PM (#683688) Journal

                                  *facepalm* Good grief, you don't even rise to the standard of most of the cannon fodder! At least *they* are smart enough to see where simple DCT goes off the rails and attempt a modified form of it dealing with obligation or God's nature or some such. No, instead you simply restate what's already been shown to be bare assumptions. This is pathetic.

                                  WHY is what God deems good, good? What is it about God's simple say-so that makes a thing good or not good? Where is the obligation to obey?

                                  --
                                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @09:17AM (3 children)

                                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @09:17AM (#684423)

                                    *facepalm* Good grief, you don't even rise to the standard of most of the cannon fodder! At least *they* are smart enough to see where simple DCT goes off the rails and attempt a modified form of it dealing with obligation or God's nature or some such. No, instead you simply restate what's already been shown to be bare assumptions. This is pathetic.

                                    I have explained this twice already, but you don't get it, and you accuse me of not getting it.

                                    WHY is what God deems good, good?

                                    Because he created the universe. He created the very concept of good.

                                    What is it about God's simple say-so that makes a thing good or not good?

                                    Because the concept of good and our ability to reason about it exist within the framework God has created. For us, the concept of good only exists insofar as our ability to conceive of it, and that ability is created by God. Outside God's definition, there is no good or evil, only utilitarianism.

                                    Where is the obligation to obey?

                                    In the Bible. Of course, since we have free will, you're free to ignore that obligation and deal with the consequences.

                                    Obviously this all depends on the belief that God created the universe, that YHWH is that creator god, etc.

                                    I don't see what's so complicated about this. I don't know why you seem to find it so hard to understand. If your real disagreement is over whether God created, or whether YHWH is the creator, or about the character and nature of YHWH and whether we ought to obey him, then say so.

                                    Otherwise, stop spouting acronyms and implying your correctness because of arguments you haven't made. That is pathetic. I'm beginning to seriously doubt your own grasp of this topic.

                                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 26 2018, @04:14PM (2 children)

                                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday May 26 2018, @04:14PM (#684570) Journal

                                      This is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It also shows that you have zero academic background in any of this, as the things I'm asking *are* taken seriously by, you know, *actual theologians.*

                                      Let me break this down for you a little further. You say "Because he created the universe. Because he created the very concept of good."

                                      Stop right there. You just told me that 1) good is something separate from God and 2) it's not actually part of his nature, that is, it is a mere created thing. Do you understand what you've just said about God and his nature and attributes? Do you understand what you've just done to *your entire argument,* let alone your Christian witness? Obviously not, or you'd never have even thought to say such a thing. Did you head that chorus ot wet smacking noises? That is everyone from Plantinga to Aquinas facepalming in unison.

                                      --
                                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 27 2018, @03:29PM (1 child)

                                        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 27 2018, @03:29PM (#684829)

                                        This is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

                                        Actually, you are an example of what I have deemed the "Dunning-Kruger Effect Effect," i.e. people who haven't even grokked the Wikipedia article but use it as way to handwavily assert superiority--while, of course, actually demonstrating their own lack of comprehension.

                                        It also shows that you have zero academic background in any of this, as the things I'm asking *are* taken seriously by, you know, *actual theologians.*

                                        LOL, if you only knew who you were talking to...but I decline to play a game of credentials, because it's the Internet, and you shouldn't believe what strangers say about themselves online. Neither of us is the point of the discussion, anyway. Besides, I have no interest in appeals to (human) authority here.

                                        Let me break this down for you a little further. You say "Because he created the universe. Because he created the very concept of good."

                                        Stop right there. You just told me that 1) good is something separate from God and 2) it's not actually part of his nature, that is, it is a mere created thing. Do you understand what you've just said about God and his nature and attributes? Do you understand what you've just done to *your entire argument,* let alone your Christian witness? Obviously not, or you'd never have even thought to say such a thing. Did you head that chorus ot wet smacking noises? That is everyone from Plantinga to Aquinas facepalming in unison.

                                        Nice cherry pick. Read the rest of what I said.

                                        We have no frame of reference for good outside of that which God has given us. We effectively live in a box (our minds) inside another box (the universe). Yet we--or some of us--think we can escape them and think more powerfully than that which created us. The created thinks it can exceed its creator--this is, in fact, the basic theme of the Bible, and you're happily (or unhappily?) continuing the pattern to this day.

                                        To be frank, this is getting boring. You have yet to make an actual argument. You haven't even stated your position, other than letting slip that you're a determinist. All you do is ridicule and make excuses, like a bully on a playground who's afraid to fight when someone stands up to him.

                                        Because that's what you actually are: a coward and a bully, who sits in front of a keyboard and takes potshots at entire demographics of people who aren't there to defend themselves, people whom you hate because they believe differently than you. Then I stand up and challenge you, and all you have done is attempt to disqualify me, rather than engage with me: the mark of a coward and a bully. I called you out on it once, and you said you would get down to business, but here you are with the same old schpiel, just another broken record.

                                        You're full of bitterness and hate. It's blinding you to the truth. But there is a part of you that knows that you're wrong and wants to change your mind, otherwise you wouldn't even be here.

                                        So if you are capable of something other than childish insults and references to Wikipedia articles, state your position and make a fucking argument.

                                        P.S. I'll be going out of town for a while tomorrow. I'll try to keep up here, but I may not have a chance to check in as often. So don't prematurely scratch another victory mark on your keyboard just because I haven't responded yet.

                                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 27 2018, @07:32PM

                                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday May 27 2018, @07:32PM (#684892) Journal

                                          You're not equipped for this. You don't even understand how instantly and globally fatal to the entirety of Abrahamic theism it is to say that good is a created thing, rather than innate to God himself. You also don't seem to have any familiarity with what actual theologians say on the subject, or else you'd never have said something that stonkingly ignorant and blasphemous in the first place.

                                          Do you understand that you failed even to make it to the point where you'd get impaled on the first horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma? I've never seen anyone self-destruct right out of the gates like that. It's not possible to have an argument with you because you're honestly not even able to converse on the necessary level. All you have is a bunch of aggrieved mudslinging and tone-trolling.

                                          --
                                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:52PM

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:52PM (#685595) Journal
                                  Thanks to Azuma for bringing this thread to my attention. I'll note another glaring problem with the argument you present.

                                  were we not created, morality would be arbitrary, and ultimately pointless, because humanity would have no innate value, and would ultimately cease to exist, just like everything else in the universe.

                                  That's not even wrong. Because nothing exists in that regime, there is nothing there to make morality pointless in our present time. And of course, you'd go to pieces if someone like God didn't spoonfeed you a morality.

                                  It's sad that people incapable of forming and defending their own morality want to decide for the rest of us what our morality should be.

                                  One could speculate that, were human lifespans longer, one would have more opportunity to benefit from a more advanced society, which advances further and faster when people abide by certain standards of behavior, but I don't think that's generally the case for any certain person.

                                  Which incidentally is a future that we are sort of heading towards. My view is that if we were created by God, it wouldn't make sense to expect us to obey an externally imposed morality (really one cooked up by a bunch of bronze age religious fanatics looking to takeover Canaan) when we have the facilities to determine our own morality. What is the point of freedom of will, if one doesn't use it? Is it somehow noble to reject a gift of such value?

  • (Score: 1) by loonycyborg on Friday May 18 2018, @07:27PM

    by loonycyborg (6905) on Friday May 18 2018, @07:27PM (#681336)

    Islam is merely a port of Judaism and Christianity to Arab culture. Nothing less and nothing more. And cherry-picking various irrelevant pieces of scriptures won't blind me to this larger picture.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @08:16PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @08:16PM (#681356)

    You can't equate Christianity to Islam. The founder of Christianity commanded that his followers turn the other cheek.

    That's all? Only if you ignore the billion violent things those books command by using pseudo-intellectual arguments. Strangely enough, this Bajeebusness fellow didn't seem to demand that slavery be abolished.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 19 2018, @01:17AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 19 2018, @01:17AM (#681457) Journal

      The billion violent things "these books" commanded, is Judaism. An eye for an eye and all that. No violence is commanded in the New Testament. "THESE BOOKS" command no violence.

      Slavery? In Jesus' time, slavery was a thing, but no Jew from that time would have recognized American slavery as the same thing. The slaves in America remembered the Jubilee - white people forgot all about that.

  • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday May 19 2018, @01:35AM (1 child)

    by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday May 19 2018, @01:35AM (#681471)

    too funny - ALL gods are fake.

    is godzilla more real than spiderman? who would win in a fight?

    that's about the same kind of logic.

    the simple fact that every culture names its own god and they all differ in significant ways means that they all got it wrong. ALL of them.

    nice dream, but its just not reality.

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 19 2018, @01:50AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 19 2018, @01:50AM (#681481) Journal

      However real or unreal any of the gods or superheroes or whatever might be, reality is that cultures and religions exist. And, reality is that some of those cultures are more virulent than others. Understanding what makes those cultures and religions tick is pretty essential to understanding both reality, and humans.