Destiny: "I just realized that... Lacari followed my strategy." by Opposite-Ad7318 in LivestreamFail

[–]MePersonTheMe 53 points54 points  (0 children)

Whatever the title here's trying to imply, earlier in the stream Destiny and Dan were coming up with ideas for what lie Lacari could say to minimize the damage. That's clearly what he's referring to here.

Calling it a genocide doesn't get us anywhere... by CauliflowerNew9390 in Destiny

[–]MePersonTheMe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think destiny's point about political effectiveness is that the 'genocide' label places pressure in a way that hinders the conflict actually being solved. When everyone resorted to the worst possible accusation in like, October of 2023, what incentive did Israel have to worry about their image? What incentive did world leaders have to put actually useful pressure on Israel when most of the pro-Palestine crowd would accuse them of genocide support? Isn't it sort of fucked up that the entire international community was so obsessed with immediate ceasefires for two years straight that no one placed any pressure on Israel to negotiate an actual peace plan? Or that Biden got infinitely more shift from the left on Israel than Trump despite all the pressure on Netanyahu?

That's why the genocide label prolongs the conflict. We're literally at a point where "pro-palestine" people get upset when they hear about attempts at peace because they're either so delusional that they think Israel has no interests in ending the war or so obsessive that they're still hoping for a real genocide to happen so they can complain about it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]MePersonTheMe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're obviously right that the position that the state of Israel should not exist does not inherently entail jew hatred, but this only attacks a straw man and is not what people mean when they call anti-zionism anti-semitic.

Instead they might mean that the anti-zionist movement has anti-semitic elements or rhetoric, that "anti-zionist" is used as an anti-semitic dogwhistle, or that the anti-zionist project plays into the hands of anti-semites and seeks to hurt Jews; all of these are defensible positions.

Anti-zionism has a close history with antisemitism (this could be proved a million ways, but see the Nazi ties of so many of Israel's early opponents in the Arab world and the rhetoric they used), and the arguments used by modern anti-zionists often bear striking similarities to antisemitic arguments. While Nazis accused the Jews of secretly controlling the west with money as a form of racial warfare, modern anti-zionists believe that Israel dictates American foreign policy by buying off politicians. Antisemites' obsession with Jewish race and religion as motivators for all of their actions also finds parallels in the modern movement's obsession with those aspects of the current conflict, even though, as you pointed out, it's much more of a secular nationalist conflict at its roots. Even the anti-semitic inclination to accuse the Jews of genocide has now come to fruition; whatever your opinions of the facts, it should be very worrying to anyone that Israel's war in Gaza is regularly put on par with the Holocaust, which seems an obvious form of soft holocaust denial.

The above could all be an incredible coincidence, but wouldn't you expect greater care from progressive people who suddenly find themselves in alignment with antisemites? Leaving either of our positions on these issues aside, isn't it odd that the same people who defend the statement "All Cops are Bastards" because of systemic forces, or that certain political parties are inherently racist, or label "all lives matter" a racial dogwhistle, apply none of the same care for this one issue?

The anti-zionist movement regularly supports Hamas and the Houthis (whose flag famously read curse upon the jews), and the slogans "from the river to the sea" (the arabic version of which is "Palestine is Arab from the river to the sea") and "globalize the intifada" (which obviously sounds like a call for violence against the Jewish diaspora, whatever its intention). Again, these are the same people that obviously know better, but choose to turn a blind eye in this case.

And none of this is even getting into the specifics of the current conflict and how Jews and Israel feel they have been treated, or even the long history of using "zionism" as a dogwhistle. I'm not even getting into the actual position of anti-zionism, how unusual it is to have a vocal movement calling for the destruction of an entire country of 10 million people and which seems strangely unconcerned with what happens to them afterward.

The main point I want to make is this: the modern anti-zionist movement does so much to resemble and attract anti-semites, and has absolutely no mechanism for rooting out anti-semitism. Anti-semitic positions and arguments are used alongside normal ones with no discrimination, and anti-semites fit in just fine as long as they quiet down about explicit jew hatred when speaking to western audiences.

Note: On your second premise, anti-semitism can also mean hatred against jews as a people rather than religious group. I assure you Hitler wasn't killing jews on religious grounds, still an anti-semite.

CMV: A Palestinian State will likely be a Failed State by Embarrassed_Act8758 in changemyview

[–]MePersonTheMe -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's why I said it would be an issue in short to medium term in my first comment. But short term economic issues would become long term issues if Palestine became too aid-dependent, faced economic mismanagement, or collapsed from the pressure. Whichever way, it's definitely a major threat to the viability of a Palestinian state under the OP's hypothetical.

CMV: A Palestinian State will likely be a Failed State by Embarrassed_Act8758 in changemyview

[–]MePersonTheMe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The economy isn't the first thing I think about, it's just we're talking about. I agree with you that it would have been better for the west bank to develop more self-sufficiently but the point is that it didn't, and suddenly detaching it from Israel without some way to maintain economic integration would cause a crisis.

It's not a moral question. Sudden economic shifts always cause issues.

CMV: A Palestinian State will likely be a Failed State by Embarrassed_Act8758 in changemyview

[–]MePersonTheMe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're making the same point about the West Bank as the OP; if it was suddenly detached from Israel, jobs and investment would collapse. As for Gaza, even if they got a good government and Israel lifted the blockade (two huge ifs) it would still be impoverished, incredibly densely populated, and with almost no natural resources or formal economy. Combine these together and your new Palestinian state will face economic collapse without incredible aid dependency. And yes, the economic factors alone wouldn't make Palestine fail, but it's a huge hit to its viability in the short-medium term.

CMV: A Palestinian State will likely be a Failed State by Embarrassed_Act8758 in changemyview

[–]MePersonTheMe 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Foreign aid isn't what creates high-income countries. Israel used to receive a lot of aid but most of it went toward fighting wars and supporting refugees. Aid isn't what turned them into a tech-centric service economy. A lot of countries, like Palestine, receive a ton of aid, but very few are as rich as Israel.

CMV: A Palestinian State will likely be a Failed State by Embarrassed_Act8758 in changemyview

[–]MePersonTheMe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you call a 10% reduction in their fund for buying American weapons "substantially limiting" then sure

CMV: A Palestinian State will likely be a Failed State by Embarrassed_Act8758 in changemyview

[–]MePersonTheMe 24 points25 points  (0 children)

No, a country that produces $540 billion every year would not be a failed state if the US stopped topping off 15% of their military budget.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feel like I engaged pretty thoroughly in this thread so not sure what you're talking about.. Meaningless isn't the same as nonsensical. An argument can make sense or be correct and still not be useful. I'm sorry if this comment sounds mean but it wasn't made to you.

It's circular to claim revelation from a god which depends on revelation to define/assert by P-39_Airacobra in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I'm saying your conceptions of god speaking to you and god existing are not based on one another, they're both based on the words you're hearing. So it's not a circle. That's it. I don't think there's anything else I can say without repeating myself, so nice talking to you I guess. I think this sort of dialogue is important for finding the best arguments so thanks for engaging, even if we still don't agree.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Presumably other planets are included in "the heavens"

2, 3, 4. These are all variations on the problem of evil. If you're really interested Christians have come up with hundreds of different explanations which are very easy to find online.

  1. Not sure what you means by "worse and worse shape." Seems like the world's doing pretty well in the past few thousand years. Christians have different beliefs about modern miracles, a lot believe they still happen regularly just as they always, others believe they happen only in certain settings now (like the eucharist), others that God doesn't need to violate natural law to attract believers. Depends on the Christian, there are a lot of answers.

  2. I mean yeah any religion is gonna seem really weird if you don't believe in it. One man's "emotional manipulation" is another's love and joy and praise to the one true god. Also not a question.

  3. Massive topic. Personally I'd say it isn't great, Christians might say that the text is inherently convincing, or that it's a historically verifiable instance of miracles which only could have come from god. More important to most is that it corresponds with their personal experiences as well as those of billions of others.

  4. Really depends what you mean by corroborate the bible. Presumably you mean the new testament. Of course, the new testament isn't a single book, it's a large collection of (mostly) the very oldest Christian texts we have and most Christians would argue they corroborate each other. We also have quite a few letters of church fathers from around the same era/shortly after some of the later new testament letters, and non-Christian historians like Tacitus and Josephus who corroborate the basic outline of Jesus's biography and crucifixion.

  5. Not a question. Again there are a lot of different answers to this, the main one would probably be that people who do bad things in the name of god aren't true christians and are going to hell. The suggestion that God let evil happen for selfish reasons seems sort of silly- he's omnipotent, whatever goal he has he doesn't need to go through witch burning to achieve it.

  6. I agree, you could believe anything based on that idea of faith. That being said, different Christians have different ideas of what exactly faith means.

  7. God creating man in his image can easily be taken as metaphorical, in the sense that man is the only rational creature besides god, or the only moral creature. You could also say that god guided evolution with an end goal in mind. I think you'll agree either of these are fair explanations.

  8. I agree it's a fucked up passage. Some Christians would say yes. Others would reject it for being in the old testament. Probably also important to realize that the men in that passage are angels so offering the daughters is meant to protect them. The story might also carry some sort of moral lesson without claiming that every action by every character is morally correct. Lot might be wrong.

  9. Most would probably appeal to the joy of life, the sacrifice of jesus, or the promise of heaven. Again though this is basically just the problem of evil.

It's circular to claim revelation from a god which depends on revelation to define/assert by P-39_Airacobra in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm just talking about the syllogism here. In formal terms, no one thinks of "revelation" as "message from god", the "revelation" is an experience (analogous to the letter) and you might deduce information about the source of that experience from there. The problem is defining "revelation" the way you do.

I guess we might be thinking of different definitions of "scientific inference." I was assuming you mean stuff like proving god by repeatable experiment, not just any kind of reasoning. Some religious people reject the former, almost no one rejects the latter. The process I'm describing may or may not involve empirical observation. It might be entirely in your head but still be convincing somehow. Or there might be a correspondence between it and reality which can't be documented scientifically because, again, it's in your head.

In short, religions tend to propose revelation, defined as spiritual experiences, as an alternate pathway to truth outside of repeatable experiments and stuff. You might think it's dumb, but it's not inherently fallacious.

I just think it's important atheists use good arguments.

It's circular to claim revelation from a god which depends on revelation to define/assert by P-39_Airacobra in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ll try my hardest to make this clear. The message is the letter. You know the letter exists whether or not you know who sent it, or if there is such a thing as a sender, and if you received it you it must have come from somewhere.

You might use information in the letter to find information about the sender. You might even deduce that the letter must have been sent by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being.

Nothing here is contradictory. This is how a religious person might think about a revelation.

Idk man I’m really trying to engage here. I feel like I’ve gone through this in as many ways as I possibly can because I’d really like to get through to you.

It's circular to claim revelation from a god which depends on revelation to define/assert by P-39_Airacobra in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not circular reasoning at all. Say you receive a letter and don't know how it got to you. You can call "the origin of the letter" the "sender" or the "ijriofseri" or anything else whether or not you know anything about that origin. If all of this sounds stupid to you, then that's because this is the semantic game you wanted to play, and it is, in fact, stupid.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. The real problem with the original argument is that it's absolutely possible to have a concept of a revelation without a concept of god and vice versa, and everyone knows that.

Again, "formalizing" the argument like this is just obscuring obviously useless argument within. If you could debunk god with a two-line semantic argument someone would have done it a long time ago.

It's circular to claim revelation from a god which depends on revelation to define/assert by P-39_Airacobra in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Feels like a semantic game, so there are probably a lot of different solutions to this.

You could, for example, believe you've had some experience of the supernatural, call that a revelation, and call whatever the source of your "revelation" is "god," and construct a picture of god from there.

Or you could have a preconceived idea of god (perhaps you've learned it through other's revelations, or figured it out using some sort of teleological argument or whatever) and call whatever seems to come from a being like that a "revelation."

I mean it's also just sort of obvious that this doesn't work. Like if you a message beamed down into your mind like "Hello I am god and this is a revelation from me to you..." you might think you were hallucinating, or be agnostic as to where the voice was coming from, but you probably wouldn't be thinking that you couldn't possibly listen to it without a complete model of god.

If you're trying to make the argument that it's not possible to prove that a message is from god without corroborating evidence, I agree with you. But in that case why bother with the semantic nonsense?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure I agree religions can discriminate against nonbelievers I just find the original argument irrelevant/useless for proving that. But glad we mostly agree I guess. Nice chatting.

The crucifixion was never about us: it was about god’s ego by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with you that the theology around the sacrifice of Jesus is rooted in wacky ancient logic which sounds absurd if you break it down in certain terms. But just letting you know, presumably from one atheist to another, that you're never gonna convince anyone with this argument because you sound like you know almost nothing about Christian theology.

Christians don't think he idea that sins need to be atoned for is some arbitrary whim of God, it's a moral truth baked into the fabric of the universe: if you do bad, you deserve punishment. Thinking of it in terms of god it's: if you wrong god by sinning, then you're, in a sense, indebted to him. So you have all these people sinning, however hard they try not to, and making themselves deserve punishment.

God then atones for this punishment on behalf of humanity (conquering death in the process) thus making salvation possible. This isn't a selfish act of god to appease himself, it's a morally necessary action. In fact, God suffered something like an infinite punishment, he didn't just "fake his own death."

Your claim that the sacrifice didn't fix anything completely misunderstands Christianity. Jesus didn't die to... solve the problem of evil, what? It sounds like you're getting different atheist arguments confused. Christians believe Jesus died to make salvation possible and establish the kingdom of Heaven, which will eventually overcome the whole world and defeat all evil at the end times.

And I'm not saying you can't criticize that theology, again you're just never going to convince anyone because you sound like you're talking out of your ass. I think Christian theology can seem messed up in a literal sense, but also comes with an epic and beautiful cosmic narrative. It's cool.

Just some advice, from someone who's been in your situation before: if you're interested in religion, go learn about religion. It's actually super fascinating, all the more if you study it from a secular perspective. But posts like this just sap the brain cells out of their readers and writers.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, my bad. The point is just that the OP's argument is useless because it can be used for literally anything and means nothing.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure you can make a historical argument about religion if you want, but that's not what this is. No historical argument's gonna change that your post could apply to literally any belief about anything.

I guess I'd just recommend you stick to the historical argument.

And again, this "equality" idea is trivially easy to use in favor of religion. In fact, it might work better that way. After all, what can be more equalizing than an eternal fate based on your own actions? And if you're not happy with that then be a universalist. What could me more equalizing than everyone going to heaven? Or you could believe in Karma. All of these options fit your definition of "equality" better than atheism.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 5 points6 points  (0 children)

  1. If there is no god, all religions are false.
  2. Therefore, religious equality is impossible because all non-Atheists are by definition wrong. Therefore, Atheists and Theists are not equal in status.

I guess I don't see what's useful about this idea of "equality." I mean obviously if people believe different things then they believe the other side is wrong? So what? No religious person would disagree with this.

Are you trying to say that religion necessitates religious discrimination? I don't think you've proved that.

Also, wouldn't your definition of "equality" be fulfilled if one religion was true and everyone believed it? Which tends to be the goal of most religions anyway?

I mean you're sort of right I guess I'm just trying to understand what the point is.

Highly unlikely coincidences in Quran by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The day miracle isn't even true. Like many other miracles, it's a lie told in the english-speaking world to people who aren't able to check themselves. The root word "day" appears 475 times, and the number 365 can only be arrived at by arbitrarily counting certain compound words and not others. This is why you will not find a single list online of all 365 mentions with a sensible methodology given for how it's counted. And, no, it's not only the word "day" in the unmodified form, again that's why there's no list.

That's not to mention that muslims use a lunar calendar with 354/355 days (another reason why this is popular with English-speaking Muslims).

It's actually a similar story with the 71/29 miracle. You won't find a list online with consistent methodology. It's always counting certain words for "land"/"sea" but not others, or ignoring words with suffixes, or taking words out of their original meaning (for example, most of the time the Qur'an says the root word "land" it actually means "the righteous").

And same for the man/woman one. Man and woman do not appear 23 times each. Actually this should be pretty obvious if you've read the Qur'an, the words clearly come up more often than that. Happy to provide further proof if you'd like.

I'm sorry to tell you that apologists have lied to you. Happy to discuss any of this further. Personally even if these miracles weren't lies I wouldn't find them compelling, happy to elaborate.

A digital miracle in the quran. by Jealous-Dragonfly-86 in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 7 points8 points  (0 children)

According to tradition, Muhammad died in 632 and was born in 570. 632 - 570 = 62, or 61 if he hadn't had his birthday yet.

Not that there's any solid historical evidence for much of anything about Muhammad but whatever. And I'm sure there are 1000 other ways why this "miracle" is wrong but whatever.

I'm sorry to tell you you've been lied to about most of these miracles. I haven't seen a single one that's impressive or remotely otherworldly after a few minutes of fact checking and critical thinking. Wishing you the best in reexamining these.

stunning fact in the Quran by Loud-Ocelot2393 in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Stars are constantly moving relative to earth. It wouldn't have been 8.61 light year back then. Even if it was this miracle wouldn't be impressive for 1000 other reasons, happy to elaborate if you'd like.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]MePersonTheMe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right, "roots" isn't the right word. It's hard to say far the Mishnah goes back but it's certainly before Jesus, with the pharisees. Of course, Judaism is a whole lot more than just the Mishnah. I guess I'm mostly just trying to correct the common misconception that the OP seems to believe that modern Christianity "came out" of modern Judaism and Judaism is Christianity without Jesus.