dimreepr

They're not helping, they're prolonging the agony by giving Israel a 'world' license to carry on regardless. WWIII isn't beyond reason...

Fair enough; scienceism = people who put their faith in science; I count myself among their numbers. That includes a lot of people who don't really understand the science, bc we don't speak the language properly; the great thinkers evolve our thinking, sometimes against the prevailing/dogmatic understanding. Ditto religions. I'm not sure how else one could interpret that word, in the context of my post.

Baruch Spinoza - Wikipedia Given the context, isn't it obvious?

It's still basically the same question, in that nothing offered that you consider to be true.

Which ones are you talking about? Religion's may lag behind sometimes and resist fundamental changes in their belief, but they also contain great thinkers that challenge the dogma and lead to better explanation's. Ditto scienceism. How does it prove your point? Evolution is the very definition of chaos, and your premise is that atheist misunderstand evolution. IOW no need for a god to guild thing's... 😉

Philosophically speaking, language's can be misinterpreted, maybe the premise offered is valid, even when both appear to be speaking the same language, the smallest nuance can be the switch between the truths. If memory serves, it a Wittgenstein type question.

We are all indoctrinated, it's an inevitability if we survive our birth, please don't assume that your particular indoctrination is superior just bc; have a think about why your immune to the notion of god, just bc you don't believe in an ism...

They both are, which one is most acceptable? That depends on the culture/state/village, one grew up in...

Which circles back to my post, morals is an individual thing that depends on what we can see, which in 99.999...% of the time nobody actually does and so it's disconnected from objective justice, ethics is designed to interject and objectively view the scene. No, I said not really, in the context of actually seeing the scene. It's not Israel that's likely to get the message, they are so much stronger and therefore so much less likely to look for an alternative in fighting their corner, it's Hamas that needs to learn the "rope a dope" technique. We can't expect people to think morally, without ethics defining the rules of the game...

Of course they can, with a reasonable argument...

Well dark matter and dark energy, could be invisible pink unicorns, it depends on the story...

Indeed, but I'm not using it. Indeed, that's the role of ethics...

That depends on the eddy, in the flow.

That depends on how they chose to do that, the world is watching... Ouch, but aren't we equally capable?

Religion is easy to deny bc it generally needs a god to be the arbiter of, whatever... God is an easy target, bc it can't exist... If you want religion to make sense to those who don't believe, then take god out of the argument and explain what the people who wrote the bible, actually meant...

Yes, but he entirely missed the point, eugenics is not something we can control bc the enviroment changes in a future we have no idea about, no god need be involved, so whatever ism you choose, it has no bearing on the reality in front of you... 🙄

Is a virus evil for causing a cold? If God's exist, it would be irrational to assume that they work for you, given the success of the virus... 😉

Not really, "when we can clearly see who took my vision.", it would be foolish to offer the other eye, and I'd be entirely justified, even as a pacifist, in plucking one of theirs in order to profide context and consequences. Indeed, it's always easier when we can clearly see, who the actual bully is. It's not democracy that's the road block to ethics, it's capitalism and the accountant, they own the system.

The ethical argument is very different to the moral one: The moral argument is "an eye for an eye", which is justice when we can clearly see who took my vision. The ethical argument is "how do you know who took what, with only one eye?". Proportionality lies somewhere in between and I don't think the military is best placed to judge...

No, it sound's like you're refusing to acknowledge that bullies are created not born, they all live in basically the same place where the boarders is an arbitrary measure; they don't even have the excuse that they're living on an island and have evolved slightly differently. Everyone has condemned Hitler for the bully he was, isn't it time Israel stopped citing him as the reason to be the bigger innocent???

There's a lot of nuance involved, but I feel sure I'm happier than they are; I'm reminded of a story I heard about Stalin, who litterally hid in his stateroom convinced his failure would be found out. A bully has no choice but to double down, on what they know to be false...

I'm not seeing the difference; art is personal, full stop, it's a pretend vision of reality. The buyer of porn just wants to enjoy that version of reality, without people knowing he's bought it bc he doesn't want people to judge him. The buyer of art, especially the expensive kind, tends to want people to judge them. Both maybe missing something in life, but only one is judge as being sorded; it reminds me of the difference in alcohol consumption, poor people just buy the strongest available and run the gauntlet of judgement on their way home, while the rich people can pretend to appreciate the subtle difference's in quality and flavour, in full view of the plebs...

Who, says?

Much like art demeans every buyer...

Bullies are always stupid, they think that force and threats will get what they want; they're just children really, they just want to be safe. Even Hitler wasn't born evil and it doesn't take a genius to extrapolate that to all humans even the one's labelled Hamas, " a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"...