mathematics is an exercise of the human intuition, not a game played with meaningless symbols. — Intuitionism in the ontology of mathematics

According to Islamic theology, human beings are born with an innate inclination of tawhid (Oneness). — Fitrah in the ontology of Islam — alcontali

Belated response here. I think I'm following this - Fitrah is an axiom.

So next question. How do we go from this axiom all the way to the numerous laws that regulate our behavior to one another? I understand how this works in math. How does it work in Islam? E.g., how does Islam derive the laws governing marital relations from Fitrah? Are there extra axioms and/or steps involved?

Once you say "transcendental", you are already outside the system itself. What does "transcendental" even mean within a formal system? — alcontali

I am trying to express myself - as much as possible - within your framework. Here is what you said a while back:

Religion also proclaims the transcendental origin of this system of rules, necessarily from outside its formal system of rules. — alcontali

I take this to mean that there are axioms outside the formal system of Islamic Law upon which the laws are based - and that these axioms come from Allah. Am I getting this correct - or am I at least close?

BTW - in your response it's not necessary to cite any scripture - I'm a plain language person - I trust that your explanations are correct. :smile:

I have been properly chastised. I will do my best to avoid such mistakes moving forward.

I've been seeing a bunch of insults, so I cut and pasted all the names from the last few days. Apologies if I tarred you with a broad brush. :smile:

@Artemis @Gregory @Nobeernolife @Sir2u @alcontali
I should be used to it by now, but I continue to be dismayed at the level of personal invective in these conversations. There are no stupid people out here. Please criticize the ideas, not the person

Thread #3
You have expressed very consistently the need for a formal set of rules that are inspired by a transcendental source outside the system itself.

Are you saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with killing your neighbor, raping his wife, and kidnapping his children? Are you saying that the only thing keeping you from performing such acts is the moral rules of your religion? I hope not. Can you acknowledge that you do not need a transcendental source to recognize that such actions are morally wrong?

Thread #2 - Rules are interpreted by human beings
And now I'm going to contradict my previous Thread #1. There's no point in trying to come up with a common set of moral rules - because people can and do interpret the same written rule to have different meanings. Take Islam. There is only one set of written rules, yet people have been fighting and killing each other for over a thousand years over the correct interpretation of those rules. Most recently we have seen a particular sect - ISIL - commit unspeakable acts of violence against innocent people.

I am not asking you to defend ISIL. I understand that you are justifiably very suspicious of hierarchies, but even if the different branches of Islam did not fight and kill each other, you cannot deny the fact that human beings are going to look at the same written moral rule and interpret it differently - which leads to different actions in the real world.

Just out of curiosity - and in an effort to understand you better - do you consider yourself Sunni, Shiite, other?

It's fascinating to me how differently we think. Every time I ask you a question, your answer(s) seem to go off in an entirely different direction than I was thinking. Not a criticism. just an observation. Anyway, there are many different ways of responding to you - so as an experiment? Rather than clump all the responses together, I'm going to try to split these out into different threads. There is a risk in this approach in that the different reads may get mixed up - there will be some overlap between them, but this is an experiment. :smile:

Thread #1 - Get a common set of rules

Now if the leaders of all the religions of the world could get together and come up with a set of rules of morality that they could agree upon? — EricH
That sounds too much like an attempt to do design by committee. — alcontali

Well no, we're not coming up with new rules, we're only coming up with commonalities. As you say:

Religions all have the same function and therefore are more similar than different. It's like with competing brands of cars. No matter who builds the car, it still has to do approximately the same things as any other car. So, the similarities will always be more striking than the differences. — alcontali

Here's a task that would be well suited to a person of your capabilities. Figure our how to map moral rules into the Coq Proof Assistant - start an open source project and allow people of all faiths to enter their moral rules into the database and look for intersections. So in the simplest situation, religion X may have moral rules {a, b, c, d} while religion Y has moral rules {d, e, f} - so there is a common moral rule "d".

Of course it's much more complicated than that. Religions A-Y could have a common rule q that you must do something but religion Z forbids it. Do we not allow q? Maybe religion Z only has a few thousand adherents so it's OK. You could build into your system criteria so individuals could widen or narrow the commonality.

An even more serious difficulty? How do we know if two rules from different religions are the same - seeing as they are likely worded differently? Not an easy question to answer - you might need some sort of voting capability built into the project.

If you could pull this off, it would be very cool.

NP. Out of curiosity I checked it out. On first glance I couldn't tell if it was a satire site or genuine. But his books are on sale at Amazon and have verified buyer reviews. So if it's a hoax, it's pretty elaborate.:smile:

Thank you for that link. That was a brilliant explanation.

I am not interested in violating the Church's intellectual property by abusing it for unlicensed purposes. — alcontali

I was going to continue along the main line of this discussion, bu your take on this is fascinating - I've never heard this line of reasoning before. I know there's no chance of dissuading you, but let me point out a few problems with this position. I hope you will at least consider them before rejecting them.

Copyright Illegally Obtained.
There was no notion of copyright back then, the Gospels were in the public domain. Peter had no authority to claim them - basically he took them by force.
Copyright Is Long Since Expired.
I think this speaks for itself.
Copyright Only Applies to New Testament
Even if we accept the notion that the Roman Catholic Church somehow "owns" the bible, it is clear that such ownership only applies to the New Testament. If anyone owns the Old Testament it's the Jews - and to the best of my knowledge they never transferred ownership over to the Roman Catholic Church.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I will be forgiven if I refuse to use the Bible as the foundation for a formal system of morality. — alcontali

Now back to the main line of this thread. I am on your side with this one but for very different reasons. I will not use any religious text as the foundation for a system of morality, since - as you eloquently put it

Religion also proclaims the transcendental origin of this system of rules, necessarily from outside its formal system of rules. — alcontali

Now we only know each other through our writings, so I hope this does not come across as critical - I'm going to ask you to do something that may be hard for you. I would like you to put yourself in the position of a person who has no religion - but is sincerely trying to evaluate them as objectively as possible. . .
There are countless religions on this planet - new ones keep popping into existence as we speak. They all claim to have transcendental origins - but they all make differing claims. Even if you accept the possibility of a transcendent origin there is no way to evaluate the correctness of such claims. And on top of that - each religion has it's own system of moral rules and these rules differ wildly among religions. Things which are permitted in one religion are forbidden in another. And on top of that, many (not all) religions have a long and well documented history of trying to force their beliefs on other people under penalty of death.

Now if the leaders of all the religions of the world could get together and come up with a set of rules of morality that they could agree upon? I would give this serious consideration. But until that time, I reject religion as a source of morality.

So the obvious next question is how can we construct a system of morality in the absence of transcendental authority. I confess - I do not have a definitive answer to this question. The best I can say is that It is up to us frail, flawed human beings to muddle through - to continue to talk to each other and try to figure out a path.

I would add (and yes, this likely sounds like a random thought coming out of nowhere) it is vitally important that we can laugh at ourselves.

I can't comment any more on the Catholic thing. To my ears what you're saying sounds a bit conspiracy minded. But what do I know? I can't dismiss your arguments.

Other than that it sounds like you've been reading Chomsky. Much of what you say about corporate control of the legal system is - if not totally accurate - then at least in the right ballpark. The problem is that if you are living in the USA? Unless you are living off the grid on a commune somewhere, you are inside the system. You have no choice in the matter. Each of us has to figure out how (s)he can best live inside this system and still be a good, decent person. It isn't that hard - at least in principal.

I could be wrong (it happens on a regular basis) but I believe that - according to the rules you follow - my conduct towards my fellow human beings permits me to enter your Paradise.

Meanwhile, I don't feel like you have addressed my major point. Here's what you said:

By choosing a religion, you are choosing a system of rules that specifies what behaviour is right and wrong. — alcontali

And here's my response - I've bold-faced the key points:

This is one of the reasons I responded to you in the first place. Religions are far more that simply a system of rules. I wish I were a more eloquent person - I'm sure there are better ways of expressing this next thought:

There are "features" unique to each religion which drives their particular set of rules - and there are major areas on the metaphorical Venn Diagram of the set of all features of all religions where there is no overlap between 2 or more religions.

This lack of overlap is the source of a significant portion of conflict in our world today.

BTW - I admire your knowledge of math theory, I wish I could understand it at your level. Please treat this as a metaphor. :smile: — EricH

This discussion is going in many different directions simultaneously. That's not a criticism at all - you are giving some fascinating historical details. So I'm going to first address two of the items that I consider secondary to the main line of (what I consider to be) the central topic of this discussion.

Catholic Church is Somehow Hiding the Rules
I have been good friends with Catholics both growing up and as an adult - and that is not my perception. As far as I can tell, there are no secret rules for Catholics. For centuries they were not supposed to eat meat on Friday. Then, in 1966 the rules changed - but they were publicly announced by National Conference of Catholic Bishops (I'm over-simplifying this for brevity) . Now it may be that the process of deciding the rules was hidden, but to the best of my knowledge no practicing Catholic has ever been punished or criticized for violating a hidden rule.

you are not going to burn in hell merely for guessing it wrong. — alcontali

We seem to be looping around in this particular thread of the discussion. Even tho I have zero belief in an afterlife, it pleases me to hear religious people say this. It tells me that I am dealing with a reasonable person - albeit one who has some beliefs that I find very strange :smile: But I'll try one more time. IF the statement I quoted above is correct then I should have a very pleasant afterlife.

But "IF" The Southern Baptists of from the southern part of the USA are correct, then both of us will spend a long time suffering together. If anything, they would likely rate this as a very suitable punishment for our sins. . . .

By choosing a religion, you are choosing a system of rules that specifies what behaviour is right and wrong. — alcontali

This is one of the reasons I responded to you in the first place. Religions are far more that simply a system of rules. Our legal system - while not perfect - provides an excellent road map on how to live a good decent life. If I obey the laws of the USA & my state & municipality, I'm pretty much there.

I wish I were a more eloquent person - I'm sure there are better ways of expressing this next thought:

There are "features" unique to each religion which drives their particular set of rules - and there are major areas on the metaphorical Venn Diagram of the set of all features of all religions where there is no overlap between 2 or more religions. This lack of overlap is the source of a significant portion of conflict in our world today.

BTW - I admire your knowledge of math theory, I wish I could understand it at your level. Please treat this as a metaphor. :smile:

Before going on in this discussion I should be clear - I have no religious beliefs and as such do not belief in any afterlife. That said, I am good friends with people of differing religions and I see first hand that it provides a source of comfort to them. I have no problem with people being religious as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on me. If a person's religion provides them with meaning and structure to their lives, then who am I to tell them differently?

So getting back to my first question. Put yourself in the position of a person who feels the need to belong to a religion but is not sure about which religion to join. Each religion says different things about the nature of the afterlife and how you should behave in this life. Some religions say that as long as you are a good decent person you will get into paradise. Other religions - e.g. some fundamentalist Christian denominations - say that if you do not believe properly you will burn in hellfire for all eternity.

So how is a person to choose one out of this bewildering variety of options? Remember, only one can be completely correct - and if you choose wrong you could burn in hell for all eternity. That's a pretty serious penalty for guessing wrong.

OK - so a person can live an exemplary life as a non-believer and get into Paradise. But if you accept the faith but then later in life choose another religion, then you are denied Paradise even if you have otherwise lived an exemplary life. Correct?

BTW - it's not necessary to cite any verses. I have no reason to doubt your honesty or accuracy.

It is silly to believe that religious affiliation on earth will be the only thing that will matter on That Day. Absolutely nobody seems to believe that. — alcontali

But if any one follows any religion other than Islam after Mohammed (pbuh) became the prophet then no chance to go to heaven as stated clearly in Quran: وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الإِسْلامِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers. [Quran 3:85] — islam.stackexchange.com

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I have many questions each of which will open up different avenues of discussion. Let me start here:

If I follow you, anyone can get into Paradise - Christian, Jew, Atheist, etc - as long as they behave decently and avoid major sins. Correct?

Yes, certainly. It is your choice. — alcontali

One problem I'm having with this statement is that different religions make different claims about what happens to me after I die and there's no way that they can all be correct - at most only one religion is correct and all the others are wrong to some degree.

If I guess wrong and choose the wrong religion, then after I die? Really, really bad stuff will happen to me. Depending on which religion is actually the true correct religion my eternal soul will burn in hellfire for all eternity - OR - maybe I'll suffer in purgatory from some period of time - OR - maybe I'll be re-incarnated as a cockroach.

This is bad enough for me - but if my children choose the same religion (as is most typical) then the same terrible fate will befall them as well.

Can I choose any religion for me & my children?

When Huxley coined the term agnostic in 1869, his purpose was explicitly clear - he wanted a way to make explicit the difference in his thinking from atheism.

Your analogy to the world being round vs. flat looks to me to be a category error - as this is a statement about the physical universe which can be empirically verified. Definitions of words are ultimately arrived at via consensus - and can change over time. It appears that you and others are either trying to broaden the definition of atheism to incorporate agnosticism - OR - perhaps you are saying that Huxley's definition was somehow flawed and that - even working within the framework of his original definition - agnosticism is a type of atheism. As I've explained I think this is a mistake, since
(a) it goes against the commonly accepted usage of the words - in particular the definition of agnostic has broadened over time to mean being non-commital about something; and
(b) there are some simple alternatives which - at least to my plain language thinking - work equally well.

As to where I got 99.999 . . . %? I did a seat of the pants estimate. To start off with, how many people in the world study philosophy at this level? Difficult to say precisely, but we can make some educated guesses. I'm in the US. The American Philosophical Association website says they have "over 10,000 members". Let's say 10K. Likely there are theologians who also dabble in this stuff. Let's double that to 20K. Then there are students who are currently studying philosophy who may be familiar with this debate. Add another 20K. So now we have 40K people in the US who would follow this conversation and have an opinion - they might agree with you or not. So say 50% agree with your definitions and 50K don't. Back to 20K people in the US who would both understand this conversation and agree with you. To make the math easy I'll bump that up to 30K. Next there are 300M people in the US. So that means 1 in 10,000 Americans would understand this discussion and agree with you. So that's 99.999. I'm assuming this would extend world wide.

But maybe I'm wrong. It happens on a regular basis - just ask my wife. . .

So here's what you could do. Take a random poll of people in the street. Ask them this question: "If a person neither believes nor dis-believes in God, what word would you use to describe their beliefs? Agnostic or Atheist?" I have a high degree of confidence that the overwhelming majority would say Agnostic. You might then try a similar survey and add one more option into the mix. Ask them this question: "If a person neither believes nor dis-believes in God, what word would you use to describe their beliefs? Agnostic, Atheist, or Agnostic Atheist?" I have a high degree of confidence that the overwhelming majority would say "What the heck is an Agnostic Atheist?" :smile:

I've think I've said all I can say on this topic. I'll give you the last word if you want it.

Gentlemen (at least I assume you both identify as male, apologies if I got that wrong :smile: )

Based on your posts you both appear to be reasonably intelligent articulate people. What we have here is a disagreement over how to define the word atheist. Now I'm sort of a kumbaya person, so let me attempt to resolve this peacefully. Let me address you individually.

To @Frank Apisa:
You're an agnostic no matter what Dingo says. Dingo is using the word atheist in the context of a very arcane classification system used by some philosophers to distinguish between various systems of thought regarding religion. Not only that, but I believe there are other arcane classification systems under which you would be agnostic. And no one outside a minuscule insular group of people would ever understand any of this.

I can relate to this on a personal level. I consider myself to be some variation of Ignostic. I have had conversations with folks on the forum who consider this to be a variation of atheism - if I recollect being an Ignostic means I'm a Weak Atheist. My response was that this is tarring me with too braod a brush and that the average person would not understand it.

So if someone on someone on some obscure discussion group prefers to label you as an atheist, big deal. Simply say you disagree and wave your agnostic freak flag on high.

To: @DingoJones::
I understand what you're saying. Your desire to be precise is admirable - please accept this as a sincere complement. The problem I have (and I believe Frank's as well) - is that the word atheist has a very clear (and different) meaning to, umm, 99.99999. . .% of the world's population: it means that you actively deny the existence of God (or any Gods). I'm a plain language guy and your usage contradicts the plain language meaning of the word.

I respectfully suggest that if you used the word non-theist instead of atheist, our differences would disappear.

If you disagree - and if Frank stubbornly insists on calling himself Agnostic? So what? You can continue to lobby for your definitions. Who knows? If you can win, say, 1% of the world's population over to your definitions, maybe I'll change my mind. :smile:

If I'm following correctly, you use the word atheism to refer to any position that does not answer the question of God's existence in the affirmative. I.e., anyone who does not assert some sort of belief and/or knowledge in God is, by definition, an atheist.

You then state that there are many varieties of atheism. I'm aware that there are classification systems to identify different flavors of atheism. Perhaps you stated this somewhere in the back & forth and I missed it (if so, apologies), but what label/classification would you use to identify Frank's position?

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... — Frank Apisa

Having been on this Forum for several years now - and occasionally posting - I should be used to this sort of discussion. But yet I'm still startled by the, umm. . . . intensity of feelings regarding the correct definition/usage of the words atheist and agnostic.

Yes, yes (I hear you saying) much of philosophy involves definition of terms. But in this case, I submit to all parties that the definitional war has been decided by the general public. The conversations in this thread would be incomprehensible to the average person. If you were to ask the average person on the street to define what an atheist thinks/believes they would most likely say either "That person does not believe in God" or "That person denies that God exists". For agnostic they would most likely say "That person neither believes nor dis-believes in God".

Yes, these are very loose imprecise statements - in fact it seems that we cannot even agree on the definition of the word belief. So I respectfully suggest that people be allowed to choose whatever word best fits their their thinking and then let them give the devilish details. If after hearing the details you feel that a different word would more accurately describe their thinking, then simply say "If someone were to ask me what word to use to label your thinking, I would use a different word. This different word would more accurately describe the details behind your thinking."

But I have to ask, how many truths has he spoken? — NOS4A2

I don't know if anyone has kept a running count of what percentage of his statements are true vs. untrue. Regardless of what the precise percentage is - Trump has made so many untruthful statements that at this point you have to assume that any statement he makes is untrue until it can be independently verified - preferably by 2 sources.

The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive. — NOS4A2

OK, you're correct - I do not know what's going on in his mind. I'll rephrase.

Trump makes factually incorrect statements on pretty much a daily basis. I.e., the words coming out of his mouth - or his tweets - do not correspond to reality.

I can think of at least 3 possible explanations. Maybe you have a 4th (or 5th)

1) He is lying
2) He believes what he is saying
3) He is just making stuff up off the top of his head and doesn't think about it afterwards
4) ???

It's possible that it's some combination of the above.

In either case, I think this behavior is unacceptable for any human being - let alone the POTUS. Maybe you're OK with this, and maybe I'm stupid & naive, but I expect better.

Again I don’t look to politicians for truth. In fact I think it would be idiotic and naive to do so. What I want is leadership and results. — NOS4A2

I expect politicians to spin facts to make events seem less or more favorable to therm.

But -- Call me naive but I expect politicians to avoid telling factually verifiable lies on a daily basis.

The unified Jewish kingdom only existed in the mythical period of Saul, David and Solomon. — David Mo

It's a fascinating part of history. Here's a good starting point.

If these perverse foundations of law became widespread — David Mo

I'll loop around one more time here. You seem be implicitly acknowledging in this sentence that there are (or should be) some rules to govern who should own the land.

As you have correctly noted, the Israeli/Palestinian situation is not unique. While each situation has it's own unique history (and range of solutions) there is still the underlying question - how to resolve disputes over land ownership.

Again - I am not criticizing your positions. My desire is to see a peaceful resolution of the situation - but I acknowledge that this is highly unlikely. I would gladly be wrong, but I see nothing ahead but continued violence.

I'll give you the last word here - if you want it that is. . . .

What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years ago based on legends would turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea. — David Mo

Firstly - and this is a minor point - these are not legends. There is a clear historical record that there was an autonomous Jewish nation prior to being taken over by Rome.

I agree with your main idea - after 2K years it's too late to go back.

But this does not answer my question - how do we resolve situations where multiple groups of people lay claim to the same physical land? Is there any legal/moral/philosophical/political framework that can be used to untangle these situations?

And can we apply such a framework to help untangle the Israeli/Palestinian situation?

Superficially.
You cannot make casuistry with this problem. You have to analyze different contexts. — David Mo

Absolutely - that's why I used the word superficially

I was just pointing out a blatant similarity. — David Mo

The problem I have with your comparison is that it seems to have things backwards. In your comparison you are equating the Sioux with the Israelis, i.e. the Sioux are not allowed to reclaim their historic homeland. My point was that we should be equating the Sioux with the Palestinians - they are the aggrieved party. Apologies if I was not clear on that.

You cannot make casuistry with this problem. You have to analyze different contexts. — David Mo

Absolutely. But if there are no guidelines/rules/laws at all, then there will be no way to resolve these issues. There has to be some agreed upon structure that all parties can agree upon for discussions to take place. Otherwise it's simply might makes right - the winner makes up the rules to justify their actions.

There is no evidence Schiff was on the hunt for nude photos of the president.

As was reported in The Atlantic, Schiff was prank-called in April 2017 by Russian entertainers claiming to being a leading Ukrainian politician. One of the callers suggested he had evidence that the Russians had compromising material on the president in the form of nude photos. Schiff, then the ranking member on the Intel committee, asked for a few details, and says the FBI would be willing to review a recording the caller claimed to have, according to the magazine.

A Schiff spokesman told The Atlantic they did not trust the callers: “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”

Alerting and invoking law enforcement hardly suggests that Schiff was seeking nude photos for political use.

Can the descendants of ABC fight and kill the descendants of DEF?
If yes, then for how long? — EricH

Even if the Jews lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, their right to occupy Palestine does not exist. No more than the rights of the Great Sioux Nation to occupy Dakota — David Mo

The US waged war against the Sioux, brutally slaughtered them, took away their land which they had occupied for thousands of years, and forced them into what we would now call concentration camps.

Roughly 125 years have passed since those events. By any objective standard the Sioux have suffered at least as much as the Palestinians - if not worse.

So superficially you seem to be answering my question - 125 years is the time limit.

Just to be clear, I am not criticizing your positions on Israel/Palestine. I don't know if it's possible, but I'm trying to take a broader view.

Concerning existence as a predicate, if existence were a predicate, something that does not exist would have the predicate of non-existence, i.e. the negation of the existence predicate, but that is not possible because something that does not exist cannot have any predicates at all. — alcontali

Very interesting. Now I know this is getting on slippery ground, but on first glance it seems like the products of our imagination have predicates. E.g. The word "unicorn" refers to an imaginary mythological creature that has various imaginary properties.

Suppose the narrative is historically accurate?

Let's say there's nation ABC. Now nation DEF conquers nation ABC and rules over the original inhabitants of ABC - i.e., the rights of a specific people (the ABCers) living in a place were stolen, expelled and massacred when they resisted.

Can the descendants of ABC fight and kill the descendants of DEF?

If yes, then for how long? Is there some amount of time after which you say to the descendants of ABC - "Yes, you're historically right, your land was taken away from you, but X number of years have passed. Get over it?"

I posted this earlier in the thread, I'll try again. Rather than argue over the specifics of the situation, I respectfully suggest that you try to deal with this in generic terms. As I see it there are two somewhat related questions that need to be answered:

How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land - "This land is our land and not your land"

Likely there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

Issue #2: What laws can a nation pass?
Are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal laws/rules/tenets/principals that limit the power of the people who control a particular plot of land to regulate the behavior of the people who live in that particular plot of land?

Again, there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

If people can agree on the answers to these questions, then it becomes a matter of applying the rules/laws to the situation.

I do not have answers to either of those questions.

It depends on the context. In religious law, it is an axiomatic belief. — alcontali

To millions (billions?) of people around the world, it is an empirical fact that God is real.

In science, it may apparently look like an empirical question but the falsificationist boundaries of science do not allow for a question that cannot be tested experimentally. — alcontali

This statement (and many others like it) are are exactly the sort of explanations used by people of science to demonstrate to believers that their belief - that God's existence is an empirical fact - is incorrect. These attempts are rarely successful.

No one is arguing that Israel is an egalitarian society. All reasonable people acknowledge that non-Jews are denied many basic rights, are discriminated against and oppresed, and are second class citizens at best.

However, you seem to be re-defining the term "racism". I know that in the academic community race is considered to be a social construct, but (for better of worse) the commonly accepted meaning of the word race is based on physical appearance. Taking the commonly accepted usage, people of any race can be Jewish - blacks, Asian, etc. It isn't easy, but any person of non-Jewish ancestry can become a full fledged Israeli citizen by converting to orthodox Judaism.

I am not disputing any of the facts you have presented. I'm simply suggesting that the tactic of using the word 'racism' is counter-productive. My alternative? Beats me. I wish I were more eloquent. Maybe "ethnic cleansing"?

If you want to know my full position on Israel, please read my previous posts.

That is true. However, there is no way to force any given country to adopt them in their constitution, laws, or international treaties. To my knowledge, the US has not legally adopted it as a treaty.

There are two separate issues going on in this discussion - and it's a bit hard to untangle then given the history.

Issue #1: How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land - "This land is our land and not your land"

Likely there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

Issue #2: What laws can a nation pass?
Are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets/principals that limit the power of the people who control a particular plot of land to regulate the behavior of the people who live in that particular plot of land?

Again, there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I do not have any answers to these questions.

I will note that for #1, the currently existing mechanism is via the United Nations.

For #2, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there is no enforcement mechanism.

I am deeply pessimistic about the future of Israel. I don't see any workable solution - the two sides are too far apart. They're gonna have to get sick & tired of killing each other before any compromise is possible.

Of course, at the rate things are going, global warming & the associated climate change will likely make the whole region uninhabitable - thus solving the problem.

It would make me very happy to be wrong about all this.

I'm a non-religious Jew. My best friend in college was an ardent Zionist. In 1972 he spent a year in Israel traveling around and working on a kibbutz. When he came back he said to me: "We [meaning us Jews] blew it. We should never have tried to move into a place with a large hostile population. We should have moved into Tierra del Fuego - or maybe Newfoundland".

I feel conflicted about Israel. I empathize with the emotions that drive Zionism. I remember feeling so proud as a teenager after the '67 War - we took on the enemy and crushed them - and if there were ever another war I would be rooting for Israel. A defeat would be catastrophic.

That said, my feeling is that an historical mistake was made by making Israel the country of the Jewish people. It could have been declared a Jewish homeland (i.e. preserve the Right of Return) but otherwise a secular democracy. Whether this would have worked is anyone's guess.

As it is, Israel is never going to be a "safe space" - and the fate of the Palestinian people is an ongoing tragedy with no end in sight.