about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon — St Augustine, (quoting 1 Tim 1:7, from The Literal Meaning of Genesis).

St Augustine: (By the way, lived in what is now known as Algeria, Africa): 13 November 354 – 28 August 430, Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaiuti de' Galilei (15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642).

Galileo's championing of Copernican heliocentrism (Earth rotating daily and revolving around the Sun) was met with opposition from within the Catholic Church and from some astronomers. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was foolish, absurd, and heretical since it contradicted biblical creationism — Wikipedia, Galileo

Augustine wrote this presumably when Christians, including presumably himself, accepted geocentric ism. This is the danger of accepting the scientific theory du jour.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. — St Augustine, (quoting 1 Tim 1:7, from The Literal Meaning of Genesis).

I agree. I reluctantly place Ken Ham and other creationists into this camp. You can see his great debate with Bill Nye (The Science Guy). To his credit, Ken Ham soundly disproves the theory that a Creationist cannot be a scientist, and it would seem that an inquisition of some sort is not necessary for ruling out scientists from working in their fields, but Ken Ham brings up some dubious claims, and displays incorrect reasoning.

If anyone wants to classify and alternate view of origins, such as creationism, as nonsense, they can do so, but we need to know who is calling it that? Is it the Catholic Church, the Christian community in general, we are all not agreed on this. Creationism has many forms, which one is nonsense then?
Are we supposed to pick one version over the other, this is preferable, are they all not nonsense?
Is it really that the Deist view is the only creationist view that 'science' will respect?

Creationism
First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Fri Sep 21, 2018
At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be “transcendent” meaning beyond human experience, and constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense. Generally they are known as ‘theists,’ distinguishing them from ‘deists,’ that is people who believe that there is a designer who might or might not have created the material on which he (or she or it) is working and who does not interfere once the designing act is finishing. The focus of this discussion is on a narrower sense of Creationism, the sense that one usually finds in popular writings (especially in America today, but expanding world-wide rapidly). Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth (Numbers 1992). — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

This debate is very difficult, in my opinion, because of the nonsensical arguments put forward by the some of those who try to mix the scientific account with the non-scientific narratives.

Excellent question, but I don't think there has to be a 'pure logical contradiction' between creation natural and divine. — Wayfarer

Why not? How can the existence of the universe from purely natural, non-God causes, be not a contradiction of the creation of the universe from God causes?

If I write something here or even press the "q" key repeatedly, like so: qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
and if the computer key gets stuck for some reason and the "q" key is triggered like so: qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq, how could these results stem from the same cause?

According to the big-bang model, the universe expanded rapidly from a highly compressed primordial state, which resulted in a significant decrease in density and temperature. Soon afterward, the dominance of matter over antimatter (as observed today) may have been established by processes that also predict proton decay. During this stage many types of elementary particles may have been present. After a few seconds, the universe cooled enough to allow the formation of certain nuclei. The theory predicts that definite amounts of hydrogen, helium, and lithium were produced. — Britannica

Do you see the word "God" in any of the above description? In that case, how could a Christian or a creationist of any sort ascribe that that view of origins? Or do we only apply Creation to the origin of life?

I will answer St Augustine.

Repeated post

Of course. Inside the Catholic Church, there was dissent over Galileo's censure. Whilst the conservatives were keen to see him condemned, there were progressives who believed the entire effort was misconceived. The Church is concerned with 'how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go', was their mantra. They lost the argument (much to the discredit of the Church.) Likewise after the publication of the Origin of Species, whilst some conservatives were quick to anathematize it, there were many within the Church who saw no inherent conflict between evolution and divine creation. It wasn't until the American fundementalists came along that it really blew up. But for those who never believed the literal truth of creation myth, the fact that they are *not* literally true is not the devasting blow against religion that Richard Dawkins seems to think. Origen and Augustine used to ridicule the literal reading of Scripture in the 1st and 4th centuries AD respectively. — Wayfarer

The above paragraph really highlights the issues that I am concerned with discussing.

Galileo's theory contradicted the church's teaching of the day. Since then, the church has abandoned that interpretation, and aside from the issue of the inerrancy of the Bible, that interpretation was not really in conflict with core doctrines.

The Origin of Species was different, in that it struck at the heart of many themes or even doctrines in the Bible, the creation of human beings out of dust, without any hominid ancestors of any sort. Even today, the theology of human origins is something the cannot accept.

Of course some will see no conflict between evolution and divine creation, but some will do. What is so difficult for me to accept is the pure logical contradiction between the act of divine creation and and all natural creation. Beliefs aside, the practice of reason absolutely demands that such a contradiction be recognized, what you want to do with that later is another matter.

It was not the fundamentalists: people from antiquity have always believed in divine creation, there was no evolution to believe in, there were other theories, Greek theories, perhaps, and they were aware of them. The Hindu beliefs, for example* are different. Where is the recognition that the beliefs of those who hold to Creationism are equally valid, or even the condemnation of these beliefs as being erroneous?

In any case the fundamentalists ran into trouble when they tried to influence what was taught in schools, private beliefs would have not been a problem. As usual, legislating a particular type of morality will be met with opposition. This seems to be all about textbooks.

But for those who never believed the literal truth of creation myth, the fact that they are *not* literally true is not the devasting blow against religion that Richard Dawkins seems to think — Wayfarer

For those who have always believed in creationism, and not necessarily the creationism myth, the theory of evolution is a devastating blow against their beliefs. That should be recognized.

*

Creation stories in Hinduism
What accounts of the origins of the universe are found in Hinduism?
In Hinduism the universe is millions of years old. In line with the Hindu belief in
reincarnation
, the universe we live in is not the first or indeed the last universe.

For Hindus the universe was created by Brahma, the creator who made the universe out of himself.

As for his criminal charges, read the Wikipedia article and see if it changes anything. I am more inclined to believe in the moral bankruptcy of his enemies, knowing what he is saying, and knowing what they are capable of. Who is he working for, Russia, and that puts him in the cross hairs of whom exactly? Is that reasonable?

Ritter was the subject of two law enforcement sting operations in 2001 — Wikipedia

I can see here that getting someone convicted in this way diminishes his credibility in the eyes of people, and that itself may be a temptation to the powers that be, right? The question is, is he worth the effort?

"Scott Ritter is an unreliable source who often makes things up," doesn't entail "the opposite of what he says is true in all cases." It means he's an unreliable source who has a terrible track record. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Alright. Let's take this one first. Some of Scott Ritter's claims are testable. Some are not, let's drop those. First one to take up is will Ukraine lose the war and surrender? That is still ongoing.

The second one is about Israel. What does he say there?

27:52 warheads so now Israel is facing a double existential threat which tells me they really need to focus on um a 27:59 negotiated settlement because it's the only option they have genocide isn't the option because here's the reality of it.. — Scott Ritter

So, Scott Ritter says Israel's only option - only option - is a negotiated settlement. Since he is not on the side of the United States, and he is on the side of Russia, assuming Russia is in support of Palestine, then he is parroting the Russian line, right? He wants Hamas to win, right?

I do not think anyone coldly looking at the facts thinks that there is no other option, war is an option for Israel, if they do not care about collateral damage. I hope I am wrong, but Scott Ritter is wrong, and the following account is much more insightful, based on current trajectory, no matter who says it: this is a view, one view, and presupposes the destruction of Hamas, Gaza, the civilian infrastructure, population - everything, close to a post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland. " A social, economic, and humanitarian collapse in Gaza"

According to this view, Israel is seeking to win. The way things are going, looks like they will.

Israel was eventually planning to announce an international zone in Gaza, and then proceed to bring an impotent Palestinian government, like the one in the West Bank, to power. But as the regime has not been able to reach any of its initial objectives, it is now trying to make a complete social collapse unfold in Gaza. That way, Hamas and the people of the territory would have to spend a significant time to recover and hence have less energy to fight occupation forces. It would take Palestinians several months or perhaps years to recover from such dire circumstances. A social, economic, and humanitarian collapse in Gaza would now be in Israel’s best interest, as the regime failed to make the scenario it envisaged during the 1990s come true. — Tehran Times

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/492355/Social-collapse-another-tactic-of-the-apartheid-regime

With experiments and findings of chemical reactions actually forming potential sources for self-correcting structures, abiogenesis is still the most logical solution to the question. In the context of entropy, it also makes sense. — Christoffer

In the same way that human beings became able to reproduced chemical compounds that occur naturally, by artificial means or substances such as artificial diamonds, it may be possible, at some time in the future, to create basic organisms.

It may also be possible to create a theory that will account for the creation of life from non-life, through natural processes.

However, methods that result in the creation of basic life forms and the explanations accompanying those do not preclude, out of logical necessity, the creation of life by a God.

In the next ten thousand to a million years, there is no doubt that increasingly complex and elegant theories might be proposed, however the basic human act of faith in the existence of the yet unknown, be it God or be it future explanations, the acts of blind faith may continue to be committed far into the distant future. Therefore I do not think there can be a rational argument against religious faith.

Nothing is wrong with it (although there are dubious religious ideologies.) — Wayfarer

That is quite a summary, an a good one, I would say. I will address the various theories in due course.

For now, though there is this:

The consensus view of secular culture (and on this forum) is, I think, that there's nothing necessarily wrong with religious ideologies, but that they're based on articles of faith, for which neither philosophical nor scientific justifications can be given. A scientific account of a natural process can't take those principles into account as they're not scientifically verifiable. — Wayfarer

I think you addressed it here: are you really saying that 'articles of faith have no philosophical justification' ? But this is exactly what I wish to put forward, that beliefs that are rational defensible are philosophically justifiable.

Scientifically justifiable, no, and I think not within the current scientific framework, maybe there will be a Theory of God one day.

Maybe they have a weird code of conduct, who knows these days anything is possible.

I would not look to Scott Ritter for information about anything. He's not even a Tucker Carlson-tier propagandist but a full on state mouth piece — Count Timothy von Icarus

All information is welcome, for me, even false statements contain information. He knows that his false claims will be found out, but he goes ahead anyway. So we simply reverse his false statements to get at the truth. So Israel is winning, and will win. The last two world wars were settled by bombing, right? It works, right? It is horrific but that is the price they are willing to pay. Interesting.

Do we really know whose payroll he is on? Is he freelancing for the Palestinian cause as well?
We do not really know, but the way his videos are presented on YouTube with an unknown knitting latdy from Brazil, that channel, it looks like a clumsy attempt at obfuscation.

During Tuesday’s hearing, none of the school leaders explicitly said that calling for the genocide of Jews would necessarily violate their code of conduct. Instead, they explained it would depend on the circumstances and conduct." — RogueAI

We have to see their code of conduct, and it has to be changed. Maybe.

Scott Ritter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLnWZVU5MFs&t=2104s

Posted on the YouTube channel QUỲNH HƯƠNG 239K subscribers

Brazil

What do you think, and how does this bear on what is happening?

I have no idea why you're asking these questions or how they're relevant to the conversation we had — flannel jesus

Creationism is linked to American Protestant Fundamentalism and is a religious ideology. — Wayfarer

What is wrong with having a religious ideology? Has some law been broken here?

Only semantically — 180 Proof

I thought logically? If God exists, He created the universe. That follows, right? Or does it not?

Deep time, deep space, initial conditions of low entropy, nucleogenesis, accelerating cosmic expansion, etc are features of cosmic self-organization which is, of course, inconsistent with "creation by divine fiat" — 180 Proof

You make that assertion, I do not agree. It only means that there is a plausible explanation
for how the universe could have come into being.

There is no evidence of a "creator" — 180 Proof

I am not sure what sort of form that evidence would take. Intelligent Design, perhaps? Fine tuning?

Laplace had no use for that hypothesis (God), but surely you can see that a person of faith absolutely needs that hypothesis?

Well, I’ll bow out, then. — Wayfarer

We can talk about 'why' questions, but 'why' questions are impossible for me to deal with, put it that way, I have no framework.

That the majority of scientists accepted evolution without much fossil evidence of a lineage of humanoids leading to homosapiens? — flannel jesus

A few scientists started with a with a hypothesis. This hypothesis was since confirmed, but to the acceptance of this 'fact' had to depend on the assumption that this hypothesis was possibly correct, though ruled out by religious beliefs. They 'accepted evolution' based on evidence, but what compulsion should the church have for accepting it? Suppose someone came up with a natural explanation for the 'virgin birth' of Jesus? Would the church be bound to accept that 'scientific view?'.

There is great number of creation myths that date back to antiquity. There are also ancient beliefs that the universe always existed:

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that the world must have existed from eternity in his Physics as follows. In Book I, he argues that everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. Therefore, if the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into existence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. As this assumption is self-contradictory, Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.[1] — Wikipedia Eternity of Universe

There were always alternative and natural views to the how the universe came into being. Those who adhered to the religions of Judaism and Christianity, and possibly Islam, to which the doctrine of Creation by God, this doctrine is central, those adherents to these religions were always faced with a choice.

Assuming that the right to belief in a religion is a basic human right, then it follows that the followers of this religion have a right to believe in a Creation.

The rise of the theory of evolution, or should I say popularity of the theory of evolution in Europe, was clearly in conflict with the beliefs in creation, so was the geological theories of origins. The choice was then to reject the scientific theory of origins, which the faithful have every right to do. Evidence has to be accepted, as artifacts, but they do not disprove creationism, per se. Also, apart for the doctrines concerning origins, those religions are full of stories of miracles which are quite central to the faith. There is no scientific evidence for those miracles ever happening: for example the parting of the red sea.

Accepting evolution as fact is fine if you are scientist who does not believe in a Creator-God. If you do believe in a Creator-God, then you will have to either hold two contradictory beliefs in your head, hold to the Deistic view, or reject one and hold to the other as being the absolute truth.

My question is, are we judging if one is preferable to the other, and on what basis?

I do not think Creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution. It is up to the laws of the land to rule on how the school curriculum should be made. The teaching of a purely non-God theory of origins, alongside all other views of reality, should not be something which children have to be insulated from, these conflicts will arise at some time in life, and even these religious traditions teach how to navigate the perilous seas of existence in the midst of 'false teachings', and alternate views, which in any case, are not uncommon in within the churches, for example.

Teach evolution in schools, teach religious beliefs at home. The skill of integrating religious belief with scientific theories is a valuable skill that cannot be met by altering school textbooks, I believe is futile. This approach will make faith weaker not stronger.

These are the questions I have.

Science accepts evolution because we have a preponderance of evidence of evolution.
— flannel jesus — Wayfarer

I am not interested in 'why' questions, I do not think they fit into the discussion of evolution, and in theology the 'why' has answer that are not compelling to the other side.

Scientists accept non-supernatural explanations because, in the current practice of sciences, supernatural causes have no place. Neither has the act of Creation by a God. That is simply out of bounds, and for good reason, perhaps it allows for an infinite number of variables.

If the no-God hypothesis for creation is to be assumed to be the only explanation, first one must prove the no-God exists. One has to prove God does not exist in order to prove that He did not create the universe, doesn't that follow?

No, I definitely do not think that the only reason science accepts evolution is because there's no other option. — flannel jesus

What other options are there?

I prefer to talk about 'scientists accepting' rather than 'science accepting' anything. If you describe it this way, then we can say that 'some scientists' accept that all living things came to their present state of being via a process of evolution, a natural process, not involving God. Other scientists choose to believe that God created all living things, either at 'the beginning' or somewhere along the way. We can get into the numbers game here. Unless we categorically state that religious beliefs are irrational, then we have to allow for the possibility of these beliefs being valid, or at least an philosophical stand that may be respected.

If the evidence counterfactually pointed to it, scientists today would say "The fossil records show humans spontaneously appeared on the earth 6000 years ago." The evidence doesn't point to that, so scientists don't say that — flannel jesus

The assumption that human evolution occurred preceded the evidence. That is how science works, you may say, very well. Without getting into scientific study myself, then I will have to make a guess as to whether the accepted scientific view is justified.

Rather than state that humans suddenly appeared, I think many scientists would echo Dawkins in saying that this only means that scientists have to work harder and come up with an explanation to find the evidence. There are at least some scientists who will be bound to take this view, atheists at the forefront of them.

There is no compulsion to avoid natural explanations for all phenomena, whether there be evidence or not. Scientists are still trying to come up with a theory of how life began in the first place.

My point is this: there will always exist some people, maybe scientists, who will attribute creation to a God, and there are some people, again may be scientists or not, who under no circumstances will attribute supernatural causes for the creation of the universe, and life itself. I believe this stems from the human condition, and evidence will not help.

Saint Augustine used this analogy. Think of a choice you made in the past. Can you go back and change it? No, your choice is now a necessary element of the past. Does that preclude your being free when you made the choice, at the point of becoming? Absolutely not. We only make choices in the eternal "now," not in the "already has been," or "not yet." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I believe this is a good way of presenting this concept.

I have no real problem with the idea of free will, or the lack of it.

I leave you with this question:

If free will 'actually exists' and were to disappear tomorrow, what would be different?

How does one test such an argument? — Wayfarer

How do I find out if this argument holds water? I am willing to accept a conclusion either way:
It is confusing to me, on the one hand Michael Behe, a mainstream Biologist with maybe not mainstream views, and those on the other side.

Are they agreed on the facts?

Are they agreed on the conclusions?

Can I tell if they are indeed agreed on facts and how their conclusions differ?

One problem I face is that a lot of the arguments are mixed in with the fine tuning argument. To be clear, my position on the fine tuning argument is this: If the existence of God is not a settled one way or the other, then the fine tuning argument is circumstantial evidence for the existence of a God and Creator, however, it does not conclusively prove anything. Why? Because we are obviously here, despite the odds, as a sort of anthropomorphic argument, and theories could emerge in the future that make the existence of the universe inevitable. It is possible. Conclusive proof is a different thing altogether.

There are very few things with a stronger scientific consensus than evolution. — flannel jesus

Let's take this apart: evolution is: (Britannica)

Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory. — Britannica

Scientific theories have to limit themselves to natural processes and observations. Is this correct? In that case, any scientific theory cannot include any supernatural actions, a 'God of the gaps' or any types of miracles. If we take that as given, then it follows that the theory of evolution, in whatever corrected modern formulations even, is the only choice scientists have when it comes to a theory of origin of biological entities. Is this correct?

It's been controversial but TBH I see at least some elements of it likely becoming part of the mainstream in the future. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, if this is the case, is it a false argument to claim that the 'failure of evolutionary theory' means it needs to be abandoned in favor of some sort of creation theory?

That's not to say these arguments have convinced people of the need for God to explain the universe, but rather that "there are things we need to explain that we currently cannot." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Some people are convinced, some feel more study is needed. Each is a philosophical position, the former somewhat religious. In other words, some will believe in God the creator, whereas others will believe in future explanations that will solve all the problems with the theory, but a scientific theory can always be wrong, or proven wrong.

Intelligent design comes in many forms. In general, the ones that center on biology haven't been particularly successful at convincing biologists — Count Timothy von Icarus

Convincing biologists of what exactly? That an explanation has not been found or that it will never be found?

I see two different threads of argument here.

Intelligent design is arguably an offshoot of creationism which claims to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian theory with reference to arguments from irreducible complexity. — Wayfarer

Does it do so? Does the "Intelligent Design" argument really demonstrate the inadequacy of all versions of theories of evolution proposed so far to explain certain features in organisms, and is it necessary to have degree in microbiology to test their arguments?

If the current conflict is a trolley problem, then one option would be a no-fly zone, impractical and dangerous, but objectively fair. I am suggesting this on behalf of the innocent civilians in Gaza, as I feel compelled to do:

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.


Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures. — UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011)

https://press.un.org/en/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

Suggested before, but not now?

Arab League calls for no-fly zone over Gaza
Reuters
April 10, 2011 11:58 PM GMT+5

Updated 13 years ago

CAIRO (Reuters) - The Arab League called on the United Nations on Sunday to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza and lift an Israeli siege of the territory after a flare-up of violence that is stoking fears of a wider escalation.

The death toll since Israel launched retaliation for an attack on a school bus that critically wounded a teenager on Thursday has climbed to 19 Palestinian militants and civilians. — Arab League calls for no-fly zone over Gaza Reuters April 10, 2011 11:58 PM GMT+5

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-israel-arabs-idUSTRE73923020110410/

By mesh with western values I mean they didn’t conform with political, cultural and social norms. This isn’t a criticism of the Arabic way of life, they are just different to the established western world order. The blame for the failure to live peacefully alongside following the WW2 falls fairly and squarely on the U.S./U.K. coalition.

The decent into McCarthyism in the U.S. following WW2 and the pathological paranoia about communism is the root of the failure. — Punshhh

I am so glad you said this. History shows that almost every nation on earth has had its wars and internal conflicts that have got millions killed. History taught in schools does not cover this. There is hope, however, that people are somewhat tired of wars. People are tired of wars, but not all, some want war, it seems. Why? Money? Lack of the draft for over 65? Religious nationalism?

The following lectures were both useful and revealing. Apparently United States did have plans to invade Canada at that time, thinking has changed.

14:57 people do not look favorably on war as they did in the past and the great defection refers to the fact that the average person doesn't want to having to do with war in a way that they didn't past okay so let me say a little bit — Dr. Cheyney Ryan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyXhRKTb-mk

Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyMUBGpQ6FA

I am absolutely sickened by war, but much of what I have learned, sadly, or as a part of design, is the glorification of war that has been so much a part of the social environment I live it. Peace has no heroes. We are taught of Alexander the Great: there is book called "Alexander the Killer of men" which seems to be a better title. Granted, not everyone will turn into a Gandhi, but give everyone a proper education of history (including in Gaza and Israel) and the possibilities of diplomatic resolutions, plus the murderous history of some of these people in power.

Why is it you suppose that people cannot give them agency? — schopenhauer1

I am glad you asked that question.

Would you agree that neither the Palestinians or the Israelis or the Jews at that time had any agency in the creation of this conflict, but mainly puppets in the great powers who decided their fate?

But then that swings both ways. The reasons for a hardliner like Netanyahu got to power was because of previous events that pushed it that way on the Pals side. — schopenhauer1

Care to trace the chain of cause and effect to its roots?

"[People] are increasingly separated by economic and political power, inevitably heightening social tensions and increasing the risk of societal breakdown," the report says.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/01/20/264241052/oxfam-worlds-richest-1-percent-control-half-of-global-wealth

What does wealth have to do with agency?

Yes well looking at some lectures on pacifism. Various types.

Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others. Historians of pacifism Peter Brock and Thomas Paul Socknat define pacifism "in the sense generally accepted in English-speaking areas" as "an unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare".[4] Philosopher Jenny Teichman defines the main form of pacifism as "anti-warism", the rejection of all forms of warfare.[5] Teichman's beliefs have been summarized by Brian Orend as "... A pacifist rejects war and believes there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong." In a sense the philosophy is based on the idea that the ends do not justify the means.[6] The word pacific denotes conciliatory.[7] — Wikipedia - Pacifism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

I fear some wars are caused out of lack of intelligence or poor diplomacy. That is the concern.

The video on Pacifism I was watching will not show up in the desktop browser search. Why?

I had to get it from my view history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk1YhjSxmAE&t=779s

Short & sweet from a Rabbi to a fool: — Nicholas

I was quite touched to see the Rabbi says he regrets the loss of life, all children or precious.
The more I see these Israelis the more I like them: they are nice people pushed beyond their ability to endure. How did this happen?

- Given these military actions have generally involved significantly looser rules of engagement than Israel (e.g., both Syria and Egypt have hosed down large crowds of protestors with belt fed heavy machine guns in the past decades), and significantly higher death tolls (e.g. the Siege of Mosul involved 40,000 civilian fatalities despite being in a significantly smaller city against a significantly smaller occupying force);
-Why is Israel such a lightening rod for criticism? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Israel is always in the world spotlight.

You mentioned Mosul. There are currently several ongoing wars, for example, the Syrian civil war has resulted in 0ver 500,000 deaths. This is perfectly awful.

What has changed is that this is all in the public eye now, and it remains to be seen if the responsible civil society will now protest against all wars and demand ceasefires everywhere. Why not, at least it is consistent.

Syrian civil war

Total killed
503,064–613,407+[3][4]
Civilans killed
306,887+[5]
Displaced
6.7 million internally
6.6 million externally (refugees) (March 2021)[6] — Wikipedia

What the hell is going on? Is this business as usual? Is this Democratic?

Maybe God intended this conflict to shock people into re-thinking their indifference and tacit approval of wars all over the world. Speaking for myself, I will never look at wars the same way again, and I also have now come to see more and more the internal conflicts (in Maoist China for example) that have resulted in millions of deaths. Surely there were children among them? Surely there were newborns and mothers? There were cancer patients, disabled people, the list goes no.

I am only sorry that I did not realize the horror of war earlier, and my religion and schools have done a nice job of glossing over it entirely.

I, for one, resolve myself to thinking about the poor and starving with every meal I have.

I have to really think about what actions will be the most effective.

The glass box with a few bank notes in it, at a luxury resort tells me I should give. The question is how much.

I, for one, resolve myself to thinking about the poor and starving with every meal I have.

I have to really think about what actions will be the most effective.

The glass box with a few bank notes in it, at a luxury resort tells me I should give. The question is how much.

- Given these military actions have generally involved significantly looser rules of engagement than Israel (e.g., both Syria and Egypt have hosed down large crowds of protestors with belt fed heavy machine guns in the past decades), and significantly higher death tolls (e.g. the Siege of Mosul involved 40,000 civilian fatalities despite being in a significantly smaller city against a significantly smaller occupying force);
-Why is Israel such a lightening rod for criticism? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Israel is always in the world spotlight.

You mentioned Mosul. There are currently several ongoing wars, for example, the Syrian civil war has resulted in 0ver 500,000 deaths. This is perfectly awful.

What has changed is that this is all in the public eye now, and it remains to be seen if the responsible civil society will now protest against all wars and demand ceasefires everywhere. Why not, at least it is consistent.

Syrian civil war

Total killed
503,064–613,407+[3][4]
Civilans killed
306,887+[5]
Displaced
6.7 million internally
6.6 million externally (refugees) (March 2021)[6] — Wikipedia

What the hell is going on? Is this business as usual? Is this Democratic?

Maybe God intended this conflict to shock people into re-thinking their indifference and tacit approval of wars all over the world. Speaking for myself, I will never look at wars the same way again, and I also have now come to see more and more the internal conflicts (in Maoist China for example) that have resulted in millions of deaths. Surely there were children among them? Surely there were newborns and mothers? There were cancer patients, disabled people, the list goes no.

I am only sorry that I did not realize the horror of war earlier, and my religion and schools have done a nice job of glossing over it entirely.

So sure, I'm in favor of the Garden of Eden you envision. It's unfortunately a myth. — Hanover

Great. I hope you have similar ideas about the myth of Democracy as well.

I am not sure that opposing a concept because it seems impossible is valid, but yes, it seems all very pie in the sky at the moment.

We can talk about what is possible, what is probable even, but all of these are equally disastrous to civilians. I suppose it has to be, then?

It is a tragedy that the Arab world has failed to mesh with western values, for whatever reasons. I’m not blaming them, the blame stands more with the duelling between the US and the Soviets.
Even the rich Arab states, who were spared due to their oil, are living on borrowed time. — Punshhh

Peaceful coexistence is fine, there is no need to go the whole hog and 'mesh with western values' not sure what they are. After all, the Abraham accords were all about peace.

The pacifist will sit idle in the midst of rape and murder trying to talk the perpetrator down instead of taking them out. — I like sushi

This is incorrect in that it assumes that laws will not be enforced. I am not calling for defunding the police. I am not calling for letting the perpetrators go unpunished.

How about this equally violent argument? Since Hamas terrorists comitted 'rape and murder' then why not:

Execute all Hamas fighter in captivity.

Embark on a campaign to 'kill every last Hamas fighter' take no prisoners

Somehow this course of action has very few supporters, and it is due to some hidden motives which I can only guess at. In any case the IDF 'killed 1,400 Hamas fighters' so an eye for an eye I think the number of eyes closed here is equal. What do you think? Or are there other considerations that I need to hear?

t is clear to all violence and war should be viewed as last resorts, it is not so clear that pacifism can be equally as destructive if adhered to rigorously. — I like sushi

We need to distinguish between wars of aggression (Nazis) and wars of defense (Israel 1948). So I am not sure what you mean by last resort. As an argument, if Hitler got struck in the head and became a pacifist, there would be no WW2. Of course someone would have taken his place, ad infinitum, until you get to the people who were supporting his goals.

Who were they, and why? Were they Pacifist?

There is a lecture of pacifism here: it contains information.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?434330-4/anti-war-movements-world-war-present

We are all learning here. You have encouraged me to read up more on Pacifism and what it actually means. I could be mistaken.

Why? Many who openly state they hate violence are quite quick to inspire violence in others by way of their self-righteous nonsense. A world full of pacifists would be a miserable world lacking in drive, ambition and emotion. — I like sushi

Pacificists starting violence is an absurd self contradiction of pacifism.

I knew it: there are those who support war, violent resistance, I have come across these people in real life, not any particular war also, but war is progress.

I am shocked by the continuing ongoing wars, ignored by the news media, that are causing untold human suffering.

Enjoy your war-torn world while it lasts.

And thank you that nuclear war has been avoided so far by accident as well as design.

Luke 18:11 — Ciceronianus

It is an unlikely argument that Pacifists start wars and get millions killed. Of course, everyone must be Pacificist, it does not make sense to fill a cage with lions and sheep and expect them to get on.

I have a more appropriate verse: Romans 11: 1-4. I was wrong, there must be at least 7,000 we need some sort of asymmetric response then.

Why We Fight. Interesting ideas: If it is true that people make mistakes, then we can be assured that some wars are mistakes. Which ones?

Dylan Matthews
You list five explanations for war, which are all explanations of how bargaining breaks down and why people can’t reach agreements peaceably. Could you walk through those five?

Chris Blattman
I call them:

Unchecked leaders
Intangible incentives
Misperceptions
Uncertainty, and
Commitment problems — VOX

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/4/28/23041726/chris-blattman-why-we-fight-war-peace

This is one view. Let's look at countries that have not been involved in a war since 1945

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1945%E2%80%931989

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1990%E2%80%932002

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_2003%E2%80%93present

there are limits on how finely you can direct the groupthink. Small groups can control small demonstrations -- 200-300 people at most -- much better. — BC

Good point. So when a news head says 'but some of them were shouting bad things' then of course you realize that a small minority does no represent the majority here. The majority in any case should know not to chant self - defeating slogans, but then maybe it is all planned in some way.

If there is no physical and psychological recovery in Gaza, then there will be no peace in the area either, just a lot of very bitter, angry, revenge-minded people. — BC

You forgot to mention powerless. By many accounts, billions has already been invested in Gaza to this date.

For the countries and governments and people that 'support Israel' this is a solution, this is the right thing. The final result, according to Scott Ritter, is a Palestinian state, so we can see if he is right, or just propaganda.

It is time to pull out your moral compass and do some judging of the right and wrong here.

What upsets me is that bombing of civilians has been going on for years all over the world, in wars, civil wars, but without the news media attention that this has got. Where were the protests? 1 million Iraqis? 3 million Vietnamese?

There used to be that awful song protesters used to chant:

“Hey, Hey LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?” —A protest chant that first became popular in late 1967.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/vietnam-war-forty-quotes

1967. What has changed?

We need to teach peace in schools, really, not war. History, not distortions.

Lets start with this:

The U.S. Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

Of course we need to add Russia, China, France, UK.... search for it.

I hope that is the case. We'll see. — BC

Yes

I find it very irksome that demonstrators in Europe and the US have marched down the street chanting "From the ocean to the sea, Palestine will be free." — BC

Yes, I find it irksome and also very insensitive. They could chant 'free Palestine', instead. We know the meaning that people attach to those words, they would do well to refrain from using those words. It is their responsibility to avoid being misunderstood, and cast in a negative light. The river to the sea geographically spans an area that includes the State of Israel, and if they want to appear to be Hamas supporters, best not to use these words. Don't they have good PR firms in those countries, or good advisors? Or is this part of the plan?

It isn't the Israeli government's fault that Hamas launched an attack in southern Israel. — BC

There is the question of agency here. To put it in another way, if the security of Israel was sub contracted to a company, and this happened, they would have a huge lawsuit on its hands. This has nothing to do with Hamas or Israel, just the responsibility for protection against a known threat. So Hamas is responsible for attacking, the IDF for failing to reasonably defend.

What is the driving time across Israel? Tel Aviv to Sderot : 1 hour, Jerusalem to Sderot: 1 hr 30 minutes. Depending on traffic I guess. Never been there.

One should also consider the technology both the United States and Israel have access to, and unlikely it seems that all these technologies could have failed.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1210326996/one-week-into-israels-ground-war-in-gaza-satellites-and-socialf-media-give-hints

Sure; everybody is nominally against killing innocent civilians. It's just that, unfortunately, "as far as possible" isn't much of a barrier, whether it involves blowing up people on an Israeli bus or in a restaurant in Tel Aviv, or dropping a bomb on an apartment building. — BC

These actions could be shown to be self-defeating, or having the risk of being self-defeating, damaging to their own cause, in which the actions could be said to be irrational. I think we can at least figure that out?

That is to say, massacring people and sending rockets isn’t excused, period. — schopenhauer1

Sorry I missed the point, but do you accept the UN stance on the right to violent resistance? I don't.

This imprecision was to change on December 3, 1982. At that time UNGA resolution 37/43 removed any doubt or debate over the lawful entitlement of occupied people to resist occupying forces by any and all lawful means. The resolution reaffirmed “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/7/20/palestinians-have-a-legal-right-to-armed-struggle/

Naturally the king of Jordan and Jordanians didn't think so and the Oslo peace accord made some problems to this kind of thinking, but I guess it's still popular in the right-wing circles. — ssu

The Oslo peace agreement, agreed by both sides, allowed for a two-state solution. So if any side broke the agreement, and I don't care which, then they are responsible for the current state of affairs. This is not the Palestinians fault. Hamas was 'allowed' to contest in the 2015 election, so whoever allowed the initial selection affected the outcome of the election.

I think this is absolutely the crux of the problem. Because of the "oppressor/oppressed" framework people seem to be working on in this forum, the focus is on Netanyahu's failure(s) (along with the Israeli right-wing in general). However, what is not discussed is Hamas, representing some portion of Palestinian attitudes, is an obvious abysmal failure — schopenhauer1

I take the point of view that both the Israelis and Palestinians are the oppressed, both refugees in their own time frames. My guess is, and this is an unsupported assumption, the players who are playing both sides are still playing. They should throw off the shackles of their patrons, if this is the case, and make peace with each other. Again, my unsupported guess is that some entities do not want a peaceful and economically strong middle east. Hence, destroy it or tame it, domesticate it, or both.

I would have more respect for Hamas if they only targeted soldiers, but I would still side with Israel. — RogueAI

Well this confirms your bias. I regret every IDF and every Hamas fighter killed. As Jared Kushner suggests, these people should be given economic opportunities, and they won't join Hamas. That is what he says.

If you think Nazi death camp inmates are wrong to rise up against their exterminators, I don't know what to tell you. Your moral compass is so off from mine, we probably won't agree on much. — RogueAI

There is the right to armed resistance, the right to violent resistance, and there is a time and a place for that. I am all for death camp inmates rising up and taking over, but if there is no possibility of success, then I wonder about the morality of a suicidal action. That was the basis for my objection.

In this specific case, though, I believe that the action taken by Hamas, the violent resistance, was neither wise nor productive, and my moral compass points away from that.

There is a question of agency here also: who is responsible for the existence of Hamas? Who is responsible for the existence of Israel? By extension, are they responsible for their actions?

Jesus said, "You should turn the other cheek." He didn't say Israel should, or Rome should, or Persia should, or any other nation should. — BC

Indeed, that same Bible justifies self-defense. I believe in self-defense, if that contravenes pacifism then I can't help that. I can take the stand against violent rebellion: any of these positions taken can be challenged by any number of counter-examples, that is not the point here. If one has to take a stand, one can only take one.

Israel did not defend itself on October 7th. That was wrong. If Hamas has chosen a fight with Israel, then the tacit agreement is that both sides will fight to the death. I take the stand that civilians should not be killed as far as possible, even if they support the IDF or Hamas. You can take the stand that Hamas is illegitimate, well, then that destroys the case for their existence, which Israel allowed all these years, why? Didn't they have the moral obligation to destroy them earlier?

In any case, the more information we get on this and other conflicts the more useful in preventing them.

If there were chances to compromise, and you didn't like the terms of the other side, this doesn't mean you get to mow down civilians and such because you are unhappy that you didn't get what you wanted. — schopenhauer1

What we know for sure is that one side, or both sides, did not take the 'chance to compromise'. In an ideal world, no-one should mow the lawn, but in a world that is not ideal, the less people get killed the better, but there are those who do not share that opinion either. Its up in the air.

So you think the inmates at Sobibor death camp were wrong to rise up? — RogueAI

Yes, it follows. This is an emotional argument. So let me ask you, is it wrong for Hamas to kill Israeli military, like they did on October 7th? If they had confined their attacks to military targets only, then what? Would you support Hamas on that?