1. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #56537 by Benjamin Michael on July 16, 2007 at 7:51 am

"Irregardless" ??

2. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54298 by Benjamin Michael on July 6, 2007 at 9:51 am

Wow. This is supposed to be a clear thinking oasis, and instead Xeno goes on an insane tirade telling me to "shut your face", accusing me of libel, calling Israel a "Nazi state", he says I am of low morality and intellect and he is surprised I can string a sentence together, he says I am a warped human and psychotic.

I have never seen so many ad hominems in one paragraph - in the words of Ron Burgandy, I am really quite impressed... I am not even mad.

Just by the way, anyone who describes Israel as a Nazi state (when they could use any number of more appropriate terms) is inherently a racist antisemite, or deliberately trying to incite (ie, an asshole). You are scum Xeno - absolute scum. You desecrate the honor of my family who was murdered by the Nazis. Go fuck yourself.

3. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54259 by Benjamin Michael on July 6, 2007 at 7:21 am

HB, of course it is subjective. There is no such thing as objectivity in the way you seem to be applying it. I am painfully having flashbacks to the McGrath thread and Dianelos' definition of objective morality. But it is also not subjective in the way the word is normally used. "Subjective" can imply whimsical choice. But this form of subjective morality is a far stronger form - akin to weak objectivity - in that it is something that will be held as temporally true by all members of a species (with statistically insignificant exceptions). It is held as objectively true not in the same way that 1+1=2, but from observation of utility which gets hardwired genetically over the generations through evolutionary forces. I understand the is-ought fallacy but I do not consider "good" in the way you are using it. I put it to you that "good" is a nonsense, unless framed in a utilatarian way. In an odd way then, I agree with you that to consider "morality" as something universally objective (true for all to discover in any universe in all times) and to consider notions of "good" and "evil" as more than refined utilities is, as you put it, a kind of faith derivative.

HB: "We of European descent value compassion due to our Christian heritage though, obviously. Therefore our western bias towards valuing compassion, say, is Christian."

I still disagree with this. Compassion is provably not a derivative of Christianity, nor a very Christian practice. As a Jew (by birth) I am perhaps more equipped to recognize the distinct *lack* of compassion that Christianity always has preached and practiced. IMO, we value compassion because of the factors described above. European christian popularity is in my view, merely a contemporaneous circumstance to the modern western world valuing compassion. The pre-christian world valued compassion as did non european societies of the past 2000 years. I am thoroughly unconvinced by your argument here and still consider it is a nonsense.

4. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54256 by Benjamin Michael on July 6, 2007 at 7:00 am

Xeno, in my view, as soon as you invoke Chomsky you instantly sabotage your argument. Chomsky is one of the most racist, bigoted, evil crooks the modern world has produced. He is utter filth and a despicable human, only surpassed in his contemptibleness by his loathsome holocaust denying disciple, Finkelstein. Chomsky's affinity with bare-faced lies and insatiable prejudices only serves as evidence of psychosis.

5. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54251 by Benjamin Michael on July 6, 2007 at 6:23 am

HB: "This makes little difference to the ethical origin: there is also a biological basis for aggression - why do we value altruism and not aggression?"

- Aggression *is* valued. As is Altruism. It depends on the context - and sometimes they go together: when it is societally valuable to be aggressively altruistic (Eg. Rescue of hostages at Entebbe Airport).

HB: "Many thinkers have thought compassion a weakness of mind, including Plato and many Romans."

- Sure. Many thinkers have thought many evolved behavioral traits to be weaknesses - many think aggression a weakness, many think love a weakness.

HB: "Compassion is ultimately a Christian value..."

- Well this is utter nonsense! Take for example (but one example) Confucius (500BCE):
1. "Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire."
2. "Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage."
3. "He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good."
4. "To practice five things under all circumstances constitutes perfect virtue; these five are gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness."
(I could go on and on)

HB: "but why is altruism good and not a weakness? That requires faith."

- no, it requires *observation* not faith. Altruism is "good" in most circumstances as it observably has more utility.

HB: "I think many so-called atheists have subconsciously inherited this sentimental, Christian world-view but wish to ground it in science... Western atheists are still predominantly secular Christians."

- Some perhaps. But this statement is not a correct one, not as you have stated it. There may be overlap in Christian philosophy, but there is overlap in many religious philosophies - not everything religion teaches is bad (just most of it) so you can always paint a western athiest with the brush of the virtuous aspects of some religion or another.

6. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54133 by Benjamin Michael on July 5, 2007 at 2:07 pm

As a non-american living in NY (and soon to follow in Hitch's footsteps) I can easily identify many of the problems with the US. I have lived around the world so these things are glaringly obvious to me. I won't bother to list them, as it is too off-topic, but they include a hopelessly flawed system of private-sector electoral funding and an irrational hatred of anything even remotely socialistic (such as universal health-care). But all that is needed is a few systemic tweaks and hopefully a leader that can get the train back on the correct track. Those in the free western nations of the world should worry less about throwing stones at the US and more about the things that pose more serious threats to the continued progress of humankind.

7. Nato accuses Taliban of using children in suicide missions

Comment #54130 by Benjamin Michael on July 5, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Fanusi, you seem to be fairly alone in your viewpoint, so let me throw my hand in the mix and offer my support. I agree with most of what you have been writing (factually... although we likely diverge when it comes to methods of dispute resolution). You certainly are not the diplomat! but I think you have it mostly correct.

Of course anti-zionism is in the majority of cases just a guise for anti-semitism. Those who read and swallow the crap that crooks like Chomsky spurt will disagree, but those who exercise any modicum of rational independant thought on the issue will realize that double standards are constantly and consistently applied against Israel's actions. In any event, anti-zionism is not something to be proud of *even* if one can make the case that it is completely disparate from antisemitism. Israel makes a ton of bad choices that should be condemned, but it as a democratic secular nation is leaps and bounds ahead of its neighbors on issues of human rights and "moral" conduct. To single out Israel begs the question...

8. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51277 by Benjamin Michael on June 22, 2007 at 7:36 am

DG: "On the contrary, a naturalist is obliged to believe that gratuitous torture is not objectively wrong, but is considered wrong just because of peoples' opinion - which is a position I think no humane person can feel comfortable with."

This is just rubbish and a strawman. It is not a matter of opinion. Certain behavioral values (or morals) tend to be universal amongst our species because they evolved and with good explanation. This is 100% compatible with naturalism.

Others: please help me here - am I missing something? This seems so obvious to me and I can't imagine why DG doesn't address this, or am I misunderstanding something?

9. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #51060 by Benjamin Michael on June 21, 2007 at 10:21 am

100% agree.
- As Harris so eloquently states, moderates are a huge problem in all this for the reasons you state.
- Religion is most definitely not benign for the reasons so eloquently stated by Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris et al
- All faith schools should most certainly be abolished in my view - in fact, any institutionalised indoctrination (or even passive recognition) of in-group/out-group mentality should be abolished.
- actions of consenting (and legally competent) adults are nobodies business so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

We agree Linda. I just wanted to point out a possible nomenclature error in that most people who call themselves "orthodox jews" would not approve of orally facilitated circumcision - only the subset of ultra-orthodox and hassidic would.

10. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #51043 by Benjamin Michael on June 21, 2007 at 8:54 am

Good post Linda.

As someone with vast experience with these crazies, I concur with your comments regarding the child abuse inherent in hassidic and orthodox jewish observance. The only caveat is that most people in the world who would identify themselves as "orthodox jews" do not observe circumcision rituals in this way - this is pretty much limited to what you would term "ultra-orthodox" and "hassidic". Still, sans the sucking and spitting, the circumcision ritual of all jews, orthodox or otherwise, is child abuse regardless. I only point this out from a nomenclature point of view; that strictly speaking, "orthodox" are not part of the "fundamental" subset of judaism and more of a middle ground between moderate and fundamental.

11. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50935 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 1:51 pm

I think proportional force is appropriate. If the bandits are in fact soldiers who have missile launchers that can wipe out hundreds then perhaps a more aggressive strategy is warranted then simply engaging in ground combat. If they have handguns then certainly blowing up of the shopping mall would be insane.

I wonder what Jack Bauer would do ;-)

If I was imprisoned in my own home and had no other place from which to launch a weapon attack, I would make sure that all innocent civilians had left the area and were out of harms way before I did so.

12. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50930 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Bonzai, what if I deliberately fire weapons from a crowded civilian area* directed at your military base (or city) and kill your soldiers (or civilians)? how do you stop/deter me from doing this? If you do respond by engaging in the conflict (missiles or ground troops or whatever), are the human shields I am using (whether willing/complicit or not) that are injured or die your responsibility or mine?

Just food for thought. I am not sure I have an answer to this either, but it certainly complicates things.

* you can subsitute: hospital, school, residential building, shopping mall....

13. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50926 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Thank you for your kind words darwin2.

I imagine everyone who has read this thread will see that I immediately offered up the conclusion that either you are a plagiarist or you are Killoran himself using a pseudonym. This is a logical conclusion.

And to be honest, being a plagiarist is the lesser of two evils in this case.

You accuse me of not checking my facts. Ironically, it was precisely because I checked my facts that I uncovered that "darwin2" had lifted entire sections of prose and poetry from an essay credited to someone else. It follows logically that either plagiarism was afoot or you and Killoran were one in the same. You should not be so touchy about this. People should be proud of the work they produce.

I find it disturbing that you believe in god as ultimate power and judgement and simultaneously feel that you are worthy of annointing yourself as one to offer comfort and guidance to the likes of Hitler et al. What if chief justice god finds the act of comforting murderers to be despicable? Hitchens said in a recent interview that it is morally reprehensible to 'love your enemy' as the NT teaches, and I agree with him. I find it repugnant that you attempt to offer comfort and the promise of forgiveness to the likes of Hitler, even if just in an open letter to someone long deceased.

14. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50873 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 9:21 am

Rtambree, in fact yes I would! As I agree with him on a lot of his views of that particular conflict. But even if I didn't agree with him, it doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy discussing these things with him. I don't have to be in 100% agreement with someone to find them interesting and compelling company. In fact, I am unlikely to be in 100% agreement with anyone (sometimes not even myself!). Hitch may lack some nuance on some topics, but he has an admirable way of not beating around the bush and focusing on what is most relevant in a discussion.

15. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50861 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 8:27 am

Gosh, I find Hitchens to be *very* likeable and someone I would *absolutely* like to hang out with over a few drinks. Sure he is an agressive chap, but to me that just makes him more interesting and not the same old drone that gets churned out by modern society.

16. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50857 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 8:11 am

I can't vouch for all jewish schools - only the one I went to, which is in Australia by the way, but I can all but guarantee that the more orthodox jewish schools around the world (including the UK) do not teach evolution.

So am I to understand from your last post that the catholic schools are directed to teach the students that the bible is make believe? (at least with respect to Genesis).

Because I would imagine it would be a renegade teacher that would teach genesis to the students and claim it not to be true, contrary to what you assert. I would be overjoyed to learn that you are right and I am wrong on this.

Perhaps only renegade teachers are teaching ID/creationism as a science, but I imagine student X goes from science class in the morning to bible studies (or equivalent) in the afternoon and are being offered contradictory claims to truth, which the student has to work out for themselves. This is how it was with me, and I can assure you that unfortunately the majority of students are more convinced by the preachers then by the scientists.

17. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50852 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 7:49 am

That Fox poll is disturbing. Forget the 87% that believe in heaven and the 74% of Americans that believe in hell, what of the 34% that believe in ghosts and the 24% that believe in witches! and the 37% that believe in astrology and the 27% that believe in reincarnation.

This is very tough to comprehend - it means there must be some subset of the US that claims to believe in heaven/hell *and* believe in reincarnation - which I would have thought is mutually exclusive!!

18. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50850 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 7:43 am

appaZ, I enjoyed reading your post. It reminds me that it does not take a complex investigation of science and philosophy to arrive at a non god conclusion - it simply requires brief but clear rational thought on the observable reality... and a little cosmic perspective.

adamello, your last paragraph reminds of both of "The Life of Brian" as a parody, and the real world Lubavitcher Rebbe who lived last century in New York and passed away in the 90s. This is a man who always denied he was anything more than just a rabbi even though his followers were convinced he was the jewish messiah. After his death, there is still a large movement within the Lubavitch Jews who believe him to be the messiah and leave written prayers by his grave for him to answer. No amount of renunciation by the man himself would sway the minds of those followers who had deluded themselves and continue to brainwash their children and their children's children.

19. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50844 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 7:21 am

"All of the Catholic schools will teach the genesis account of creation as a story"

How can you be certain of this? How can you be certain that each bible studies teacher in every catholic school will tell the students that the words of the bible are just stories and not literal truth? Granted, I went to a jewish school and not a catholic one, but this is certainly not my experience. I was taught evolution in science class, but no bible teacher I have ever known of has taught that the bible is make believe.

20. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50696 by Benjamin Michael on June 19, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Wow, so darwin2 is in fact George Killoran and this is your manifesto:
http://www.tmatp.com/script/book.pdf

I don't know if I can stomach going point by point through the things you have written in that pdf.

As a general response to your question, offering comfort and guidance to Hitler and other madmen is very disquieting behaviour.

21. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50651 by Benjamin Michael on June 19, 2007 at 8:14 am

I would like to make an observation regarding evolution and Dianelos' concept of objective morality. Clearly, not every species has objective moral standards. We can readily observe other species that eat their infant offspring, for example, as we can observe gratuitous torture in nature. In fact, it appears to me that there are no observable behavioral restrictions that are universally applied amongst all observable living species.

So any person, such as Dianelos, who claims that an objective moral law exists for humankind, must acknowledge that this 'objective morality' must have been imbued in humankind supernaturally at some point in the evolutionary chain. It is observably not the case that an objective moral law exists in all evolutionary predecessors and evolutionary 'cousins' of humankind. One simply can not accept that evolution is a reality and also that an objective morality exists, in the way that Dianelos uses the term. This is part of what I trust he means when he claims that objective morality and naturalism are incompatible.

[ASIDE: I would use the term 'objective morality' in an evolutionary sense – such that we can observe that certain species tend to have certain behavioral instincts that are universal to all in that species – and it follows that such intra-species universal behavioral instincts (or "objective morals") are hardwired for valid evolutionary reasons.]

So I can only think of one way that Dianelos can accept his concept of objective morality *and* accept the scientific reality of evolution: That some (supernatural) donator gifted this instinct into humankind at some point in its evolutionary history (say, for example, 10,000 years ago). Again, this is so arbitrary and non-provable so as to make it a useless proposition. It adds nothing to how evolution itself explains the hardwiring of universal behavioral instincts. It only complicates the explanation by adding a superfluous and unnecessary level of explanation; and thereby offends Occum's Razor. Furthermore it raises the obvious observation: Did this supernatural donator (god, for example) simply look around the universe and say to himself "oh look, there is this nicely evolved species on this small blue-green planet who would be a very handy recipient of an objective morality… let me give them some hardwired morals… bam!" Alternatively, did this god fellow always have it in mind that at some point in the evolutionary chain of humans he would donate these objective morals, and waited for billions of years for humans to finally evolve to the point where objective morals could finally be gifted? Whichever way you think about this, it is absurd. I can't think of anyway to accept an objective morality (in the way Dianelos uses the term) and not be in an absurd scenario.

I know this has been said before by the various brilliant minds who have posted on this thread, but I do not think Dianelos is yet to directly provide a rebuttal. There are very good explanations for why we observe human behaviors that appear to be objective moral standards, and there are very poor ones. It seems obvious when critical thinking is applied that an explanation of supernatural endowment of objective morality is not in the subset of useful explanations.

To be honest, I think the same logic also applies to the issue of "consciousness" as applied by Dianelos. The same questions arise: Are all species conscious? If not, and if evolution is accepted, then at what point in our evolutionary history was consciousness gifted to us supernaturally (if you do not accept that consciousness arose by natural evolution)? The same issues as I mentioned above regarding morality are applicable here. It is arbitrary and adds a superfluous level of explanation to postulate that a supernatural entity gifted consciousness at some point in humankind's history.

To state that consciousness and objective morality are problems for naturalism is to me not a valid claim. Not even remotely valid. Furthermore, to state that they support a theistic hypothesis is clearly not the case. If anything, these notions complicate a theistic hypothesis, as they raise more questions then they claim to answer.

22. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50521 by Benjamin Michael on June 18, 2007 at 2:31 pm

By the way, if anyone ever suspects that a poster (or troll) may be just regurgitating something they have read and passing it off as their own ideas, then take a phrase they use and enter it into google (best to put the phrase in quotation marks). If the source is online, you will unearth it, and most trolls don't bother doing research outside of the internet. ;-)

23. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50515 by Benjamin Michael on June 18, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Actually, now that I read this "Darwinian Creationism" pamphlet (or whatever it is) I must concede that d2 is either Killoran himself or some sycophant of his. It reads like it is written by a 10 year old. The section on UFO's was particularly amusing.

I actually feel really bad for d2. To be that brainwashed/deluded - he deserves our pity and not our scorn (although I am tempted to give him both).

[... I am still reading... the 'letters' section is disturbing on many levels...]

24. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50513 by Benjamin Michael on June 18, 2007 at 2:02 pm

darwin2 is a plagiarist:
http://www.tmatp.com/script/book.pdf

"Darwinian Creationism" by George Killoran (Copyrighted 2005).

25. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49733 by Benjamin Michael on June 13, 2007 at 7:19 am

If no one objects, I would like to provide a comment reagrding a discussion between Danielos and Krogercomplete regarding objective morality, where the former stated:

Sorry, I don't have any justification for my belief in objective morality. It's just an intuition: it's intuitively obvious for me that to torture children is objectively wrong and not a matter of opinion or convention, and that's that. Don't you agree it's objectively wrong? Actually knowing how it is to be a human being I have trouble imagining another human who would disagree.

1. It's intuitively obvious because humankind, in general, has evolved to have these intuitions, and for obvious beneficial evolutionary reasons. Some other species have not evolved with such an intuition, and it is perfectly conceivable that looking back into our evolutionary history could reveal a less evolved version of us (solo-nomadic, perhaps) that did not intuitively consider the torture of children as morally objectionable.

2. It should also be obvious that many societies today still do not consider the torture of children to be objectively immoral. The children of Hamas are regularly convinced by their parents to strap explosives to their chests and kill themselves and maim and kill others, regardless of their age. Organisations such as the World Organisation Against Torture exist precisely because some societies in the world do not consider torture (including the torture of children) to be morally objectionable. Look at what is going on in Pakistan: A recent report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) revealed that in Pakistan (as in many other parts of the world) torturous child labour is rife, and punitive measures for delinquents ranging from beatings to fetters, handcuffs and the death penalty is being applied to juveniles. (check the OMCT website). And it is not just Pakistan. These issues arise in tribal areas of India and throughout Asia and Africa, for example. That is why we need such things as the OMCT, the Asian Human Rights Commission, the UN Convention Against Torture and the like.

My conclusion: I don't think Danielos has really thought this issue through fully. In fact, it seems the 2 pillars holding up your theistic worldview are the arguments of (i) consciousness and (ii) objective morality. But to me, you appear to be observably misconceived on these issues.

26. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49609 by Benjamin Michael on June 12, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Post 567 by Dianelos:

...Consciousness denotes the capacity of having conscious experiences in the first place. So what characterizes a conscious material system is having that capacity. And what troubles those who study consciousness from the naturalistic perspective is literally the question of how "something material could become conscious", i.e. how a particular configuration of matter could achieve the capacity of having conscious experience. If we accept that capacity as a given, it seems to me that the problem of consciousness becomes easy: the only thing remaining is to map exactly what physical processes in the brain correlate with specific conscious experiences. And that's not a hard problem...

Out of interest, do you have any thoughts on consciousness in relation to a coma patient?

In the comatose state, do you consider that consciousness continues, and that the patient merely does not 'experience' it so has no cognisance of it?, or does consciousness supernaturally cease when the coma is induced only to be "switched on" again by supernatural means when the patient awakes?

Also, perhaps I am misunderstanding something here, but do you consider consciousness peculiar to humankind only, or do you consider some or most or all animalkind to have forms of consciousness? If you do consider animals, such as dolphins or mice (for example, drawing a literary reference to Douglas Adams) to have consciousness, then how does this reconcile with a theistic viewpoint that has humankind as the purposeful centre of the universe?

27. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48540 by Benjamin Michael on June 8, 2007 at 10:15 am

13. Comment #48519 by the great teapot on June 8, 2007 at 8:32 am

"I believe there is no god. What am I?"

Anti-theist?
Non-theist?

28. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48257 by Benjamin Michael on June 7, 2007 at 7:50 am

Can someone help explain something to me. What I want to know is how anyone can even attempt to claim that the holocaust was related to athiestic philosophy.

Some background on me. I am Jewish. My parents are very religious and live in Jerusalem (my Father is a Rabbi and a professor of medical science(go figure!)). I have family who perished in the Holocaust. I spent my entire childhood education (kindergarten through High School) in a Jewish school. I was sent by my parents to Yeshiva (Ultra orthodox Jewish educational institution) for summer camps most years growing up which were run by ultra orthodox hassidic Jews. It is of constant amazement (and grief) to most who knew me when I was growing up that I was never religious and rejected strongly every but of crap that was sent my way. People on here can imagine (some wont have to imagine) the conflicts with my family and educators. Somehow through all of this I never once was convinced by anything other than science, common sense and things that were backed up by evidence. Call me lucky. My grandfather was exactly the same with a strikingly similar story regarding his education and his persistent rejection of the dogma. I must have some of his DNA in me. Anyway, I digress... back to the holocaust issue:

What sort of moron can even try and make the claim that the most obvious case of antisemitism in recent history was based on athiesm? Are they trying to claim that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews because they believed in a deity? This is insanity. Of course the Holocaust was religiously motivated. Even the most cursory reading of Mein Kampf demonstrates this. Although I can see why the mistake can be made with regards to Stalin or Mao by blaming athiesm (a mistake, but an understandable one) to frame the Holocaust as motivated by athiesm is flat out retarded. It hardly warrants refutation it is so obviously wrong on its face. And yet it constantly gets invoked by morons such as Heard, even though it has about as much credibility as Holocaust denial.

Furiously,

Benjamin.

29. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48057 by Benjamin Michael on June 6, 2007 at 12:23 pm

For what it is worth, I have encountered many antisemites in my life, and no-one involved in this little discussion strikes me as coming anywhere near that.

Occum's razor is a very powerful approach to any problem. But it doesn't always apply dogmatically. I think it is easy enough to look at the conflict over the decades, look to see who has actually suffered more death and destruction and apportion blame accordingly. This may be the simple way of doing things, but it doesn't satisfactorily address the issue. A few comments:

1. Firstly, apportioning blame is futile in this situation. It is not a court or tribunal and no reparations or damages are being assessed for either side. Neither should culpability for past actions weigh too heavily in resolving the dispute and coming to a solution. Really, and I think we all agree, the way forward is to assess the current situation and look to do what is best from this point forward - what is best for all parties and what is best from an economic, political, social and most importantly humanitarian point of view. Of course, both sides need to come to the table with clean hands and honest intentions. A bit of a utopian hope, perhaps.

2. Secondly, if blame does need to be apportioned (for whatever reason, if even just out of curiosity) then a metric of actual body count and property destruction is inappropriate. Why? because it ignores the "best efforts" or otherwise of both parties. What do I mean by this? - well the following was raised by myself and by others in this thread, some of which has thus far been ignored:

(a) For each fatality, was it caused out of 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, accidental death, negligence, over zealous self defence, legitimate self defence, military casualty in a legitimate war? [these factors *are* relevant, whether or not some people here think otherwise]

(b) What of the Israeli medical system compared to its opponents? Should Israel be penalized by a metric that ignores Israel's superior medical system which without dispute has saved numerous lives that would otherwise be included in the metric?

(c) What of the refusal of Palestinian wounded to accept Israeli medical assistance (including transport to Palestinian or Israeli hospitals)? Death tolls would be siginificantly reduced but for this despicable policy of the Palestinian authorities.

(d) What of the thwarted terrorist attempts? Israel is penalized using this metric because it has an exceptionally good system of preventing terrorist attacks, and high standards of technology in diffusing bombs and the like. Statistics show that the death toll of Israeli civilians would be drastically higher if these security efforts were reduced.

(e) What of bomb shelters and bunkers? In the north of Israel during the Lebanese war, hundreds (if not more) of lives were saved because Israel had spent money building infrastructure such as bomb shelters to protect its citizens from such attacks. This metric penalizes Israel for spending the money and effort on protecting its citizens.

I actually could go on for a rather long time mentioning factors like this. My point being that while I empathize with the sentiment of Rtambree and others, and would like nothing else than to see an end to this madness (and an end to all religion that ultimately is the root of all these problems, even if Israel *is* a secular state and its zionist founders *were* mostly athiests), it is simply not a fair metric to apply to count the *actual* destruction on each side and weigh by that metric alone.

Occum's razor may suggest a simple explanation is best, but this situation demands more than just a simple analysis. There are factors (such as those mentioned above) that eimply *must* be considered if we are going to be rational and fair minded.

30. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48005 by Benjamin Michael on June 6, 2007 at 8:51 am

You are mistaken about Israel thinking the land is a god-given right. The religious form a minority of the citizenship of Israel. It is a secular democratic country. Mischeivous settlements were politically motivated (ignoring the fact that Israel did actually *win* those lands in a defensive war... but neither here nor there - they have committed to give the lands back to those that lost those wars in an effort to reach a negotiated peace).

31. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48003 by Benjamin Michael on June 6, 2007 at 8:39 am

"Is this so irrational?"
No.

A complex situation, which requires complex analysis of all the factors.

Thanks for the discussion. It was interesting. I will now turn my attention back to science and anti-religion, and away from politics.

EDIT: response to issue of settlements. This was a mistake. It was a poor decision, and a criminal one. I understand the current position is to attempt to rectify this mistake as best as possible for the parties involved, paying particular respect to the humanitarian concerns.

32. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47997 by Benjamin Michael on June 6, 2007 at 8:17 am

Hold up, have not the Israeli's been the ones offering *all* the reasonable negotiations over the years? Have not the Israeli's given *all* the concessions? Sorry mate, that is all twisted. Hamas et al are evidently not concerned with reasonable negotiation and turn to violence. Israel has tried on numerous occasions to reach peaceful negotiated settlement. The problem is in what the two sides to the negotiation is seeking. Israel is seeking am autonomous palestinian state side by side with Israel living in peaceful harmony. Hamas et al are seeking the total annihilation of all Israel and the death of all jewish people in the world. I can't get over the gymnastics of reason that must be applied to find Israel the more culpable in these decades of conflict.

BTW: I agree with what you say regarding violent retaliation, and I agree that limiting the loss of all human life is absolutely paramount. We are not that far off in our outlook. I guess I just take criminal intent more seriously then you do.

33. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47986 by Benjamin Michael on June 6, 2007 at 7:54 am

What was the demands again? Something like handing over land (Shabaa farms) and swapping 1000 terrorist prisoners for the 2 Israeli kidnapees. You would negotiate with terrorists I take it and thereby implicitly authorize every terrorist in the region to kidnap more and more innocent Israeli's and make illegal demands knowing that Israel will do as Rtambree suggests and not reject kidnapper's demands. That would put in danger the lives of countless innocent people. Some moral compass you have there, Rtambree. I understand the humanitarian desire in all of us - I am a very left thinking libertarian myself. But we have to also apply a modicum of intelligence here. It is a *far* more complex situation then you are making it out to be.

34. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47975 by Benjamin Michael on June 6, 2007 at 7:23 am

Rtambree, if you can't honestly see the difference between (i) sending missiles into civilian cities with intent to murder innocents and (ii) the precision targeting of the launch sites of these missiles; then I really can not continue this discussion. Something is blocking your rationality circuits.

Is this the lawyer's "when the facts are against you, stress the law" argument?

Straw man, anyone?
The facts are not against me. The facts support me. So too does the law.

Regarding sentencing, if you want to measure on the basis of total years served in prison, then you can make an argument (as you are). Certain sentences can be concurrently served, certain sentences will stack. But your argument is weak. At the risk of setting up a straw man my own self, you appear to be looking for a way to make data fit your hypothesis.

You mention a scenario where intent to murder without actual murder seems less egregious to you then negligent manslaughter. But this is not the case here. Palestinian (or Hizbollah, which you seem to be focused on, even though not a Palestinian issue) terrorists actually succeed in their attempts to murder.

Importantly, I reject the notion that Israel was negligent at all. Did Israel owe a duty of care to people that are contributory negligent? I imagine their would be very strong evidence to support an assertion that civilians in southern Lebanon (for example) who were fore-warned by Israel about incoming missiles (dropped pamphlets), and who allowed Hizbollah to launch rockets from their living rooms were likely complicit in the crime as accomplices to Hizbollah and at the very least, were contributory negligent to their own deaths. I know this sounds callous, but it is unintelligent to simply assume (as you do) that Israel is grossly negligent in its actions. Maybe on some occasions. But there is strong evidence the other way. It is not as clear cut as you make it out to be, and you ignore the bulk of the evidence.

Aah - the collective responsibility argument. Every Bush voter is a legitimate target to Iraqi insurgents? … I don't believe in collective guilt. Sounds too Old Testament for me.

Straw man again!
It is not a collective responsibility issue at all, and I never for one second insinuated it was. Some of the death toll in southern Lebanon may fall into the category of intentional accomplice or implicit accomplice/contributory negligence BUT many were put in harms way by Hizbollah either by force or by acquiescence. Many, many of these people can be described as human shields, whether with their consent or otherwise. That does not justify their killing AT ALL (and Israel obfuscates their own military success by doing everything they can to avoid doing so). They are NOT collectively responsible. BUT, their deaths are not necessarily (in hindsight) the responsibility of Israel. Who is really to blame for their death? Most rational observers will apportion blame to Hizbollah who used them as human shields.

Anyway, you clearly disagree with me on these issues, but I would ask you stop using straw men against me and painting me in a certain light. I am trying to look at the factors rationally and objectively. It is offensive to me that you paint me as advocating collective punishment or supporting an Old Testament viewpoint when clearly I do not. I find many faults with Israel, but I, like Harris and Hitchens (for example), upon examination of the *actual* evidence, find many more faults with Hamas and Hizbollah.

35. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47836 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 5:05 pm

No, I am a robot. Can't you see from my picture?
Besides, I am in New York at the moment.

36. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47830 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 4:40 pm

It's not that interesting. The UN seems to think Israel is the *only* country in the world that breaches human rights. Virtually every country outside the USA is anti-Israel. I would call that a consensus. I can't talk to mainstream US press, as I have little respect for it anyway (I am not an American). Those in the US media with a more balanced view of the world are few and far between.

I don't think anyone labelled Hamas & Hezbollah as big and powerful. Just that they have the constitutional aim (if you can call it that) of wiping Israel of the map. Israel has no similar sentiment.

I must admit I am disappointed that you ignore my rebuttal and then use straw man arguments. Come on, you're better than that, I have read your excellent posts on other threads.

37. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47826 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Ok - but international political consensus is of no consequence to common law. Whatever the international community voiced publically and in the media about the Lebanon situation, it doesn't impact one iota on whether in legal theory and practice negligence can trump malice aforethought. Sorry to harp on this, but you are plain wrong when you say that foreseeable death is the same as intent. No common law system equates the two ever. Criminal negligence, reckless indifference to life, negligent manslaughter... these are very serious crimes, but intentional murder with malice aforethought trumps them. Always. It may not sit right in your ethical view (and maybe not in mine either) but in a strictly legal view, you are just plain wrong in this assertion, however reasonable it may seem.

And think in practical terms also. What is Israel to do? There were hundreds of missiles aimed daily at its cities, and good intelligence to suggest that Hezbollah had weapons capable of reaching every major city in Israel (including Jerusalem) - including the fact that Hezbollah stated as such. Haifa (a city symbolizing harmony between arabs and jews) was bombarded with missiles aimed intentionally to kill civilians indiscriminantly.

Does Israel just wait it out till the Hezbollah run out of missiles and hopefully the north of Israel is still in existence? (so that they can claim an inverted body count victory?)

Israel tried going on ground so minimize civilian casualty. They could have bombed the f*ck out of Lebanon (far worse than they did) but sent in ground troops to engage more accurately the terrorists. What happened? Because Hezbollah were dressed as civilians and hiding amongst residences etc. the Israeli army was ambushed and slaughtered (including an old basketball teammate of mine).

My view may be controversial, but I am not alone in saying that every Lebanese who died as a result of human shields by Hezbollah should be on the body count of Hezbollah NOT Israel. If 100 civilians acquiesce to having Hezbollah fire missiles from inside their apartment complex, then their blood is on the hands of Hezbollah not Israel. For Israel to go in on foot, they were massacred. For Israel to do nothing, the innocent of Haifa and the townships of the north were massacred. The only response was to strike with precision missiles these targets and do what they could to minimise civilian casualties (including mass droppings of warning notices which alerts the enemy, but saves civilian lives - something H&H never do). Clearly, they did not do as well as the international community would like, but they were not given much choice.

Rtambree, I honestly do respect your right to your viewpoint. Trust me, I may sound argumentative, but that is the lawyer in me (I must ask him to pull out (ok, bad joke)) but I do respect your right to hold the view. I just really honestly do think it is being formed without thinking through the full facts, perhaps due to a reluctance to oppose popular/consensus opinion. But, the argument from consensus (or whatever it is called) should never be invoked. Examine *all* the facts and think critically on the choices that the parties to this war had to face. I am trying to. I hated the war, and thought Israel did a bunch of horrible things. But I have to honestly weigh their options and if I am to apportion blame, as you suggest, I find it impossible to weigh the scales against the Israeli's.

38. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47816 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Well, the common law doesn't agree with you, and neither do most legal thinkers over time. Negligence is not worse than malice, whatever the magnitutes. Anyway, I speak from an accepted legal point of view. We are all welcome to form our own view of the ethics of the situation, and I respect your right to your viewpoint.

By the way, you can not have trial by jury as the palestinian terrorists are outside Israel's jurisdiction. Those terrorists that are caught in Israel committing crimes are 100% absolutely given full due process of law (much to the chagrin of the grieving families of victims). In fact, Israel has a better track record that the USA *and* the UK in regards to not torturing terrorists to gain information to prevent future attacks. We are dealing with a conflict across national borders, whether or not you perceive some form of palestinian state to exist or not. I don't personally like the targetted miliatary strikes of terrorist leaders and the civilian casualty fallout, but I am not (thankfully) the one who has to face these situations every day and make the decisions necessary to protect their nation from annihilation. My parents are, which is why I have a special empathy for the situation.

39. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47812 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Ok, but we don't have to imagine intent. We can infer it from the body counts that you so value. The *actual* targets of palestinian terror are civilians and the recorded testimony/writings of the palestinian authorities, leaders and organizations directly claim as such. Meanwhile, the actual body counts of palestinians evidence that Israel targets legitimate military targets and terrorists and the civilian casualties can clearly be evidenced as unintended casualties. Now I am sure there are circumstances where Israel did target civilians without legal warrant, but these are the exception not the rule, and a rightly condemned when condemnation is given. So, it is not some wishy washy "state of mind" I am referring to. It is the stated aims (testimony) of the palestinian terror, the stated aims (testimony) of the Israeli government, and more importantly, the physical evidence supports it overwhelmingly (the body counts you treasure).

Also, remember (as howtoplayalone observes) that the body counts of palestinians are not reliable due to factors such as (i) spurious counting (ii) poor medical system (iii) refusal to accept Israeli medical assistance when offered and (iv) counting militia/terrorists as civilians etc. Ignoring the Lebanon war, the body count differential is not as alarming as you make it out to be. Remember also that numerous terrorist attempts are thwarted daily. The effectiveness of Israeli terror protection systems should not be used as a sword against them. If Israel was half as efficient at crime prevention, the number would likely be stacked against the palestinians. And I don't think it is that far fetched for me to say so.

What say you?

40. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47799 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 2:40 pm

As I kept saying, blame is on both sides (surely you agree?). It seems my unique and unreasoned position is to claim that condemnation should be proportionate to the violence and suffering inflicted. That is all.

I agree blame is on both sides. I said so earlier that I agree with you on this. Where we disagree (one area) is that you think (solely?)that condemnation should be proportionate to [actual?] violence and suffering inflicted whereas I think this oversimplifies the situation and would factor in things such as culpability, intent and willingness to abide by the rule-of-law. These things are factored in by all common law legal systems, and I see no reason to ignore them in this conflict.

41. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47783 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Rtambree, I am confused, as you previously said:

You mean, like the destruction of Palestine? Yes, I agree, it is despicable when one nation says it wants to destroy another. It's just as despicable when one nation ACTUALLY carries it out

which I took to mean you were saying Israel not only says it wants to destroy the palestinians (political state existing or otherwise) but was actually carrying it out. If I misunderstood you, I am sure you will understand my confusion.

Accusing Isr of genocide: no, you didn't explicitly say this, but you did say something "remotely close to this" - you said Isr was ACTUALLY carrying out a goal to destroy the palestinians. Perhaps by "destroy" you meant something less then the what the word normally is understood to mean.

Am I speculating on your position on Israel? Yes, I am to an extent, but I am drawing on the words you yourself are writing here. If I misunderstand them, I am confident I am not the only one who has done so in a similar fashion. Is my speculation a bad example of "rational thinking and the pursuit of knowledge"? maybe, but I do not think so - I think it is just the cogs of a good-spirited honest discussion. There is nothing wrong with speculation when he who is speculated about is able to immediately rebut any misconceptions. But rather then speculate, let me ask direct questions:

1. do you think Isr seeks to destroy the palestinian state or the creation of one?
2. do you think Isr is actually destroying the palestinian people?
3. do you consider this "destruction" to be a genocide?

42. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47774 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Rtambree, now you are saying that Israel calls for the destruction of Palestine. Next you will accuse Israel of genocide. This is plain ridiculous. I don't know what you have been reading, but your analysis of the situation is most unscientific and unbecoming of such a fine website as this, devoted to rational thinking and the pursuit of knowledge.

43. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47764 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Alvorin said:
I doubt there is one person here who would subscribe to this "vast majority" world view...

I am in fact a "materialist" athiest in the sense D describes, and I would imagine that a very significant percentage of non-religion affiliated athiests (eg. Buddhist) are also, although I doubt it would constitute a majority, certainly not a vast majority.

44. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47734 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 11:32 am

Like Lucy, I do not wish to get further into this imbroglio. We should instead be discussing science and/or the irrationalities of faith. There is a lot of ignorance on the politics of Israel, and we all, myself included, are not really in a position to comment with enough authority. As we do in evaluating religion, we should seek to look harder at the actual evidence.

Closing statement: Looking at ratios like 4:1 or whatever discounts the fact that Israel has better medical care (because it spends its money on things like hospitals not TNT) is better at preventing attacks through better intelligence (organizational), and has placed a very high value on each and every life of their citizens. Motives *are* important. Manslaughter *is* different to murder. And yes, those things you mention (where accurate, you make a number of outright lies/mistakes*) are elements of self defence.

* such as equal rights denial (rubbish - the rule-of-law is stronger in Israel then in the UK), the cluster-bomb accusation, rejection of peach offers (you are referring to the palestinians, surely?), and kidnappings (ditto). Reminds me of how religo's like to call an Athiest position one of "faith" to paint the ills of one side onto both sides to obfuscate the argument.

45. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47725 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 11:08 am

Brian, I guess it depends on how you want to define aggression. Competence and diligent committment to achieve a military purpose certainly makes Israel "aggressive" in carrying out their military strategies. But "culpability" is a different and more relevant issue. Reacting with disproportionate force in self defence is unnaceptable in most (or all) systems of common law. If someone attacks me with a wooden spoon, I can not stab him in the neck with a machette and claim it was legitimate self defence. But to ignore or underplay the severity of the planned and executed murder of innocent civilians by palestinian and other state sponsored terrorist organisations is to completely ignore the issue of culpability. Framed in this way, there can be little doubt in the mind of a reasonable rationalist that the bigger aggressor of the situation is *not* the Israeli's (as Harris writes about). There is a tremendous amount wrong with the situation, on both sides, and in this I agree with Rtambree, but premeditated state authorized racial based murder of innocent civilians trumps an overzealous self defence in every circumstance that I can think of.

Also, Rtambree, remember that Israel is a *very* secular government and society, contrary to what you might think. My father is one of the "crazies" that live in Jerusalem (he is a Rabbi) but a very large percentage of the population is very secular, with a surprisingly high amount of athiests, given the geography. The military actions of Israel really are not based in old testament doctrine. You should check the facts.

There is a higher population-percentage of religious crazies in the US then there are in Israel, especially amongst the decision makers.

46. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47719 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 10:56 am

That article refers to Gaza not Lebanon, and is poorly referenced.

Is not Pearl Harbor in Oahu, Hawaii, on United States soil? (pardon my lack of knowledge of US geography).

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing at all for whether the US in WWII were right or otherwise in their actions, but I wanted to make the more general point that body count, in and of itself, is not a very relevant indicator of culpability.

47. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47712 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 10:41 am

Rtambree is falling into the same trap that most god-believers fall into. That is to allow oneself to be indoctrinated by what one reads in popular literature/media without actually giving a rational and reasoned analysis of the evidence and facts.

Regarding death tolls, was the USA on the wrong side of the moral ledger in WWII because less USA citizens were killed by the enemy then enemy troops/civilians killed by the USA?

48. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47680 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 9:03 am

A link to a comment of mine on another thread relating to "days" of "creation":
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews,page5#47672

49. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47672 by Benjamin Michael on June 5, 2007 at 8:46 am

A comment re the usage of the ancient hebrew word "yohm" (note: I studied modern and ancient hebrew for over 13 years).

This is most clearly used in the bible to mean the word "day" in the normal usage of the term. It would be a very obscure poetic usage of the word if meant to be "era" or "age". There are other more suitable words, such as "dor" which is normally used to mean "generation" or "tkufah" which means an era (it derives from the word meaning "to encompass").

But it is not just the choice of word that invalidates a theory that "yohm" in the first chapters of genesis could mean anything other than 1 standard day. Mornings and evenings are described, something only compatible with a standard interpretation of "day" being sunrise to sunrise. Furthermroe, yohm is used repeatedly throughout the bible to refer to a standard day, in contexts where to interpret it as anything more than a day would be absurd. A vague and unusual interpretation of yohm in this one context of genesis would be completely ad hoc and contradictory.

50. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47425 by Benjamin Michael on June 4, 2007 at 1:25 pm

You know, I haven't read it yet, strangely enough. I must find the time to do so. LCN I read in the bookstore, and was going to put it back on the shelf but felt guilty about it so I bought it anyway. That way I can lend it others who may get great benefit out of reading it.