u/WhatsTheHoldup

if I were there would be proof that’s why your example is a false equivalence.

Not necessarily. This is lemmy, you're on a completely anonymous account. I wouldn't expect to have any proof.

Maybe you just didn't get caught yet.

>If the Christian God exists, for example, there would be no way of knowing for certain

I was willing to grant you the philosophical God argument, but if you want to evoke the Christian God you're now making a whole bunch of positive claims.

Why don't we look at the evolutionary record and see whether all of humanity comes from Adam and Eve or if animals evolved from a common ancestor?

We can look for evidence of a flood, or an exodus and see there is none.

We can track the history of Yahweh, and how he was syncretized with El and Baal from Caananite faiths, and morphed over centuries from a local Storm/war God to the only God.

>The early Israelites engaged in polytheistic practices that were common across ancient Semitic religion, because the Israelite religion was a derivative of the Canaanite religion and included a variety of deities from it, including El, Asherah, and Baal. Initially a lesser deity among the Cannanite pantheon, Yahweh in later centuries became conflated with El; Yahweh took on El's place as head of the pantheon of the Israelite religion, El's consort Asherah, and El-linked epithets, such as ʾĒl Šadday (אֵל שַׁדַּי‎), came to be applied to Yahweh alone. Characteristics of other deities, such as Asherah and Baal, were also selectively absorbed in conceptions of Yahweh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

We can compare the contradictions between the behavior of the Old Testament God and Jesus to conclude like early Christians such as Marcion of Sinope Yahweh and Christianity are incompatible

>Study of the Hebrew Bible, along with received writings circulating in the nascent Church, led Marcion to conclude that many of the teachings of Jesus were incompatible with the actions of Yahweh, characterized as the belligerent god of the Hebrew Bible. Marcion responded by developing a ditheistic system of belief around the year 144.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope

We can compare the Gospels and see where they copied stories from the Iliad/Odyssey.

>Odyssey Location Mark Location

Athena descends like a bird 1.319-324 Spirit descends like a dove 2:1-2

Sailors volunteer to follow Athena 2.383-413 Fishermen volunteer to follow Jesus 1:16-20

Nestor’s feast for 4500 men 3.1-68 Jesus’s feast for 5000 men 6:30-44

Menelaus’s wedding feast 4.1-67 Jesus’s feast for 4000 8:1-9

Odysseus enters city behind mules 6.252-261 Jesus enters city on an ass 11:1-11

Alcinous’s prolific figs trees 7.112-121 Jesus curses unprolific fig tree 11:12-14

Blind Demodocus among sailors 8.471-473 Blind man at “House-of-fisherman” 8:22-26

Lotus-eating, forgetful comrades 9.62-107 Forgetful disciples at sea 8:19-21

Polyphemus the cave-dweller 9.105-525 Dangerous demoniac from caves 5:1-20

Aeolus’s bag of winds and gale 10.1-55 Jesus calms winds and sea 4:35-41

Cannibals at the harbor 10.76-136 Hostile Pharisees at the harbor 8:10-13

Following a water carrier to dinner 10.100-116 Following a water carrier to dinner 14:12-16

Circe turns soldiers into swine 10.135-465 Jesus sends demons into swine 5:1-20

Odysseus’s last supper before Hades 10.546-561 Jesus’s last super and Gethsemane 14:32-42

Death of young Elpenor 10.546-560 Flight of naked young man 14:43-52

Blind seer Tiresias 11.90-94 Blind seer Bartimaeus 10:46-52

Death of Agamemnon at a feast 11.409-430 Death of the Baptist at a feast 6:14-29

Burial of Elpenor at dawn 12.1-5 Young man at tomb at dawn 16:1-4

Eurylochus’s vow 12.298-305 Peter’s vow 14:26-31

Eurylochus’s broken vow 12.367-396 Peter’s broken vow 14:66-72

Eumaeus’s Phoenician nurse 15.417-491 Syrophoenician woman 7:24-30

Odysseus’s transfiguration 16.172-301 Jesus’s transfiguration 9:2-13

Suitors plot to kill Telemachus 16.383-385 Vinedressers kill the beloved son 12:1-12

Conspiracy to kill Telemachus 17.182-213 Conspiracy to kill Jesus 14:10-11

Penelope’s hospitality 17.534-547 Generous widow at temple 12:41-42

Irus the beggar 18.1-94 Barabbas the brigand 15:6-15

Telemachus’s amazement at house 19.35-43 Disciples’ amazement at temple 13:1-2

Penelope’s request for a sign 19.102-271 Disciples’ request for a sign 13:3-8

Prophetic oak at Dodona 19.296-307 Prophetic fig tree 13:28-31

Eurycleia washes her master 19.370-575 Woman anoints Jesus 14:3-9

Eurycleia’s recognition of Odysseus 19.474-486 Peter’s recognition of the Messiah 8:27-30

Odysseus slays suitors in his house 22.17-86 Jesus expels merchants from temple 11:15-19

Contested authority over the house 22.221-233 Contested authority over the temple 11:27-33

Odysseus hacks to death evil slave 22.474-477 Bystander slices off a slave’s ear 14:43-5

https://testimonia.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/MacDonald.Mimesis.pdf

Or also where they contradict each other

>If you spend enough time focusing on the truth of this you will eventually conclude you cannot prove your belief like they cannot prove theirs so neither side has anything demonstrable.

I don't think theist Christians would agree with that though. Quoting Tertullian:

>We do not worship your gods, because we know that there are no such beings. This, therefore, is what you should do: you should call on us to demonstrate their non-existence, and thereby prove that they have no claim to adoration; for only if your gods were truly so, would there be any obligation to render divine homage to them. And punishment even were due to Christians, if it were made plain that those to whom they refused all worship were indeed divine. But you say, They are gods. We protest and appeal from yourselves to your knowledge; let that judge us; let that condemn us, if it can deny that all these gods of yours were but men.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm

When it comes to a philosophical creator god I agree with your statement, this view describes agnostic atheism.

>The assertion that there is no God cannot be proven as you cannot prove a negative.

Correct, no one argued that.

>There assertion that there is a divine entity cannot be logically demonstrated in any valid way logically speaking.

Correct again.

>The validity of either claim cannot be tested and thus have the same overall value and it is a matter of which you choose to accept.

Do you really mean that?

If I were to accuse you of something terrible like being a child molester with absolutely zero evidence...

That's valid? You can deny it, but your denial is of equal value to my accusation right? So if everyone in this comment section chooses to believe you molester children from now on... do you have a problem with that?

The reason I'm an atheist is the same reason I don't believe you're a child molester yet. I think there is a burden of proof of evidence that would need to be met before the accusation needs to be taken seriously.

>Military service is compulsory for Jews and Druze, both men and women, and for Circassian men. The active-duty period is 32 months for men and 24 months for women, followed by reserve duty until age 40.

If they're Israeli simply check if they're younger than 50.

>They are asking random Israelis.

Did you not read the comment above you? They ask people who served in the military.

Israel has mandatory military service for all citizens so that's probably why "randomly Israelis" may be screened. They're ex-military.

Idk I feel like it could have ended a little earlier than that.

Donating all their assets to the needy is actually supposed to be an alignment of goals, and that's why progressives find the church so frustrating.

If you're lost as to how that relates to the topic this conversation is beyond you.

Me: "I want to purchase healthy foods."

You: Theres plenty of junk food out there that "brands" itself as healthy.

That's true, so now what?

Do we give up on healthy food entirely and buy the chips for dinner?

Believe it or not, I think carrots and a bag of chips "branded" as healthy can be distinguished between.

Abuse isn't the solution to miseducation.

>If you care about the rights of Gazans then the ultimate right is the right of self determination and a right to life.

Those are two rights.

I believe the right to life is the ultimate right as one can't access self determination if they are dead.

This is why the genocide takes priority over any worries about legitimacy.

>So in that sense you should critically support Hamas in the Palestinian struggle against the settler-colonizers.

I support the Palestinian struggle against their colonizers but I appreciate that you put the word "critically" in their because I do also want to be able to say terrorism isn't a good response and be able to say it's wrong when anyone targets innocent civilians intentionally.

>You want pretty elections in an apartheid ghetto.

No I want to stop the apartheid ghetto.

"Legitimacy" means nothing in a war zone. There's nothing to talk about until the bombs stop.

>How about they not have an apartheid ghetto and be integrated into a democratic process? Again, in order to do that they must not be under siege for decades...

Yeah how about that?

Haha I'm getting a but frustrated at the reading comprehension on this thread but at least we agree.

If you read through my replies you'll see me consistently making this point as well.

"Legitimacy" is not a concept that exists in a war zone. The Palestinians are being robbed of the opportunity of legitimate representation by their occupiers.

I never felt I was presenting a moral framework based on legitimacy. You seem to be implying that just because I can't label guerrilla fighters as a "legitimate government" I don't think they have a moral right to resist?

Legitimacy and morality are completely separated to me. I think Trump is a perfect example of that. I accept he was elected as a legitimate leader, but he clearly has no moral justification for power and it is our moral duty to resist despite his "legitimacy".

We must prioritize defending human rights before social constructs.

That's why "legitimacy" breaks down here, legitimacy is a social construct we can only focus on in a collaborative environment when we're not killing each other. It's agreeing to international borders, boundaries, and non interference in each other's governments. If we all start invading everyone then the construct we've built on a philosophy of peace time goes away which is why as you point out **if** it were a moral framework would be really flimsy.

Legitimacy as a moral judgement I think only works in a world where Israel is acting in good faith and actually wants to avoid war crimes and is held accountable for its crimes in a court of law.

Genocide is so much worse than illegitimate rulers so I'm really not interested in the legitimacy of Hamas as a question to begin with. Doesn't seem important. I know they have a moral right to resist and whoever does the resisting isn't going to be "legitimate" until after they've already won so I'm not gonna judge them for it.

Ideally let's stop the genocide, let's build back infrastructure, then we can hold elections and see who's legitimate.

That's a great example to bring up.

Ukraine has declared martial law and with that suspended elections that should have in peacetime occurred last year. Martial law continues to get extended 90 days at a time by parliament and this has happened 14 times now.

As I mentioned earlier, the longer time goes on without an election the less legitimate a government becomes. 4 year terms, 5 year terms, 6 years, I don't think the micro details of it really matter but as a rule of thumb there should be elections at least twice a generation.

If we say a generation is 25-30 years that means every 12-15 years at a minimum.

Ukraine elected Zelensky in 2019, so it's been 6 years since the last election.

All of this seems reasonable at this stage for me to say Ukraine's government is 100% legitimate.

If 4 more years pass and it's been a decade, I'm starting to think it's time to give the next generation a shot at defending their land.

At 15 years i think its lost its legitimacy. Though I will likely still support it's right to defend itself against occupation, I think a legitimate government would allow the new generation of Ukrainians to have a say on that and elections are necessary.

What are your thoughts? In 20 years do you think it's okay if Ukraine still hasn't held elections?

Yes, countries can invade and occupy other countries, suspend their governments, block future elections and violate their civil rights.

That's what's so bad about it.

But this shouldn't be a surprise, Israel is doing much worse human rights abuses to the Palestinians than simply revoking the legitimacy of their government. They're massacring them, they're starving them and blowing up aid workers trying to bring in food, not even to mention the sexual violence I can't even stomach thinking about.

It's important to understand the severity of what a genocide implies. These are a people without a voice. If someone doesn't stop the occupation and reallow legitimate elections, the very idea of a Palestinian people might be eradicated.

>Hamas aren't the ones preventing elections.

No, we've already gone over that it's their occupiers fault for that

>They don't lose legitimacy just because *other parties* have illegally halted the electoral process. They're not the obstacle.

No they do not.

They lose legitimacy over time as it becomes longer and longer since the last election.

75% of the population has never had an opportunity to vote for anyone at all and 50% is too young to have even been born at the last election. I don't see how we can say these people have legitimate representation despite that.

>Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have blocked elections since then.

Right, this is the primary reason I would argue that there's no official representative.

But it sounds as though you're presenting it to counter the point I was making. Can you elaborate on how this fact legimizes Hamas as an official representative?

>But you are right that half of Gazans weren’t even born when Hamas won the last elections.

While that's correct its even worse, once you factor in the minimum voting age of 18 years old, over 75% of Gazans were unable to participate in the last election.

What? There aren't any?

If I explained to you ghettos are horrific and violate human rights, because as one example among so many other issues we would likely agree on, they strip a people of their right to fair elections and representation in the determination of their future.

And that the fact that Palestinians have not been free to organize, form new political parties and campaign in safe and uncoerced elections is a direct violation of their rights and the party to answer and blame for this is the one occupying them and preventing this from happening...

What are we disagreeing about?

What I disagree with is that an election an entire generation before the present that people alive never voted in should not be held up to represent their current politics and beliefs as a nation.

>Hamas is the official representative of Gaza. They were elected.

What makes you say this? Do you not realize this "election" happened all the way back in 2006?

Do you know how long ago that was? 19 years.

Do you know what the median age in Gaza was in 2020 (before this recent escalation in genocide)? 18 years old.

In my opinion 20 years per election might not be an ideal timescale for a democracy.

I'm trying to assume good faith so I'm confused why you'd argue that's adequate representation?

>Many have told me about “their god” and I take their word for it.

>Resultantly I believe in all of “their gods”.

I'm following so far

>And I drew a conclusion about that guy.

What do you mean "that guy". I thought we just established these are multiple guys?

>I think “god” is a piece of shit unworthy of praise and we should seek to destroy and erase it.

What do you mean "it"? Don't you mean "them"?

>I hate god and have no respect for god-fearing people and no tolerance for their “beliefs”

Why are you talking about a singular God here? It reads like you're blaming Yahweh for Zeus' sexual behaviour and you're blaming Hanuman for the Great Flood.

These aren't the same character. Each "God" claim needs to be evaluated separately.

For example why do you hate Persephene so much? Why is she a piece of shit. You claim to believe in her right Your reasons shouldn't include examples from the Bible.

>Which supernatural make-believe system (read: religion ) is tolerant of my supernatural make-believe system?

You might find company among the Satanic Temple or other Satanists.

You said "Buddhism" was ruled out but you didn't actually clarify so until you present your reasoning I'd say Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Jainism all lacking God's are partially compatible.

I mean to be fair there's not going to be a great answer because this isn't a real question but a gotcha. And I say that as an atheist.

You obviously don't actually believe in **all the gods**, your earlier language shows you haven't thought enough about what that means and force them all into the same one God.

The Hittites believed in "all the gods" and absorbed every new God of neighbors they conquered. But they truly believed in these gods, not as a gotcha question but they really believed in the power of these entities.

Regardless of personal moral views on their behavior, outwardly taunting that being seems silly in light of genuine faith.