Fetzer supports Trump, gets fired from Barrett's show

[Oystein]

Agreed.

Ultimately the overall "faith based" argument is not accessible to reasoned argument.

BUT that does not mean that the individual elements used to support a faith based argument cannot be individually rebutted/falsified - or supported and accepted. R Dawkins makes that point often.

The error comes in the summation into the overall argument AND the inclusion of factors which are unfalsifiable faith based.

All agreed.
I suggest that the word "unnatural" (or "natural") has quite a different meaning for a believer in Abraham's god than for a person with a naturalistic (!), "godless" world view: For us, the latter, "natural" is everything that exists or happens, as a matter of fact, in the observable universe - perhaps you might want to add "with some frequency and/or as a result of recognizable properties of the material world (physical laws; patterns of genetic expression...)". For them, the faith-based, "natural" is that which their god supposedly "intended" for the world. Note that the difference is not so much the origin of the phenomena (god vs. inanimate material properties) but the dychotomy of "descriptive vs. normative".

 

[ozeco41]

All agreed.
I suggest that the word "unnatural" (or "natural") has quite a different meaning for a believer in Abraham's god than for a person with a naturalistic (!), "godless" world view: For us, the latter, "natural" is everything that exists or happens, as a matter of fact, in the observable universe - perhaps you might want to add "with some frequency and/or as a result of recognizable properties of the material world (physical laws; patterns of genetic expression...)". For them, the faith-based, "natural" is that which their god supposedly "intended" for the world. Note that the difference is not so much the origin of the phenomena (god vs. inanimate material properties) but the dychotomy of "descriptive vs. normative".

Understood.

Naturally.

 

[CORed]

I don't mean to side line this thread... Zionism seems to be no different than other "movements" for self determination and a nation status... Sure it's about real estate. And people fight over real estate all the time. And fighting is not a good thing in almost all cases.

My understanding of the history of the region is unclear and of course both sides seem to making a claim for the same real estate... Of course it would be better if they could just share and live together... but if they can't they need to divide it up.

I thought that Jordan was supposed to be the state for the Arabs. Although "resettlement" seems weird and often "unfair"... millions were resettled in Pakistan I believe.

I've also wondered by with the arab lands so huge and their oil wealth so vast that they didn't just give the "Palestinians" land and build them something like Dubai... more modest of course.

Jeruselum is the thing they all fight over and so that is where the UN should be sited and not belong to anyone.... open to all...

The ME is way too violent and full of weird ideas...(mostly religious in origin) and has become a huge problem for the entire world... and may light up the next world war.

Your ideas for settling the Israel/Palestinian conflict are very sensible. Far too sensible to have any hope of ever being implemented.