--
The fact that it is very old is at the crux of the problem. It is a poorly written book on completely different subjects. It has no relevence to today's world. In fact, it's only purpose in todays world is to interfere with real progress.
And anyone with a different opinion is simply wrong.
Did you back it up with independant evidence?
See below.
Which really brings to light the stupidity of ever having the don't eat pork rule....Obviously you haven't been keeping up to date. The people you like to point to are the ones who mostly broke away from judaism. did you read the articles in the Vol. 12 No. 3 2006 edition of Skeptic magazine?
"Mostly?" Wouldn't "all" prove your point more effectively?
Does the Skeptic article (to which, of course, I have no access) document that the overwhelming majority of Jews who have won Nobel prizes in the sciences are atheists?
If not, why not?
You will have to point me to some independant evidence to support this. All I have says you are wrong.
What evidence do you have? And what evidence would you accept?
And see below.
No, the only time a clash occurs is when two ideas are equally valid. If one idea is clearly right, or one idea clearly wrong, there is no clash. If both ideas are clearly wrong but an argument occurs anyway, you have a torah study.
That's a nice but of bigotry. Once again; any hint that there might be a God renders any argument or assertion totally invalid.
The point is, you are advocating the use of old religious texts to solve modern problems. they are clearly out of their depth. You are also advocating the solution to modern societal problems based on the religious dogma of one tiny group.
Perhaps you can explain empirically why those solutions are invariably wrong, instead of assuming they are wrong in advance. To cite just one example, the NAACP was founded, and much of the Civil Rights movement financed, by Jews on explicitly religious grounds. Was that invalid because God was somewhere in the neighborhood?
Wait, wait, don't tell me--you want "independent evidence." I might be lying because I believe in God.
"Look it up." How's that? Maybe if you find the information yourself, you'll believe it. More likely you'll find a way to explain how any good deed done in God's name still has nothing to do with God.
There is no evidence to support the existence of a god. There is a lot to to support his non-existence. You make the mistake of seeing each side a sequally valid. The seeking of truth is based on the preponderance of evidence. Any jew truly seeking truth would have to be leaning heavily to the non-existent side.
Opinion presented as fact, part CCLXVIII.
It is not a silly question. the silliness arises when you pretend that a religion is actually interested in the truth.
Blatant anti-religious bigotry, part (full in blank)
I thought jews invited inquiry? I dare because you threw it out here on a public forum. I am speaking from prejudice...
Thanks for the admission.
...simply because I have examined what you have been saying in the past and there was no evidence to support your position. With no new evidence, I have to conclude that the situation is the same.
I'm just curious; what "new evidence" would be acceptable to you as valid, short of my suddenly capitulating, declaring that there is no God, and that you are totally right?
Is there any statement I could make that includes the assertion that there is, or even might be, a God, that you would find logical or acceptable?
Your position has been obviously false because it doesn't stand up to simple logic. You have stated your opinion on a number of isses and I have shown the flaw in the logic.
But the "flaw in the logic" is always the idea that there is a God.
That is not a logical refutation; that is an unproven assumption.
No, it is judged on the evidence you have and the logic you use to arrive at the conclusion. For instance, you stated that the greatest writing to come from the human intellect was William Shakespear's works. When was the last time you used an argument based on his work in a torah study? When was the last time you heard anyone in a torah study say, "You know what? Michael Shermer makes a better argument for this when he says . . . ?"
That's not logic; that's dictating what references are acceptable to you.
I have heard Shakespeare brought up in Torah study (
The Merchant of Venice is a rather frequent topic, in fact). As for Shermer, I suspect the response would be, "Who?" Go ahead now, blame Jews that he isn't world-famous and instantly recognizable by everyone.
The fact remains; you won't take my word for the nature of most Torah studies, you've never been near one yourself, and you've never examined the topic at all except right here in my posts--and you still feel totally justified in pronouncing them worthless.
If that's reasoned, logical argument, I'm Harrison Ford.
The
only reason you have for condemning this activity is that it acknowledges the existence of God. That is painfully obvious in everybword you write.
It offers a great sense of community to believers.
Thank you. I shall now get up off the floor and ask, "is that all?"
Really! So the torah has been altered to negate all the bad things like rules for owning slaves, not eating pork, circumcising children, etc.?
You don't see how what is done in judaism is exactly what is done in christianity and islam? They are just allowing you to pick and choose your own morality. What the heck do you need an old book to do that for? You could make better choices using modern thought for modern problems. The only reason you need a book is to give your moral choice the illusion of godly authority.
Once again, proceeding from the unshakable conviction that there is no God, throwing in the idea that history, tradition, heritage and a very ancient method of inquiry are all worthless.
The label atheist jew is either a cop out or the person using it is using a different definition of jew than the normal one.
And you get to determine what is "normal."
If what you say is true, there would also be christian jews, muslim jews, buddhist jews, etc.
There are Buddhist Jews; since Buddhism has nothing to say about God and is more a philosophy than a religion, that's acceptable. But there's a difference between claiming Judaism
without God and attempting to claim Judaism while worshipping a
different God.
Go ahead, explain to me why that is wrong and illogical. Oh, wait, don't tell me; since there are no gods, differentiating between them makes no sense. Am I right?
I suspect that the label atheist jew is to identify someone who does not believe in the jewish god but stiull wishes to hang on to the cultural aspects of being jewish.
And the ethic, and the heritage, and the community. Of course; what else could it mean?
We've been arguing the question "Who is a Jew?" for centuries. The consensus at the moment is "Whoever says he is." and you don't get to vote on the question unless you're Jewish.
You can't have a religion without the belief in a supernatural being. Although I am glad to hear that some people are turning away from god, I don't see how this is relevent to this discussion. This is certainly not mainstream judaism.
By what standard? Yours? Is Unitarian-Universalism a religion? They say it is. Who are you to say it's not?
Wait, wait, wait!!!!!! You said you were raised christian. You have nothing in common with other jews except that you have come to believe in their god. I do karate and I study Okinawan culture and traditions. I think it has a lot to offer but never in my insanest moments do I believe that I am Okinawan! And no matter how much knowledge I gave about their culture, I am never going to be.
You have confused the religious aspect of judaism, which you can be a part of, and the cultural aspect, which you can never be a part of, except as an outsider looking in.
See below. You are making assumptions again, on topics you know nothing about.
No, they are not equally valid . . . well they are actually, thEy all have little or no validity. This is a perfect illustration of the problem with basing your studies on argument. You believe whichever version of god that you can make the best argumetn for but you never put the idea of god to any real test.
Yeah, the
a priori assumption that there is no God masquerading as a solid point of logic again.
I've been wondering; what would constitute "putting the idea of God to a real test?"
Would the definition of a "real test" be "one which concludes that God does not exist"?
Albert Einstein accomplished great things because of his intellect, not because he was a jew and that is the same with all scientist who have made discoveries and been jewish. Of course, it is the same for those who were raised christian and made great discoveries. Their discoveries were made in spite of their upbringing, not because of it. If not, you explain exactly what it was about the theory of relativity that made it so that only a jew could discover it.
Can you explain why Jews make contributions to the sciences that are wildly out of proportion to their numbers?
I don't say that it has anything directly to do with religion; I think it has to do with the cultural value of academic learning among Jews--though that could hardly exist if the Jewish faith militated against it.
I'm sure that's not enough to prove my point about Jews and Judaism revering learning and the sciences, though. There MUST be some other reason. Belief in God BY DEFINITION stifles progress and education. Right?
So what is the reason? If both Jews and Christians succeed in the sciences in spite of their upbringing and not because of it, shouldn't their successes be proportionate to their numbers?
----
Qayak, I think we're done.
Every argument from you comes back to the same place; There is no God, so any idea that is remotely based on or acknowledges the possibility that there might be a God is obviously false and illogical, and is therefore not worthy of consideration, and therefore there is no evidence of God.
When I say something that doesn't fit that nice bit of circular reasoning, you either deny it outright, tacitly calling me a liar, or demand "independent evidence," which is a
polite way of calling me a liar. Where would one get "independent evidence" about Judaism supporting the sciences or the death penalty in ancient Israel? I point to the number of Jews who win Nobel prizes in the sciences, and you hand ne an assertion,
without evidence, that those Jews must mostly be atheists; were I to point to the Talmud's extensive remarks on the imposition of the death penalty, I would no doubt be told that since those records come from religious Jews, they are not to be trusted.
The "flaw in the logic" that you keep claiming to find is the idea that there might actually be a God. Since the logic is "flawed' in every proposition that includes God, the idea of God has no value. Circular reasoning again.
You are wrong in so many ways, but you will never consider that possibility.
For starters, yes, I was born and raised a Christian; but converting to Judaism is like marrying into a family--one learns to love the traditions and the culture as much as one born to it. By Jewish law, a convert is as Jewish as one born so. It is even forbidden to mention the fact that one is a convert unless the convert brings it up first.
Reconstructionist Judaism is not "mainstream" by your own definition only; followers of that movement are as accepted as genuine Jews as any Orthodox Jew. Jewish atheists have been around a long time, and the foundation of a branch for them (and others) didn't raise a lot of eyebrows.
The students at the Jewish school where I taught were required to wear yarmulkes in every class on the explicitly stated ground that "all learning is a sacred activity." and so on.
I'm quite certain you can find ways to refute all those facts, or declare them exceptions, and then go back to your mantra that belief in God is
prima facie evidence of "flawed logic," low intelligence, cultural indoctrination, or--well, whatever.
You seem to think that I make stuff up for rhetorical purposes; sorry, but you're not that important to me. I place more value on my integrity than to throw it away to win an insignificant Internet argument. If you haven't noticed, I've conceded a lot of arguments since I've been here.
Conceding that belief in God is necessarily false, foolish and illogical is not likely to be another.
What is the point of debating someone who will allow only answers that he has determined beforehand?
If you wish to claim that Judaism is the same as all other religions, that is your privilege. But you know, and I know, that there is
independent evidence that that is not true, starting with the fact that the other major religions have historically made it a habit to kill Jews. I'm sure that that is somehow our own fault because we believe in God. Though.
Any jew truly seeking truth would have to be leaning heavily to the non-existent side.
The only acceptable answer is atheism. You have made your decision, and declared that any other is wrong. Debate is impossible, Q.E.D.
Live long and prosper.
ETA: I am also engaged in some debates on a Christian board where I talk to fundamentalists and even a few flat-out antisemites.
Few of them appear to be as smug, as arrogant, and as unreflectively certain of the rightness of their position as you do.
