Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Don't Believe Anonymous Bloggers


The Internet was supposed to be the prolix paradise where there would be no more gatekeepers and everyone would finally have their say. We would express ourselves freely at any level, high or low, with no inhibitions.

Yet in this infinite realm of truth-telling, many want to hide. Who are these people prepared to tell you what they think, but not who they are? What is the mentality that lets them get in our face while wearing a mask? Shredding somebody’s character before the entire world and not being held accountable seems like the perfect sting.

Pseudonyms have a noble history. Revolutionaries in France, founding fathers and Soviet dissidents used them. The great poet Fernando Pessoa used heteronyms to write in different styles and even to review the work composed under his other names.

As Hugo Black wrote in 1960, “It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes.”

But on the Internet, it’s often less about being constructive and more about being cowardly.


Maureen Dowd New York Times August 25, 2009

I think what Ms. Dowd is saying is that anonymous writers are liars and that is why they choose to be anonymous.

If you live in a country which guarantees freedom of expression, there is no legitimate reason to write anonymously. No reputable newspaper has anonymous articles. Even when people sign their names they may still lie, however if they refuse to sign they are guaranteed to be lying.

Some people may claim that they must remain anonymous because if they would sign their articles, their family or neighbors would be angry with them. My opinion is that if what you are saying is something you would not tell your wife or your next door neighbor, then it is not worth sharing it with the rest of the world.

Click here for a story about a recently exposed blogger.

In my humble opinion, if you don't have the courage to sign your name to it, you shouldn't publish it

175 comments:

Off the Derech said...

You realize that almost every frum blogger is anonymous as well. Tell you what: If they all use their names, we'll be glad to use ours.

jewish philosopher said...

I use my name and I don't know of any Orthodox rabbi with an anonymous blog.

If you can't sign it, don't publish it.

Off the Derech said...

>I don't know of any Orthodox rabbi with an anonymous blog.

Garnel.

jewish philosopher said...

I think this is him.

http://www.pathcom.com/~u1038478/author.htm

Not a rabbi and not anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Atheists and homosexuals wish to remain annonymous on your blog because you might kill them. You have stated that more than once. Who knows what a crank like you might do to fullfill god's fantasies?
I can see the headlines in the NY Post:
Jacob Stein, Notorious Jewish Ultra-Ultra-Orthodox Fundamentalist Goes Postal -- Tracks Down Christopher Hitchens, Takes A Page Out Of The Taliban Handbook And Beheads Him. Says That He Was On A Mission From God.

Alex said...

"In my humble opinion, if you don't have the courage to sign your name to it, you shouldn't publish it. "

Unless you're really humble.

Sefer haChinuch is one of a few examples I can think of.

jewish philosopher said...

Right, sure. The streets around the New Times building are filled every day with bodies of political columnists and editors. I only stop when I run out of ammo.

If you can't sign it, don't publish it.

jewish philosopher said...

Sefer ha-Chinuch was published in 13th Century Spain, centuries before printing. This means that someone wrote it on parchment and others copied it. Maybe the name of the author was just forgotten because he was not a famous rabbi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_ha-Chinuch

I don't believe that contemporary rabbis publish anonymous works.

Alex said...

True. I heard about one exception on a Torah tape. Can't recall what the sefer was about, though. The speaker spoke of the man, whom he met, as a lamed vavnik or something.
I wish I could use my real name, but I'm not proud of everything I've written, and someone could gather together the ones that make me look dumb, and proceed to make me look /really/ dumb.

inkstainedhands said...

"If you can't sign it, don't publish it." -- I completely agree.

Using the cloak of anonymity to say whatever one wants is cowardly. If you have an opinion, if you want to say something, then why should you be ashamed of it being connected to your name?

A statement carries more weight when the writer signs his/her name and shows that he/she has no reason to be ashamed of it. But when one chooses to be anonymous, his words are logically worthless.

Baal Habos said...

>Revolutionaries in France, founding fathers and Soviet dissidents used them.

Think of me as a revolutionary.

Baal Habos said...

>Jacob Stein, Notorious Jewish Ultra-Ultra-Orthodox Fundamentalist Goes Postal -- Tracks Down Christopher Hitchens, Takes A Page Out Of The Taliban Handbook And Beheads Him. Says That He Was On A Mission From God.

Reminds me this -
http://baalhabos.blogspot.com/2007/03/monsey-herald.html

jewish philosopher said...

"Think of me as a revolutionary."

Does anyone else?

I think gutless traitor might fit a little better.

jewish philosopher said...

Seriously, Dawkins and Hitchens live openly and seem to be in good health. Half of mankind probably hates their guts.

The anonymous bloggers are just wimps.

Baal Habos said...

>Does anyone else?

My point is of course, that you haven't really explained why it was OK for French Philosophers to publish anonymously and why not us Frum Skeptics. The only difference is the Media.

Descartes tombstone:

'Bene qui latuit, bene visit'

He who hid well, lived well.

Baal Habos said...

>If you can't sign it, don't publish it

Ha. How much of Tanach is signed?

Certainly not the five books of "Moses".

Off the Derech said...

Good point, Inkstainedhands.

jewish philosopher said...

Actually the quote was:

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit

http://www.geocities.com/~bblair/FruitsNotes.html#fn69

The context is:

Quid fuit, ut tutas agitaret Daedalus alas, Icarus inmensas nomine signet aquas?
Nempe quod hic alte, demissius ille uolabat: nam pennas ambo non habuere suas.
Crede mihi, bene qui latuit bene uixit, et intra fortunam debet quisque manere suam.

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.tristia3.shtml

Which means:

Why is it that Daedalus beat his wings in safety while Icarus gave his name to the endless waves?
Why because Icarus flew high, the other lower: yet both flew on wings that were not their own.
Believe me, who lives quietly lives well, and every man should be happy with his lot.

http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/OvidTristiaBkThree.htm#_Toc34217035

In other words, something like Avos 4:4

Rabbi Levitas of Yavneh used to say: Be exceeding lowly of spirit, for the hope of man is with worms.

http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html#chap4

Some early deists and atheists had to worry about being arrested for blaspheme; not a big problem in today's liberal democracies.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't think any Biblical books were written anonymously. No one just dumped a box full of unsigned prophesies on the street somewhere and expected anyone to bother reading them, which is what skeptic bloggers do in essense.

Abe said...

..Rabbi Levitas of Yavneh used to say: Be exceeding lowly of spirit, for the hope of man is with worms...

Obviously he was an early proponent of the theory of evolution.

jewish philosopher said...

You God damned atheists are so funny Abe. It means that our bodies will be eaten by worms, not that we are descended from worms!

Anonymous said...

We vote anonymously in elections, and this is an expression of opinion. If it's OK in this context, I think it should be OK in a blogging context too.

Your belching on anonymous (and I suppose pseudonymous also) bloggers seems to be a sideshow, as if you want to distract from the real arguments because you can't deal with them.

Complain about bloggers' names and celebrities in the news all you want. It does nothing to make religious myths any less false or less ridiculous.

Six 24-hour days for the creation of the universe? Global (think about what this word means for a moment) flood? Resurrection of the long-dead? This is the real pornography, the real writing of whores.

Besides, no one has more pseudonyms than your god. If he existed, he would be your top coward. He's certainly been hiding long enough! :>)

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, I think I've struck a nerve. Does the New York Times calling you a coward upset you? Well, if the shoe fits...

About creation, I've got a post:
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

The Deluge:
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/10/biblical-deluge.html

As far as God hiding goes, He's not hiding. You've closed your eyes.

Anonymous said...

JP, I'm a big boy. The NYT isn't calling me a coward and I really wouldn't care if they were.

This blog of yours is a mask as much as any pseudonym.

Your (yawn) old post clarify the point of biblical ridiculousness. Why is it that you believe this stuff? Forget about atheism, agnosticism, and all of your prejudices. You really think any of this was or is real?

My eyes are wide open and have been for some time. Your eyes may be open too, but all you see is moonbeams, fairy dust, and a creepy tradition of "suctioning" (ahem) bleeding baby boys.

Maybe you should be more like your hero Bill Mahar. Become a bachelor and visit a prostitute. At least this is something you can read about in your bible. I don't see the part in torah where the dude puts his mouth to the genitals of an infant boy.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

You know the appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

But when your entire life is built on lies, I guess that's not a problem.

Anonymous said...

Just because you call something a fallacy doesn't mean it is. You seem to be committing the fallacy fallacy.

"But when your entire life is built on lies, I guess that's not a problem."

I assume you are speaking about yourself here.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

All of atheism is just one pile of logical fallacies as I've explained elsewhere.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/post-about-comments.html

This is known as "stinking thinking". Addiction is the only disease which tells the sufferer that they do not have a disease. Any thoughts that promote this lie constitute stinking thinking.

Anonymous said...

"All of atheism is just one pile of logical fallacies as I've explained elsewhere."

Go ahead, assert and explain and explain and assert. try clicking your heels together too. Maybe this will help.

In the end, all you have for your religious beliefs are arguments from authority (someone/some book says it, and you believe them), faulty logic (e.g., you think atheism or atheists are bad, therefore there must be a god), and wishful thinking for a friend in another world.

You may be correct that you are addicted. Get help. Try college, maybe?

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

If Darwin was right, we shouldn't have a black president.

Check this out:

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/04/trip-to-zoo.html

And if atheism is based on science, it's funny that so few scientists seem be attending the Atheist Alliance International convention in October.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/winner.html

Maybe like Elvis, they have left the building?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_has_left_the_building

Anonymous said...

(Yawn) More faulty logic and evasions. Here's what you are actually saying:

LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU. MY GOD EXISTS, MINE. NOT THE ONES IN ALL THOSE OTHER HOLY BOOKS BUT MINE. AND WE ARE GOOD AND LOVING PEOPLE AND ONLY WANT TO KILL PEOPLE WE DON'T LIKE. WAHHH! RESPECT ME, PLEEEASE, RESPECCCT ME!

Maybe you should stop blogging until you can find any evidence or reason for your little imaginary idol - er, god.

Come up with something new and real. Not one of your retarded earlier posts.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Now that's another logical fallacy

Straw man argument. A fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Keep them coming Larry.

"Maybe you should stop blogging until you can find any evidence or reason for your little imaginary idol - er, god."

Been there done that.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/gods-wisdom.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/03/extraordinary-history-of-jewish-people.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/10/judaic-literature-providing-proof-of.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/holocaust-clear-evidence-of-gods-hand.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/06/spies-narrative.html

"Not one of your retarded earlier posts."

This a defense mechanism is known as "denial".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

Anonymous said...

And yet still no proof.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, the problem is very simple. We don't understand each other because we are thinking differently.

You are thinking with your penis and I am thinking with my brain. So what makes sense you is nonsense to me and visa versa.

Anonymous said...

Going back to the subject of the post...
1. What makes you think we anons need your respect?
2. If you knew my identity would my opinions as an atheist be more valued to you? What would you do differently?

PogoStick said...

Let's just remind the world that Larry simply doesn't agree with the man who WROTE THE BOOK on atheism, Antony Flew.

Dr Mike said...

I would like to thank you for advertising my home page which is more easily addressed as:

www.garnelironheart.com

Not to be confused with the nearly totally unrelated blog with a similar name.

I invite you and all your readers to visit the REAL Garnel Ironheart site, follow the links to Amazon and purchase my 3 books, the best fantasy trilogy you haven't (yet) read!

Off the Derech said...

I won't say who Alex is...

Garnel Ironheart said...

I'm not Alex. I don't listen to Torah tapes.

Anonymous said...

PogoStick,

Oh I see. If it's in a book it must be true and infallible and no one may disagree with it, in whole or in part.

Yeah, I disagree with Antony Flew and I think JP lies.

And your problem is...?

By the way, I've suggested that JP write a book. His posts are comedy gold.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Actually, I've found it's the atheists who are so pathetic it's almost unfair to make fun of them.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/winner.html

When is there going to be a an atheist who is real scholar and humanitarian, an atheistic Gandhi or Albert Schweitzer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer

At least I would have to work a little bit.

Anonymous said...

Some famous atheists, all committed to reason and critical thinking:

Ayer, A.J.

Bakunin, Mikhail

Bradlaugh, Charles

Carnap, Rudolf

Clifford, William K.

Comte, Auguste

Darrow, Clarence

Dewey, John

Ellis, Albert

Feuerbach, Ludwig Andreas

Foote, George William

Freud, Sigmund

Gibbon, Edward

Goldman, Emma

Haldeman-Julius, Emanuel

Holbach, Paul Henri

Holyoake, George Jacob

Hook, Sidney

Hume, David

Huxley, Thomas Henry

Ingersoll, Robert Green

Lewis, Joseph

Marx, Karl

McCabe, Joseph Martin

Mencken, Henry Louis

Nietzsche, Friedrich

Paine, Thomas

Rand, Ayn

Robertson, John Mackinnon

Russell, Bertrand

Sagan, Carl

Sanger, Margaret

Sartre, Jean-Paul

-Larry-

Off the Derech said...

>When is there going to be a an atheist who is real scholar and humanitarian, an atheistic Gandhi or Albert Schweitzer?

Dawkins.

Off the Derech said...

>I won't say who Alex is...

Or Dr Mike!

jewish philosopher said...

Where's the humanitarian, Marx?

jewish philosopher said...

Check this out:

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/05/godlessness-is-not-great-how-lack-of.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/01/chandra-good-atheist.html

I think it's pretty clear. If you want to live like an animal, atheism is for you. However if you want to be honest, happy, kind and sober, go with Orthodox Judaism.

Off the Derech said...

Okay, here's a typical atheist OTDer who's not anonymous.

Kiss my ass.

jewish philosopher said...

Thanks for that link. If I understand it correctly, this proves my point precisely.

Apparently Yeshivish Atheist is named Avi Bitterman. According to his Facebook page, Bitterman is a graduate of the Hebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Far Rockaway "Long Island's premier Modern Orthodox Yeshiva". After high school, after perhaps a 1 year gap, he went straight to CUNY Queens.

Yet, in Internet discussions with him, he went on and on and on about how really right wing, ultrareligious yeshivish he had been. That was his big claim "YESHIVISH ATHEIST"!

Pure BS. He's another half baked modern Orthodox guy who went from semi-atheist to full atheist. Big deal.

Don't believe anonymous bloggers.

Anonymous said...

JP, by adding your personal details, you add nothing to your credibility. Nobody is going to send a PI to find out if you are in fact an atheist gay porn star who sniffs cocaine while writing this blog. Who really cares?

Since nobody on these blogs, the posters or the commenters, are truly authorities in and of themselves, the only credibility they carry is that which is intrinsic to their arguments.

So your rants against anonymity appear to be a desperate attempt to rescue whatever minsicule credibility you have--that you are who you say you are.

jewish philosopher said...

No reputable newspaper has anonymous articles. Even when people sign their names they may still lie, however if they refuse to sign they are guaranteed to be lying.

Baal Habos said...

12:30 Anonymous raises a good point. Unless the poster is attempting to use specialized authority (pilot about flying, Dr about medicine, Rabbi about halacha or Talmidudic discourse), then who cares who he is. You should be paying attention to the logical argument and not caring who is saying it.

Anonymous said...

"Where's the humanitarian, Marx?"

All of them.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Well, the thing is Bos, I think that generally anonymous bloggers make certain (usually false) claims about themselves which give their comments undeserved credibility.

Let’s say you read a blog about evolution written allegedly by a biology professor. Wouldn’t you give it less weight if you knew that it was actually being written by a 16 year old marijuana addict using the computer in a youth detention center?

I also think that an anonymous blogger is little concerned with the accuracy in his posts since he knows he will never be embarrassed by a lie or mistake.

Therefore I say: Don’t believe anonymous bloggers.

Larry, every atheist is a narcissist and hedonist. Otherwise, what’s the point? That’s why a decent guy like Chandra was unhappy. His atheism was a mistake. He would have been better off as a believer.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/01/chandra-good-atheist.html

jewish philosopher said...

Another common fraud involved in Internet blogging is sock-puppeting. Bloggers use multiple identities to make it appear as if many others agree with them. I am suspicious that most Jewish skeptic bloggers are really two teenage boys in Brooklyn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

Anonymous said...

Larry:

Are you saying Marx was a humanitarian? He was responsible for more murders than anyone. and Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, who were accused of a horrific murder. His defence was that humans can't be held responsible for their actions because they are products of evolution.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

Are you saying Marx was a humanitarian? He was responsible for more murders than anyone. and Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, who were accused of a horrific murder. His defence was that humans can't be held responsible for their actions because they are products of evolution.

Anonymous said...

"Larry, every atheist is a narcissist and hedonist."

Pot? Kettle?

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

In other words you really have no justification for you're misbehavior, so instead you're going to throw baseless accusations at your accusers. That's so impressive.

Anonymous said...

What misbehavior? Please tell me about my narcissism and hedonism, oh one who has humbly appointed himself the (ahem) "Jewish Philosopher" and who posts pictures of porn stars and prostitutes wile also posting movies depicting killing.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Give me the phone numbers of friends and relatives and I'm sure it will make for some very interesting posts, Larry.

Anonymous said...

Not really. I'm pretty boring. If you do facebook, I'd be "happy" to let you be my "friend."

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, you are far too modest. Every atheist affords a fascinating window into the world of addiction and denial. I really need to meet your relatives as soon as possible. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever met Jewish people? They're my relatives.

Just how many restraining orders are out on you at the moment?

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, this is no joke. I need you. I want your personal story, as told by you and by all those who know you well, to be the heart of my new book: "Why Atheism is a Big Fat Lie".

Did you ever read Hella Winston's book "Unchosen"? Her main character is "Yossi".

Larry, you could be my Yossi. I would even put your photo in the centerfold.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, but not interested. Besides, my story is truly very uninteresting.

I learned that the Tanakh was composed and compiled long ago and that it's earliest readers probably did not view it as the sacred scripture that modern believers do. I'd recommend James Kugel's The Bible As It Was and How to Read the Bible. Kugel is an OJ and an excellent scholar and historian.

Perhaps I never told you this, but I am a medievalist, so I have learned a bit about christianity too. Like judaism, it has several great theological issues and a history of change over what is the "orthodox" brand of the religion and over what are the protocols for redacting and transmitting foundational texts.

Once you realize that texts of the "holy" books have a history - and a grand one at that - and that our ways of reading and valuing the texts is also historical, then it becomes pretty easy to accept the books and the religions for what they are.

Why does the Torah say the world was created in six days when we know it wasn't? Because the Torah is wrong. Why are the stories of the Torah troublesome from standpoints of fact and reality - human population, human language diversity, dinosaurs and species diversity, ans so on and so forth? Because the Torah is wrong. Why is a j-sus belief unacceptable? Because in reality virgins can't have babies, the dead cannot rise again to life, and people cannot "ascend" to heavenly realms.

JP, I must admit I find you a fascinating person because you seem not to even acknowledge that a reasonable person would conclude that religion is false. It's as if you fault me for being skeptical that all of the universe could be created it six days and be pretty much as we see it today. It's as if you find it a flaw that I don't think that people can be dead for a few days or centuries and then rise up again to life.

And yet I would venture to guess that you do not think the doctrine of the trinity is true. Why don't you? I suppose you reject the idea that mohammed was a holy prophet. Why? I imagine you reject the claims made about the powers of the buddha? Why is this?

Are you allowed to reject these ideologies and still be a good person? Why do you get this privilege?

Why do you get to call yourself the "Jewish Philosopher"? Is this not a bit presumptuous and narcissistic?

Why do you claim to reside on some moral high ground while you post images and links of porn stars and prostitutes?

How is that you claim to possess some special goodness while having videos and images of killing on your blog.

I don't expect you'll answer these questions. You never do, unfortunately. But people see your conduct - the dodges, the nasty comments, the preoccupation with sex and drugs.

I have always wondered whether you actually believe in the god you say you do. I think if you did, you would realize he probably would not be a fan of your blog and you would delete the entire thing.

So, thanks again for the offer to be in your book, but I'll decline. The funny thing is, I actually ghostwrite books for a rather prominent American rabbi. I hope you have some of them and derive great inspiration from the words I have composed.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

This is quite an interesting comment. Let's take it apart a little bit.

"Kugel is an OJ and an excellent scholar and historian."

Argument from authority.

"I am a medievalist"

Never believe an anonymous blogger. See this post.

"Why does the Torah say the world was created in six days when we know it wasn't?"

Straw man argument. A fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

"Why are the stories of the Torah troublesome from standpoints of fact and reality - human population, human language diversity, dinosaurs and species diversity, ans so on and so forth?"

No trouble.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/02/torah-and-archaeology.html

"Are you allowed to reject these ideologies and still be a good person?"

Atheism is a religion of death, as I have explained.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

Anonymous said...

1) There was no argument from authority because I was making book recommendations for your reference. I wasn't making an argument but rather telling about a personal conclusion I had reached.

2) It doesn't really matter whether you believe me or not. But I must say that I have never heard anyone claim to be a medievalist who wasn't. It's not exactly a prestige identification.

3) I'm not sure where you see the straw man. Does the Torah NOT say the world was created in six days? I understand your post about how you understand genesis, but so what? Is this an orthodox interpretation?

4) You say "no trouble" as to why Torah contradicts reality. I'm glad you admit there's no geological evidence for a global flood. By Occam's razor, the simplest and best explanation as to why Torah contradicts reality is because Torah is false.

5) Atheism is not a religion, as I've explained. All religions are religions of death because without a concept of the divine retribution after one dies, the whole ideology crumbles. Religion says "choose life...or else."

Thanks for playing.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

“I understand your post about how you understand genesis, but so what? Is this an orthodox interpretation?”

Yes.

“You say "no trouble" as to why Torah contradicts reality.”

It never does.

“Atheism is not a religion”

Of course it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Legal_status_of_atheism_as_a_religion

The problem, Larry, is first of all that atheism isn’t true.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

Second of all, atheism will make you unhappy.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/religion-and-happiness-recent-study.html

Thirdly, atheism will send you to hell forever.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/jewish-heretics.html

The reason why you are an atheist is because you are an addict; most probably sexually compulsive.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/07/jewish-skeptics-and-sex.html

Sadly, you probably no longer have any idea how tragic this is because addiction is the only disease which tells the sufferer that they do not have a disease.

http://addictionrecoverybasics.com/2008/09/04/denial-in-alcohol-and-drug-addiction-what-were-they-thinking/

bankman said...

There is nothing wrong, l'chatchila, with sex. Plus, there is no Issur in the torah that limits one's sexual activity.

Not sure why you keep harping on sex addiction.

jewish philosopher said...

"there is no Issur in the torah that limits one's sexual activity"

Time to learn a little, bank.

http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm

bankman said...

"This site is created, written and maintained by Tracey Rich. I do not claim to be a rabbi or an expert on Judaism; All of the material on this site was created by me, just one individual. There is no corporation or organization behind this site."

Great source. I'm sure Tracey is the final say on all things sexual to you......

You missed a word "l'chatchila"

read the bible, the source, gods word (right?).

All of these rabinic restrictions put in place hundreds of years later are just that.

when there is a will, there is a heter, just ask David, or Shlomo, so many good sex stories in the bible, who needs the internet to do what you claim we do, just open a chumash!

LOL

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Did you get your powers to diagnose addictions via the internet when you converted, or did that come about later?

But I'll beg to differ. I'm an atheist because I don't believe the Torah, or the New Testament, or the Koran, and so on. They are works of fiction.

Now, you've neglected to answer the key questions:

1) Are you allowed to reject some religious ideologies and still be a good person? Why?

2) Why do you get to call yourself the "Jewish Philosopher"? Is this not a bit presumptuous and narcissistic?

3) Why do you claim to reside on some moral high ground while posting images and links of porn stars and prostitutes?

4) How is it that you claim to possess some special goodness while having videos and images of killing on your blog?

Try answering these questions honestly, and then we can discuss.

Also, in the questions please notice that I can point to specific things you have written that show you are a conflicted, sex-obsessed and unhappy man. Your posts and your statements reveal a troubled and angry character. This is plain for all to see.

Your statements about me, however, are baseless. You randmoly and maniacally blurt out that I must be a sex addict. Go ahead, make yourself guilty of lashon hara, if that's what floats your boat.

But yours is typical behavior for fundie religious types: you think anything you say or do is justified. And you don't let lack of information stop you from having an opinion. I guess you can take the boy out a of christian church, but you can't take the christian church out of the boy.

Anyway, talking with you is like trying to have a conversation with a stubborn, developmentally disabled child. You have shamed yourself utterly once again. I hope you find a way to be happy and fulfilled one day. You have my pity.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Bankrupt man, regarding David did God approve of his behavior? See 2 Samuel 11:27.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b11.htm#27

For Solomon, see 1 Kings 11:6

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a11.htm#6

I think you’ve been reading Hustler magazine and you thought it was the Bible. Common mistake – if you’re a moron.

LOL! ROFLABAOTP!!!

Larry, I am still interested in using you as a case study for my upcoming book “Atheism is a Big, Fat Lie”. If you are so proud of yourself and your beliefs, then I’m sure you’ll be happy to email me all the necessary references.

Thank you!

bankman said...

re: David, I wonder which "thing" displeased the Lord, if it was shtuping Batsheva or killing her husband.

Based on many other stories in the Tanach, I would bet the killing the husband thing "displeased" him.


I yearn to be like Shlomo...."Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, besides the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites"

Larry Tanner said...

Oh, JP, you just don't get it.

I take no pride in not believing that god exists or that the Torah is true. That would be like being proud over not believing in the tooth fairy. Grownups don't need imaginary friends.

You want to claim your daddy in the sky is real? Then maybe one day you'll post some evidence (cue: link to old, irrelevant post, http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html), since the burden of proof lies with you. At least you could give it a try.

What I' really like to know is whether you even concede that it's possible that god doesn't exist.

Yes or no, JP, do you think it's at all possible that the truth is that no god exists?

Yes or no?

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"I wonder which "thing" displeased the Lord"

If we read a little further, 2 Samuel 12:9, it looks like both.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b12.htm#9

"I yearn to be like Shlomo"

Before you start hitting on girls, I would recommend that you get a job and stop living with your parents.

bankman said...

I guess if I had a palace, and I was the king, and had my own army - then the babes would flock to me.

Can you please cite a source for cocaine use to be assur? Clearly, drinking alchohol is not - as I am sure you have been to an orthodox bris/wedding/bar mitzvah/shabbat kiddush, etc etc.

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, you also believe in a god - you just call it "evolution" and claim it has no brain, which conveniently pardons you from any guilt for anything.

"then the babes would flock to me"

A car and an apartment might help. Plus scrub your teeth.

"cite a source for cocaine use to be assur"

"one must avoid anything that may harm the body" Maimonides Hilchos De'os 4:1

http://www.barmitzva.org/Heal/Parents_Guide/mitzvah.htm

Anonymous said...

What exactly is your concern with whether I feel guilty about things or not?

And do you not claim that your god has no brain and conveniently pardons you from any guilt for anything?

-Larry-

Anon1 said...

I would like to return to the original topic of the post.

You assert that anonymous bloggers are liars, and you "prove" this by bringing examples of lying bloggers. What kind of logic is that?
1. X is an anonymous blogger
2. X is a lying criminal
3. Y is an anonymous blogger
4. Therefore Y is a liar criminal and so are all anonymous bloggers.

It also ignores that many non-anonymous people lie every day, shamelessly. For example, you are a liar asserting that all of your atheist commentors are drug abusers.

I hope you are a better computer programmer than you are a logician.

jewish philosopher said...

"What exactly is your concern with whether I feel guilty about things or not?"

I have some responsibility to try to influence others. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

"And do you not claim that your god has no brain and conveniently pardons you from any guilt for anything?"

As I have recently pointed out, the Biblical God can in fact become very angry and vengeful:

The LORD is a jealous and avenging God, the LORD avengeth and is full of wrath; the LORD taketh vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies. Nahum 1:2

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1901.htm#2

An example of which can be seen graphically here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE4wY-NniQQ

"you are a liar asserting that all of your atheist commentors are drug abusers"

Atheism is a religion which pardons people from any guilt for anything. This makes it ideal for drug addicts, alcoholics, whores, whore mongers, serial killers, mass killers, pedophiles and other similar types.

Anonymous said...

"The LORD is a jealous and avenging God, the LORD avengeth and is full of wrath; the LORD taketh vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies. Nahum 1:2"

Your lord sound like a dick. Tell him to grow up.

-Larry-

Anonymous said...

Sorry, should be "sounds" not "sound." Bad proofreading.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

You don't understand the concept of discipline.

What do think happens if a Marine recruit tells a drill instructor "You're a dick. Grow up."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uekMTvbofq4

Anonymous said...

BS.

I'm allowed to have an opinion, and I'm especially allowed to use my mind to read a text and form a judgment about the personalities it describes.

Your hypothetical Marine recruit is entitled to his opinion, and he may indeed be correct, but he may want to re-think the reasons why he volunteered to join that branch of the service.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"I'm allowed to have an opinion"

And God is allowed to punish you for it.

Anonymous said...

"And God is allowed to punish you for it."

Maybe so, but then that would be the move of a dick. Thankfully, he doesn't really exist.

I value free expression, where those in positions of power are not allowed to punish people for expressing negative opinions about the people in power and the quality of their work.

Apparently you prefer more of a stalinist regime.

Anon1 said...

JP, your scare tactics using the threats of an imagined god or hell move nobody. Your god is silent. or is he busy?

I challenge you to produce even one first hand account of somebody being punished by god with hell for a sin of blasphemy or anything else.

jewish philosopher said...

"Thankfully, he doesn't really exist."

You wish.

"those in positions of power are not allowed to punish people for expressing negative opinions about the people in power and the quality of their work"

God isn't a person. He is the Creator and King of the universe.

"I challenge you to produce even one first hand account of somebody being punished by god"

Check this out.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/holocaust-clear-evidence-of-gods-hand.html

Anonymous said...

"God isn't a person. He is the Creator and King of the universe."

Your special pleading (a fallacy) might yet be more compelling if you had something other than your books as say-so for the existence of this sentient creator.

But still, even if your stalinist god did exist why would he have any right to punish you for having an opinion? Especially if he has been absent?

Suppose you live in Boston and your daughter lives in LA. Your daughter tells her mother, who lives with her, that she thinks her father is wrong to live so far away and to provide very little money to support basic needs. You find out that the daughter said these things. Many years later, the father and the now-grown daughter meet in person. Do you think it's justified for the father to beat his daughter for the expressing the opinion she did years ago?

-Larry-

Anon1 said...

I said "punished with hell" because I knew that you would attribute any bad thing to god's punishment. You have specifically asserted punishment by hell, and since it must have affected some people, please provide some witnesses.

And I said "first hand account" because in a punishment the punishee has to know what he is being punished for (unless he is insane). Regarding the holocaust you claim to know that it was punishment but I haven't heard a holocaust victim step forward, claiming to have been punished.

jewish philosopher said...

"might yet be more compelling if you had something other than your books as say-so for the existence of this sentient creator"

So who created you? Evolution? Even you don't believe that.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/03/climate-change-and-evolution.html

"Do you think it's justified"

Oh, poor baby. It's so hard to be Orthodox. Poor, poor baby. Let me give you a bottle.

"please provide some witnesses."

Provide witnesses that atheists don't go to hell.

Anon1 said...

"Provide witnesses that atheists don't go to hell."

provide witnesses that fairies don't exist.

jewish philosopher said...

This guy was an atheist and claims he went to hell.

http://www.amazon.com/My-Descent-Into-Death-Second/dp/0385513763/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251818002&sr=8-11

Anyway, you're the one who should make sure he isn't going to hell; I in any case have no problem.

Anonymous said...

"So who created you?"

My mom and dad. How about you, or don't you know?

"Oh, poor baby."

Non-sequitur and straw man. I asked a yes or no question. Stop projecting your need for an imaginary daddy onto others and try to answer a simple question.

If your god exists, you're really really starting to look bad in front of her. Everyone else just thinks you're an idiot.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

And were did the first mom and dad come from? Evolution? Even you don't believe that.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/03/climate-change-and-evolution.html

Anonymous said...

"And were did the first mom and dad come from?"

Chemicals and energy. Much more plausible than an invisible being and an ages-old book that you don't even understand.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090829091049.htm

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

“The dream of physicists is to create elementary life,” Libchaber says. “Then we would know that we understand something.”

And you imagine that it happened all by itself.

Larry, I'm still considering the title Atheism is a Big, Fat Lie. I can still use your photo for my centerfold.

Anonymous said...

"centerfold"

You always have pornography on the brain, don't you.


I bet you are just like this other religious wackaloon hypocrite.

http://www.nateanddi.com/?p=424

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

I was going to let you wear a towel.

Anonymous said...

Ah. Now you are fully exposed.

-Larry-

Anonymous said...

In numerous discussions I've had with atheists, they've told me that mass murder committed by atheists is okay, as long as the motivating factor isn't atheism. So it seems that atheists are capable of excusing any sort of behavior.

Anonymous said...

You are an anonymous blogger. I don't believe you because you are a coward and a liar, according to JP.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Excuse me Larry, but you're anonymous too.

pot - kettle!

Anonymous said...

But you said that anonymous bloggers are cowards and liars. That person posted without providing a name. Therefore, he is anonymous and therefore whatever he said is not to be believed. It's your logic applied to this anonymous person.

You call me a coward and a liar too. Don't you ant to be consistent?

-Larry-
http://larrytanner.blogspot.com

jewish philosopher said...

I post your comments too.

I just don't get it though. Atheists bloggers live such exemplary lives (according to them). I wonder why they don't want to inspire all of the awful, fanatical religious people with their glorious humanitarianism and goodness?

Anonymous said...

"I wonder why they don't want to inspire all of the awful, fanatical religious people with their glorious humanitarianism and goodness?"

Because we generally trust that you are a big boy who can lead his own life. Just keep your insane fantasies about imaginary beings in your own home.

Get it now?

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

I am promoting truth and real happiness; fighting lies and harmful addictions.

Atheists, however, seem to be a little different. To mention a few choice examples:

an alcoholic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Use_of_alcohol
who dumped his pregnant wife for another woman
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/868/index5.html

a whore
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/rational-response-squad.html

a whore monger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher#Personal_life

a cannibal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjW7bezdddE

a mass killer
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/12/famous-atheist.html

a drug addict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_John_Lennon

a crackpot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair
http://www.amazon.com/LIFE-WITHOUT-GOD-William-Murray/dp/1565070291/ref=pd_sim_b_2


And I'm not even getting into the Communist thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

Anonymous said...

And the JP carousel of insanity and faulty logic comes 'round again.

LOL, as the kids say.

-Larry-

inkstainedhands said...

Putting John Lennon in the same category as murderers, cannibals, and prostitutes was completely uncalled for, even if he was a drug addict. If people want to harm themselves, why should it matter to you? That is their business, I think.

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, let's just hope that at the the Atheist Alliance International 2009 convention next month we'll hear some inspiring stories of humanism and science. Keep me posted.

inkstained:
"Among Goldman's most serious charges are that Lennon was not only instrumental in the murder of a sailor whom he met in Hamburg, but also in the death of bandmate Stuart Sutcliffe. Goldman states that Sutcliffe's death was the long-term result of severe kicks to the head administered by Lennon in a fit of drunken rage. He also alleges that Lennon caused the death of an unborn baby he'd conceived with Yoko Ono during 1968, when he kicked the pregnant Ono in the belly during an argument."

inkstainedhands said...

I see you like to let the quotes do the talking for you. Let's see if I can do the same.

"Notwithstanding, it is best known for its criticism and [b]generally negative representation[/b] of the personal lives of Lennon and his wife, Yoko Ono."

"Singer-songwriter Harry Nilsson, whose friendship with Lennon peaked during his 1974 separation from Ono, told Rolling Stone that Goldman "got me drunk" while interviewing him, probing Nilsson for 'dirt' about Lennon, and Nilsson wouldn't cooperate."

"Other celebrities who'd known Lennon personally, including Geraldo Rivera and Tom Snyder, largely expressed an attitude of "Interesting story—who's it about? That's not the man I knew.""

"The reviewers described the book as "riddled with factual inaccuracies, embroidered accounts of true events that border on fiction and suspect information provided by tainted sources." Further, Fricke and Ressner stated that "Rolling Stone spoke to sources interviewed by Goldman who said that they were misquoted or that the information they provided him was used out of context. Other figures close to Lennon who refused to speak to Goldman or were not contacted by him claim that incidents in the book in which they appear either never happened or did not occur in the way Goldman recounts them.""

Judging someone's character based on a book by an author who was determined to find fault with his subject is unfair. There are always people out there who do what they can to find fault, to slander, and to condemn someone they are prejudiced against. Unless you have a reputable source that can be taken seriously, don't quote.

jewish philosopher said...

That's why I put it in quotes.

If you're a Lennon fan, you might also want to read "John" by Cynthia Lennon.

http://www.amazon.com/John-Cynthia-Lennon/dp/0307338568/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251897294&sr=1-1

"the book reveals that Lennon was a pretty messed-up guy who preached universal love for the world and ignored his own family"

He had some issues.

bankman said...

you have issues

jewish philosopher said...

But not like yours, my little bankrupt man.

Anonymous said...

"He had some issues."

Maybe so, but:

(1) Everyone has issues. You preach of a loving god who is also vengeful and violent. You call people you don't know sex addicts while you post lewd images and suggestive comments.
(2) Many of us know "famous" or semi-famous people. Many very successful preachers, politicians, and entertainers are exactly the same way as Lennon - with a disconnect between their public persona and their personal relations.
(3) I don't see how Lennon's issues stem directly or indirectly from atheism, agnosticism, or religion.
(4) Albert Goldman, by the way, is hardly to be considered a credible source of information. He reportedly used drugs, was a famous boaster and hyperbole-meister, and died leaving a daughter and having never married the girl's mother.

You claim to fight for truth. You claim to fight against lies and harmful addictions. But I have yet to see your behavior in this blog match your claims.

-Larry-

inkstainedhands said...

I'm not a particular Lennon fan; I just do not think that his 'issues' are bad enough to include him in your list of 'criminals'.

Everyone has issues, but that does not make every individual a bad person. I don't need to read a book to know that John Lennon had issues. All I am saying is that I would not call him a particularly bad person.

That's all. Back to your regularly scheduled lives and arguments.

jewish philosopher said...

My point is simply this: Almost every single well documented atheist is a horrible person whom no one would want to have as a spouse, parent or even close friend, and this is exactly what we would expect. Atheism is a religion which appeals to evil people and permits evil behavior.

Atheism is a religion of death. If all humans would convert to atheism tomorrow, one half would kill off the other half, the survivors would not bother to have children and that would be the end of that.

bankman said...

"If all humans would convert ...."

If the queen had a weiner she'd be the king

IF IF IF IF

JP, you use this argument all the time, look at the behavior of the people that associate themselves with a particular belief, and the actions/behavior that YOU find most rational - means that that particular belief system is in fact the ONE TRUE ONE!!!

First of all, that you attempt to use logic in one of your arguments, i applaud you for (as flawed as it is) - but if you only used reason a LITTLE BIT more often.....

ROFL

jewish philosopher said...

I wasn't trying to prove that atheism isn't true.

Anonymous said...

Bankman,

The real title of JP's post ought to be "Don't trust bloggers." It doesn't matter whether the blogger is named, pseudonymous or anonymous - her/his credibility and content must be viewed skeptically.

Take JP, for example. We don't know if Jacob Stein is his real name. He claims to have changed it legally. He claims to be a convert to Judaism and to be a computer programmer. But his posts give reason to wonder about all of this.

Certainly, he is accountable to no one in the blogosphere. He can post whatever he likes, regardless of whether it's verifiable or logically consistent.

Yet in evolutionary terms, JP could be considered relatively successful. In the competitive environment of the blogosphere, his posts attract a fair number of readers and generate a substantial number of comments. I doubt that his post have much actual influence on people, so in that respect he may not be particularly successful.

But the point is that the blogger is perhaps only secondarily or partly interested in truth, especially one like JP. Rather, what he wants is to get people fired up and commenting. This is why his posts never concede and never engage in dialogue. The point is not to resolve issues but extend them and prolong them.

Perhaps regarding JP, the best advice for all of us is "don't feed the troll."

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

I think it's charm and wit that keeps people coming.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

I post anonymously because I can't seem to sign up with a identity. I guess I'm not very tech savvy. If it makes you feel better I'll post my whole resume.

name: Nathan Schuster

age: 50

personal: married 12 (KNH children)

residence: Far Rockaway, N.Y.

religious affiliation: Orthodox Judaism

Profession: Public School Teacher.

I guess now you'll believe me when I say that atheists will justify mass murder, as long as it isn't done inthe name of atheism. How do you justify it? After all, if history is any indication, if you succeed in your quest of making the world atheistic, we can expect to see a marked increase in mass murder.

Nathan

Abe said...

Jacob,
No, its not charm and wit. Your attraction is similar to a bad car crash. Just morbid curiosity.

jewish philosopher said...

Atheists keep coming back because they hope to find some chink in my armor, some flaw in my logic. Of course, there are none.

jewish philosopher said...

Their time would be better spent repenting. Especially now before Rosh haShanah.

Anonymous said...

"Nathan,"

JP has asked me for names and phone numbers of my friends and family. He has determined that I am an alcoholic, drug addict, or sex addict. Since you remain an anonymous blogger, I think he would continue to assume you are a hedonistic teenager loitering at home until your claims could be verified.

Personally, I don't justify mass murder. That's the point. No religion, dogma, ideology, leader, people, or political cause justifies killing people. This is why the stories of the bible are so horrible and should be criticized.

You choose not to provide any back-up or reasoning behind your supposed-to-be-inflammatory statement, "if you succeed in your quest of making the world atheistic, we can expect to see a marked increase in mass murder."

This is a BS statement on too many levels for me to enumerate in a blog comment. I just hope you don't pass on such sloppy thinking to young people.

However, please let me clarify one thing. I do think it's a good thing that the people of the world are generally becoming more atheistic. This is an inevitable process. But personally I don't think everyone should be an atheist.

For me, the main thing is that religion should not be forced on people, subsidized by governments, or be immune from criticism. The Torah states that Moses was about 20 feet tall, does it not? Is such a claim to be accepted as true without question? Is it right to foist such a claim on young people and threaten them that they will be cut off from their people or denied a share the the world to come if they think there might be an error in there?

Same thing when Tanakh tells us about unicorns (Numbers 23:22 and 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9,10, Psalms 22:21 and 29:6 and 92:10 or Isaiah 34:7.).

You can yell and scream distortions and lies and scare tactics. Wave your hands and try to distract us with tales of the bad, mean atheists. But the fact is that nothing in human history has been a direct or indirect cause of psychological torment and physical blood-letting more than the bible.

Indeed, the bible has often been the very instrument of justification for torturing Jews in indiscriminately horrible ways.

You throw around a phrase like "mass murder" too lightly. I don't think you really know what the phrase means, what it entails, and what it does.

Atheism is in no way a single basis for a stable and secure world. The ability to use reason, to question established authority and received wisdom, and to embrace pluralism - this is the better road, I think.

When was the last time you questioned judaism? Abraham and moses reportedly challenged god. Why don't you challenge too?

-Larry-

P.S. - Far Rockaway is the home of Richard Feynman, I believe: a man truly to be admired.

Anonymous said...

please cite the source for repentng on rosh hashanah

jewish philosopher said...

“I don't justify mass murder”

If you feel guilty about anything, if you believe that anything is immoral, unethical or wrong, then you are not a true atheist. You still harbor some residual religious feelings. Thank God.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/12/always-let-your-conscience-be-your.html

“I do think it's a good thing that the people of the world are generally becoming more atheistic. This is an inevitable process. “

Very debatable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion

“The Torah states that Moses was about 20 feet tall”

No.

“Tanakh tells us about unicorns”

It’s a wild ox.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0423.htm#22

I thought you knew Hebrew???

“You can yell and scream distortions and lies and scare tactics. “

That’s what drug addicts say about all the government warnings.

http://suburra.com/blog/2009/05/31/drug-war-myth-726001-cocaine-is-deadlier-than-aspirin/

“But the fact is that nothing in human history has been a direct or indirect cause of psychological torment and physical blood-letting more than the bible.”

That distinction probably belongs to Darwin’s Origin of Species, your holy book.

http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/fromdarwintohitler.htm

“Far Rockaway is the home of Richard Feynman, I believe: a man truly to be admired.”

And whoremonger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Personal_life

"please cite the source for repentng on rosh haShanah"

The Mishnah Rosh haShanah 1:2 states:

בראש השנה, כל באי עולם עוברין לפניו

On Rosh Hashanah all people are judged by God. Obviously, repentance is appropriate.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

Mass Murdr is the killing of lots of people. History tells us that the biggest mass murderers, Stlaion and Mao were atheists, that a disproportionate number of mass murderers were atheists, and that every time atheists run a country, they commit mass murder. So, if history is any indication, more atheism means more mass murder. And communism is responsble for more suffering than the bible ever was. Remember, Stalin and Mao. And Darwinism has done a lot of damage, also. And you aren't addressing my point. My pint was that numerous atheists have told me that mass murder is okay because it is not done in the name of atheism.

Now, as far as the world becoming more attheistic, there has been a reknewd interest in religion, in places lioke the former Soviet Union, and Communist China, were people were, and sometimes still are, persectued for being religious.

Now, you have my name, my personal information. How am I still anonymous? What more information do you need? My SS number.

Nathan.

Anonymous said...

Now we can get all mathematical here. Here is a list of atheistic heads of state who were responsible ofr at least 20,000 murders each:

Afghanistan Nur Muhammad Taraki, Babrak Kamal
Albania Enver Hoxha
Angola Agostinho Neto, José Eduardo dos Santos
Bulgaria Vulko Chervenkov, Todor Zhivkov
Cambodia Pol Pot, Heng Samrin
China Mao Tse-Tung, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintau
Cuba Fidel Castro
Czechoslovakia Klement Gottwald, Antonín Zápotocký, Antonín Novotný, Gustáv Husák
East Germany Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker
Ethiopia Tafari Benti, Mengistu Haile Mariam
French Republic Jean-Marie Collot d’Herbois, Jacques Nicolas Billaud-Varenne
Greece Nikolaos Zachariadis
Hungary Mátyás Rákosi
Laos Kaysone Phomvihane, Khamtai Siphandone
Mongolia Khorloogiin Choibalsan, Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal
Mozambique Samora Machel
North Korea Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il
Poland Władysław Gomułka, Boleslaw Bierut
Romania Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolae Ceausescu
Soviet Union Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev
Spain Manuel Azaña, Francisco Largo Caballero
Vietnam Ho Chi Minh, Le Duan, Truong Chinh, Nguyen Van Linh, Do Muoi, Le Kha Phieu, Nong Duc Manh
Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito



Here is a list of atheistic heads of state. Each one was responsibel for at least 20,000 murders.Afghanistan Nur Muhammad Taraki, Babrak Kamal
Albania Enver Hoxha
Angola Agostinho Neto, José Eduardo dos Santos
Bulgaria Vulko Chervenkov, Todor Zhivkov
Cambodia Pol Pot, Heng Samrin
China Mao Tse-Tung, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintau
Cuba Fidel Castro
Czechoslovakia Klement Gottwald, Antonín Zápotocký, Antonín Novotný, Gustáv Husák
East Germany Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker
Ethiopia Tafari Benti, Mengistu Haile Mariam
French Republic Jean-Marie Collot d’Herbois, Jacques Nicolas Billaud-Varenne
Greece Nikolaos Zachariadis
Hungary Mátyás Rákosi
Laos Kaysone Phomvihane, Khamtai Siphandone
Mongolia Khorloogiin Choibalsan, Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal
Mozambique Samora Machel
North Korea Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il
Poland Władysław Gomułka, Boleslaw Bierut
Romania Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolae Ceausescu
Soviet Union Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev
Spain Manuel Azaña, Francisco Largo Caballero
Vietnam Ho Chi Minh, Le Duan, Truong Chinh, Nguyen Van Linh, Do Muoi, Le Kha Phieu, Nong Duc Manh
Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito

Now, there have been approx 80 atheistic heads of state. That means that there is an >60% chance that an atheistic head of state will commit mass murder. Now, the other atheistic leaders were also guilty of mass murder, but they didn't make the list because they didn't kill 20,000 people.

Professor Rummel list ~750 cases of mass murder in all of recorded history. There have been ~1750 Christian king of Europe in the past two millenium. Now, if we attribute every single case of mass murder to a Christian King, the numbers still come out against atheists.

Nathan. (Nosson Ben Boruch)

Anonymous said...

Talmud claims that Moses and the levites were ten cubits in stature. This works out to about 15 feet tall, no?

Maharal didn't think it was so, of course, but many sages did. Og was reportedly even bigger than Moses.

-Larry-

Anonymous said...

"Nathan,"

You say: "My pint was that numerous atheists have told me that mass murder is okay because it is not done in the name of atheism."

This is not a point, sir. It's a claim by you of what some 'atheists' said to you.

I sad something different. Deal with it.

-Larry-

Anonymous said...

"Nathan,"

As I've said repeatedly, my target is with dogma, which finds it acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.

The forms those dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the state will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. One might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the jewish race. One might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe called one's religion to convert the world or take it by force through holy war, that death in the defense of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions, and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones. Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns contraception as a mortal sin.

What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and that there is much good evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately, ardently believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and educated people - often resulting in those same people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.

Thankfully, fascist, nazi and communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no one believes them any more. That is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the catholic church in Africa and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of many "orthodox" religious groups in the US; religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world.

I would also caution you that any regime which is anti-clerical or anti-religious is not so simply because its leaders are atheist. It does not follow that "Because I do not believe in God, I must therefore suppress and crush all religious denominations." A very great deal more than simple non-theism is required for this strange and brutal notion to seem desirable.

Maoism and stalinism (and it is these names that ought to be forever branded with the gigantic crimes committed, and not "atheism") were not ideologies of mere non-theism.

If you do not understand this, then you are either intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"the Levites were ten cubits tall"

Talmud Shabbath 92a

http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_92.html

If it's to be taken literally, I guess it was a miracle.

jewish philosopher said...

"my target is with dogma"

Me too. Like evolution.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

My point is logical conclusion that any atheist must say when confronted with history and the numbers. What other answer
is there?

Now, as far as reason and logic being the source of building a society, that was tried already. Y'know the French Revolution, Marxism, Nazism. Didn't work out very well.

And I quesion G-d all he time. But, when I can make a universe, then I'll be in a position to say I'm right and G-d's wrong.


Nathan.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

Communism and Nazism wre not disproven logically. They made perfect sense. They were demonstrated to be bad when people treid them out. And plenty of people still believe in Communism. There's Kim Jong Il. China's still communist.

And the communists said that religion was bad, so it must be stamped out.

Anon1 said...

"If you feel guilty about anything, if you believe that anything is immoral, unethical or wrong, then you are not a true atheist."

Another example of your pristine logic, JP.

If an atheist shows some good, he's not really an atheist. And if a religious person does something bad (like the NJ rabbis) then their closet skeptics/atheists.

Even if you were'nt overgeneralizing about atheists, your argument is not subject to disproof, since any counterexample will always be claimed to be an exception.

Great logic! You undercut your own argument.

jewish philosopher said...

Enlighten me. Why would a true atheist, who believes in no Biblical God and no afterlife, who believes that evolution created people from bacteria, feel any guilt or have any conscience or morality or ethics?

I suggest that this is the entire attraction of atheism: to feel no guilt and have no conscience or morality or ethics.

Anonymous said...

"Enlighten me. Why would a true atheist, who believes in no Biblical God and no afterlife, who believes that evolution created people from bacteria, feel any guilt or have any conscience or morality or ethics?"

Because we're people.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

So is every psychopath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

I don't think it can be convincingly argued that people are instinctively kind and peaceful.

"Throughout much of this century the notion has been gaining ground, bolstered by genocide and Holocaust, that modern warfare is more barbaric than war has ever been. Alongside this view has grown a romantic impression that primitive cultures were, and are, more peaceful. Lawrence Keeley, an anthropologist at the University of Illinois, aims to dispel this inversion of the connotations of "civilization." He cites the historical evidence that humans have always been just as bloodthirsty as they are today, and that indeed in the days when death was less clinical it was often nastier. War, it seems, has always been with us."

War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence H. Keeley

http://www.amazon.com/War-before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126/ref=pd_sim_b_4

Anon1 said...

"I believe every true atheist will be a psychopath"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a psychopath is a personality disorder, having nothing to do with belief. There have been plenty of non-atheist psychopaths. Witness Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein and the likes.

You are dead wrong about conscience. Guilt and conscience is an intrinsic psychological trait, having nothing to to with god.

That you attribute your conscience only to your god would suggest that you are probably a psychopath yourself.

Abe said...

LOL ...
Scores of millions of people who are atheists, are or will be psychopaths -- athough they show no evidence or symptoms of psychosis.

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

jewish philosopher said...

"Guilt and conscience is an intrinsic psychological trait, having nothing to to with god."

Evidence?

jewish philosopher said...

Morality and ethics are not instinctive behaviors. They are learned behaviors. We have learned them from the Torah.

The proof is that if a modern day Norwegian would stab an Englishman to death in an argument, he would feel guilty. His ancestors 1,000 years ago slaughtered Englishmen with no more hesitation than they had swatting a fly. The difference is that the modern Norwegian has been exposed to Torah, his Viking ancestor was not.

Anonymous said...

I didn't argue that people are instinctively kind and peaceful, although I would not be surprised to learn of research pointing in such a direction.

Your point on warfare is well taken, but war typically involves groups of people, that is, conflicts between different groups. So, you originally asked a question about individual morality, got an answer, and then changed the frame of reference to groups.

But when we talk about groups, then we know that all of them have social rules and strictures. All groups establish structure and organization. Even warfare typically invokes rules, although in war and other protocols (such as language) rules often get 'broken.' This is why these things evolve over time.

My point is that your notion that an atheist should in morality and behavior 'anything goes, at any time, in any situation,' seems to run counter to fundamental ways that the world works. And not just the human world.

Why would or should an atheist feel guilt about certain actions or behaviors? Because morality has nothing to do with god. If a person steals an apple from a vendor, he may feel bad because he cheated the vendor out of some money or he may realize that he wouldn't want to have things taken from him. But he doesn't need a god for any of these realizations. The person's intrinsic powers of reason and empathy can lead the person to conclude that stealing an apple is a wrong act.

With morality, as with everything else, god is inconsequential and unnecessary.

Try tackling this in a new post - what is god actually good for? Is there anything at all for which gos is necessary? We didn't need a god for the universe to happen, we didn't need a god for life to arise and develop, we didn't need a god to establish moral codes.

I think the whole concept of a god now holds people back. It saddles them with mythology, outdated morality, and a primitive philosophy that always collapses under scrutiny.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

People feel a need to live in communities. This may be a "herd instinct". Within communities aggression must be controlled to some extent, otherwise the community would cease to exist. Therefore there are rules prohibiting killing, stealing, etc within the group, or at least limiting these activities. However humans have no instinct for peace, kindness or honesty. A Viking would have had no idea what you are talking about had you asked him about those ideas. ("Don't you think it's a bit unethical pillaging that town?")

As I have pointed out, altruism originated in Judaism.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/01/genius-of-judaism-kindness.html

In summary, it seems very clear to me that Judaism makes more sense than atheism.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

Jews are happier than atheists.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/04/real-happiness.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/religion-and-happiness-recent-study.html

Jews are kinder than atheists.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/08/samsons-struggle-satmar-and-others.html

Jews are more peaceful and more sober than atheists.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/orthodox-jewish-crime.html

You can go on and on about how atheism is not religion, it's science (which is not true), about how people are naturally kind and peaceful until religion makes them violent and hateful (also false), however this is merely warmed over Marxist-Leninist propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union#Policy_toward_religions_in_practice

Of course, we know today how 70 years of that propaganda made Russia a true paradise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

Anonymous said...

On the Vikings. They weren't quite as barbaric as usually portrayed:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0217_040217_vikings.html

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/47024,features,raping-and-pillaging-vikings-get-pr-boost

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090728-headless-viking-execution-pit.html

And no jews or christians of course have been involved in any genocidal aggression. That would be unethical. *rolls eyes*

Now, what's missing in all your blah-blah-blah?

As usual, it's your god that's absent. Again, what is it s/he's good for?

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

So you're saying that the average Orthodox Jew today is just about as violent as the average Viking of 1,100 years ago, therefore Torah doesn't improve anything.

Fine.

As I have mentioned on previous occasions, it's simply impossible for someone who thinks with his brain to communicated meaningfully with someone who thinks with his genitals.

Anonymous said...

"As I have mentioned on previous occasions, it's simply impossible for someone who thinks with his brain to communicated meaningfully with someone who thinks with his genitals."

Translation: 'You atheists are mean, mean people. Boo-hoo-hoo.'

Pretty weak, JP.

Do let us know if you ever find a reason for your god to exist.

-Larry-

Anonymous said...

Not everyone who smokes gets cancer, but the numbers are against those who smoke. Somae thing wiht atheism. The biggest mass murderers were atheist, and a disproportionate number of atheists were mass murderers and vise versa. So if you succeed in your quest of making the world atheistic, we can expect to see a marked increase in mass murder.

Anonymous said...

According to the book "Who Really Cares" piblished in Nov. 1986, religious people give more money to charity, in total, per capita, and as a percentage of income, tyhen secular people. Religious people are also more likely to donate blood, and voluteer than secualr people. So G-d is good for something.

Nathan

jewish philosopher said...

"Do let us know if you ever find a reason for your god to exist."

What reason do you have for believing He doesn't?

Larry, let me put it like this. If you have anything serious and rational to say in favor of atheism or critical of Judaism, please say it.

If, however you're bored and in between porn sites and beers, you want to waste my time because you find that amusing, then I think we're done.

And yes, I've already heard, and refuted, again and again and again, all the old Marxist-Leninist slogans, recently revived by the Marxist alcoholic Christopher Hitchens:

Religion is superstition. Religion causes hatred and violence. The only people who believe in God are either hillbillies or jihadists.

Atheism is scientific. Atheists are either eminent scientists or charming Swedish gentlemen.

So let's put all that back in the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Anon1 said...

""Guilt and conscience is an intrinsic psychological trait, having nothing to to with god."

Evidence?"

Research it yourself. Basic Psych 101. You'll reject any evidence I give you anyway.

Abe said...

...If, however you're bored and in between porn sites and beers, you want to waste my time because you find that amusing, then I think we're done...

When I get bored of porn sites and beers, I turn to the torah to re-inspire my debaucherous energies. Where else can I requisition such lovely sexual fantasies like Yehuda and Tamar or some nice sexual deviancies like David HaMelech's predeliction for young virgins to warm his shivering body.
I could enumerate dozens more, but right now I'm so turned on by thoughts of the torah's young virgins that I'm going right back to those porn sites and cold beer... Nothing like some kinky torah to energize my appetite for sex and perversion.

jewish philosopher said...

"Basic Psych 101"

Atheists need to create the myth that people are naturally nice in order to answer the obvious question "If you don't believe in God, can't you just go around killing people?" Atheists will try to explain that of course they don't have any desire to hurt others.

The real answer is "Yes, you can." Interesting coincidence: before evolution was taught in schools, school shootings were unheard of.

Abe, are you Avi Inger from Monsey?

Anon1 said...

I didn't claim people are naturally good. But they do naturally have a conscience, and those are two seperate things. (I guess you woudn't know this)

Interesting coincidence: since evolution has been taught in schools, witch burnings have stopped.

jewish philosopher said...

"I didn't claim people are naturally good."

Fine, so we agree. To be good we need the Torah.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/10/god-save-king-why-we-need-both.html

Anonymous said...

Anon1:

Witch burnings might have stopped, but now we have students commiting all kinds of crimes, like burning their teachers.

Anonymous said...

Anon:

Actually executing witches ended long before the theory of evolution was developed.

Anonymous said...

"Larry, let me put it like this. If you have anything serious and rational to say in favor of atheism or critical of Judaism, please say it."

Fine. I have plenty of things to say, but maybe you better define what you mean by terms such as 'serious' and 'rational.' When I make statements that meet both these criteria I'd like it to be absolutely clear to you.

Let me know what conditions need to be met to satisfy a reasonable person (i.e., no cheating by stacking the deck in advance), and I'll do my best to meet them.

Could you ask for a sweeter deal?

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

These comments were made yesterday, however I must have accidentally rejected them:
onionsoupmix (http://onionsoupmix.livejournal.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Don't Believe Anonymous Bloggers":

Morality and ethics are not instinctive behaviors. They are learned behaviors. We have learned them from the Torah.

Yeah, JP. Now what about thoe rhesus monkey experiments which demonstrated morality and self-sacrifice on the part of the monkeys? Did they also learn that from the Torah? Or are you just unfamiliar with those studies?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/195117


Anon1 has left a new comment on your post "Don't Believe Anonymous Bloggers":

"Anon:

Actually executing witches ended long before the theory of evolution was developed."

I only brought that up as an analogy to the absurd "coincidence" that JP brought. I don't actually think that witch burning stopped because of atheism. Maybe the reverse, stopping witch burning caused atheism?

It is the familiar flaw in logic confusing coincidence with causality. JP often throws out those kind of statements because they have sound bite appeal, even though the assertion of causality has no basis whatsoever.



Onion: Animal morality is very controversial.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article6471018.ece

Cannibalism is common among animals, as well as among primitive humans.
http://discovermagazine.com/photos/31-cannibalism-the-animal-kingdoms-dirty-little-secret
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

Relying on instincts to control our behavior will probably have some very negative results. We need God to be good.


Anon1:

Correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though it does not remove the fact that correlation can still be a hint). Because one cannot rewind history and replay events after making small controlled changes, causation can only be inferred, never exactly known. This is referred to as the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference - it is impossible to directly observe causal effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

jewish philosopher said...

"but maybe you better define what you mean by terms such as 'serious' and 'rational.'"

Just give it your best shot.

Anonymous said...

"Just give it your best shot."

No, sir. As a philosopher, you should appreciate the need to have mutually agreed upon definitions.

Let's try these, from Dictionary.com:

1- Serious - of, showing, or characterized by deep (i.e., beyond the superficial) thought; being in earnest.

2- Rational - having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense; proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning.

Let me know if these definitions work for you.

Assuming they do, as I look back at my comments on this thread, most statements in favor of atheism and critical of judaism and general religious belief meet both criteria. Agreed?

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"Larry, let me put it like this. If you have anything serious and rational to say in favor of atheism or critical of Judaism, please say it."

I understand that your answer is that you don't understand what defines rational and serious. That's a good answer.

Anonymous said...

"I understand that your answer is that you don't understand what defines rational and serious. That's a good answer."

You are evading again. You asked for comments that meet two criteria. I wish to oblige and to ensure that we are using the same terms in the same way. This way, we might possibly have a productive discussion.

Now, again, are the definitions satisfactory? An answer of yes or no will suffice.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

As I said, just give it your best shot. Regarding definitions, whatever you think it means.

Anonymous said...

I'll take it then that you agree with the definitions I used, then.

Now, what would you like to know about atheism? Again, I'll ask you for non-snarky guidance.

What would you like to know about the criticism of judaism and/or general religious belief?

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, let me put it like this. If you have anything serious and rational to say in favor of atheism or critical of Judaism, please say it.

If, however you're bored and in between porn sites and beers, you want to waste my time because you find that amusing, then I think we're done.

Anonymous said...

If you think it's a waste of time to establish parameters for discussion, then I think you need to re-name yourself because these are not the tendencies of someone who is jewish and/or a philosopher.

If you've ever go to a yeshiva, you will say lively arguments occurring all over the place. But that's not your interest.

So, OK. Here's a serious and rational set of statements for you.

There is no more powerful retardant to societal progress than religion, including the jewish religion in all of its forms.

Take out an atlas of the world and you will see that the "developing" nations are littered with the shells of once great peoples now enslaved by their religions, committed to servitude and regular war.

You love to deride Christopher Hitchens as a drunk, but neither you nor any religionist has every successfully met his challenge: Name a societal benefit from religion that could NOT have arisen from the secular.

A core drawback of religion is that it makes its members content with ignorance. How much more could we as a species have accomplished without the vast funneling of resources (physical and intellectual) to religious causes over the centuries? Even a microscopically small fraction of that capital could have made the machine age arrive centuries earlier. We have repeatedly survived and improved our lot in the face of religious opposition, improvements in our condition we take for granted daily.

Benefit from religion? The onus is on the religious, not the agnostic or atheist.

-Larry-

Anonymous said...

Larry,

JP has no intention of engaging in a reasoned and rational debate. He's so consumed with a visceral malevelence toward atheism that he's just using you as a foil to spout his venom. You can't debate with thoughtless hatred. Why waste your time?

jewish philosopher said...

"There is no more powerful retardant to societal progress than religion, including the jewish religion in all of its forms."

I have demonstrated that Orthodox Judaism promotes happiness, kindness, peace and sobriety, which I would define as "progress".

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/04/real-happiness.html
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/religion-and-happiness-recent-study.html
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/01/genius-of-judaism-kindness.html
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/08/samsons-struggle-satmar-and-others.html
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/08/creating-world-peace.html
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/02/massacre-of-midianites.html
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/orthodox-jewish-crime.html


"developing" nations are littered with the shells of once great peoples now enslaved by their religions

I assume you're referring to Islam, whose flaws and fallacies have no relevance to the pros and cons of atheism and Judaism. I think this is called a "red herring".

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

"Name a societal benefit from religion that could NOT have arisen from the secular."

As I have pointed out, belief in God and in a humanitarian God given law is not merely socially beneficial but apparently essential to the survival of humanity.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/10/god-save-king-why-we-need-both.html

OK, Larry. Thank you. We're done.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

By social progress do you mean preogressive societies like the former Soviet Union. Or Communist China? Or North Korea. Or maybe your refering to modern America, with a 50% divorce rate, widespread drug abuse, high schools with day care centers for the chld of the students, and 1% of the population in prison? Or are you refering slavery? Sex slavery is a big industry in moderen progressive America.

jewish philosopher said...

Larry's position apparently is that the only people who believe in God are either hillbillies or jihadists while atheists are either eminent scientists or charming Swedish gentlemen.

This opinion makes perfect sense to the alcohol pickled Marxist-Leninist brain of Christopher Hitchens. To most other people, not so much.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Stein;

What you say is controversial, unpopular, and often offensive to many. Yet you say it anyways, and you are brave enough not to hidy behind anonymity or a pseudonym. That takes guts! I suppose this is proof that the atheists are as stupid as they are cowardly. Cowardly because they remain anonymous, stupid because it they hold to the ridiculous notion that the content of their post actually matters more than their willingness to identify themselves as the author (without recourse to a pseudonym).

Furthermore, by using your real name (assuming that Jacob Stein is the real name of the Jewish Philosopher) and revealing your home town and posting pictures of yourself and relatives, you ensure that those interested in contacting you will.

Case in point, I am confident that these guys would love to meet you, and perhaps your family also. While there is a very small number of atheists among them, overall they are not very keen on atheism, and indeed generally hostile to atheists. Furthermore, they seem to share your ideological world view. While they are not Jewish, they seem like spiritually confused Christians, and they all have a very accute interest in Judaism!

Seeing as you use your name and include many personal photos and details of your life, they should have no problem finding you to satisfy their interest regarding Judaism, and perhaps convert to Judaism.