Sunday, August 02, 2009

The World's Worst Religion


[just say no]

Nothing became chemicals.
Chemicals became bacteria.
Bacteria became worms.
Worms became fish.
Fish became lizards.
Lizards became mice.
Mice became monkeys.
Monkeys became people.
And all this happened without the involvement of any sort of transcendent, intelligent supreme being.

This is the basic belief of atheism, the world's most irrational and destructive religion. This is merely an absurd myth,not based on a shred of science, created to permit us to do anything our heart desires without fear of God.

It is true that life in the distant past was different than it is now, however that proves nothing.

130 comments:

alex said...

For those ready to pounce on the "monkeys became people" line, don't waste your time.

"...In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise."

- George Gaylord Simpson
(*This View of Life*, 1964)

alex said...

I figured SOMEONE was going to paste the following, so I figured it might as well be me:

""I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley, *Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]

bankman said...

Big leap from recognizing that there was some kind of creation, that we cannot prove or know,

to being that created all of this wrote a book and gave it to a very small group of people many many years ago.

This book describes how the world was created, some strange, obscure things that only you guys should do (like shake a tree branch and lemon once a year, to name one ut of ~600) and then goes on to describe long lists of lineage and sacrafices.

very big leap

jewish philosopher said...

The Torah was revealed to the Jews at Mount Sinai because that was the only time a large group of people were ever willing to accept it.

It's a book of remarkable and unique wisdom, which we would expect from God.

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

Anonymous said...

The timeline of creation has been worked out in rigorous detail.

http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/04/timeline-of-universe.html

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

The main problem with your post is that no mechanism causes anything. I just happens, and that's irrational.

Anonymous said...

"I just happens"

I bet you do.

"No mechanism causes anything...that's irrational."

Oh. Actually, the magic snow bunny caused it. Is that better for ya?

If not, I wonder what you mean by mechanism.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

It's quite simple really. A transcendent, intelligent supreme being.

This is besides the fact that the fossils actually indicate several special creations, not evolution.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/11/evolution-refuted-again.html

Anonymous said...

Accordingto this:


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/08/pz_myers_christianity_is_bad_g.html

Atheists have a problem the with appointment of Collins, even though he is an accomlished scienntist, but they are okay with someone who advocates forced sterilization. If this is true, it supports what JP has been saying all along.

Jack said...

Face it dude, you came from a monkey.

alex said...

Bankman wrote: "Big leap from recognizing that there was some kind of creation:"

Do you even recognize /that/ much?

jewish philosopher said...

"you came from a monkey."

First we Jews had to deny the crazy Virgin Birth - now we have a new religion with an even more irrational Monkey Birth.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Evolution_of_apes

Anonymous said...

The problem with Collins is that he has a track record of mixing his scientific and professional obligations with a religious agenda. He is openly and avidly evangelical. He brags about adding religious messages to NHGRI announcements. He recently built a high-profile website promotes evangelical christianity.

The problem isn't that he's a christian or religious. The problem is that he's a missionary, and one who has said some awfully stupid things about science. All of this makes him highly questionable as an appointee to be put in control of a large chunk of our country's science budget.

-Larry-

Anonymous said...

I have a hard time understanding why one would object to the idea that a human being is a primate descended from an ancestor common to apes and monkeys.

Forget about the considerable body of evidence supporting this model - what's the problem with acknowledging that we are a kind of animal?

From a moral point of view, it doesn't suddenly make permissible any sort of behavior. Indeed, the fundamental equality of all people and all life should support democratic-republican societies. In religion, on the other hand, authority comes from above, from a king or tyrant who is supported by an "elect" caste of priests jealously guarding their wealth and power with ghost stories to frighten the masses and promote their superstitions.

From an aesthetic point of view, our bonds with all life on Earth are a beautiful and grand thing, much more so than the vague and inconsistent creation tales passed down by all peoples.

The idea that our lives only have meaning if we were specially created by some god is preposterous and insulting to people. Whether or not we were created is irrelevant to the "meaning" of our lives. But perhaps if the parrots who like to caw about "our lives have not meaning without god" would care to define "meaning" objectively, they would understand this better.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"From a moral point of view, it doesn't suddenly make permissible any sort of behavior."

It actually promotes Fascism.

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

bankman said...

alex - you nialed it. do i "believe" that there was some sort of creator....there is no proof either way!! which is why JP looks so foolish when he tries to "proove" there is a G-d.

I happen to believe that there is a creator, but that it is beyond my comprehension, and not the point.

All this orthodox Jewish stuff seems like BS to me. check out this refutation of JP.

http://notjewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/jpism-worlds-most-ridiculous-religion.html

jewish philosopher said...

"All this orthodox Jewish stuff seems like BS to me."

Of course it does. Because it means you would have to be a better person.

Anonymous said...

"It actually promotes Fascism."

Keep telling yourself this. It must be nice not to have to back up statements with (a) any supporting reasoning,(b) any consideration of the flaws in your reasoning, and (c) any address of rival claims.

Instead of pointing to a post that simply strings together a few out-of-context quotes which are not talking about the same thing and have little connection to each other than your attempt to cobble together a point, why don't you simply do the intellectual labor of making a coherent argument?

Besides, as I showed already, religion clearly promotes tyranny and dictatorship, much as catholicism supported Nazi rule and Italian fascism. Currently, in North Korea, the official religion is Juche, a political ideology created by the previous ruler (and Kim Jong-Il's father), Kim Il-sung. It emphasizes patriotism, economic self-sufficiency, and national self-defense. It makes the leader into a god - clearly not atheist.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"why don't you simply do the intellectual labor of making a coherent argument?"

It happens to be indisputable that Darwin was the father of atheism and fascism. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'm just saying.

"in North Korea, the official religion is Juche"

Not according to the CIA World Factbook:

"autonomous religious activities now almost nonexistent; government-sponsored religious groups exist to provide illusion of religious freedom"

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kn.html

Anonymous said...

Larry:

Collins is a better scientist than Myers coud ever hope to be. His beliefs never intefered with his science. And saying he shouldn't be the head of the NIH goes agianst the Constitution, which prohibits any religious test for holding office.

Anonymous said...

More "modification" of evolution.


http://www.nature.com/nphys/index.html

For a theory that is so welle established it undergoes a lot of modification.

cilia said...

Larry wrote:
"It makes the leader into a god - clearly not atheist."
Since the word "god" appears in the sentence, all of a sudden it's clearly not atheist. OK, got it. (eyeroll)

alex said...

bankman wrote: "I happen to believe that there is a creator, but that it is beyond my comprehension, and not the point."

You may wish to consider that it is partially beyond, and partially not beyond your comprehension.

I'm also not into "proving" God's existence, but /arguments/ for God's existence is fine with me. Forget the fact that JP might call them proofs; just pretend he calls them arguments.

openended said...

Look how strong the theory of evolution is, you blind folks:

"Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything. "

Wait, or is that a weakness?

Anonymous said...

People have told me that "G-d did it" is not a valid explanation because it explains everyhing, and if it explains everything, it explains nothing. The same can be said of evolution.

bankman said...

"Because it means you would have to be a better person."

Do you believe that hating gays, shaking a lulav and wearing tzitzis makes you a better person?

C'mon! That is just ridiculous!

Anonymous said...

Looks like all the Kool-Aid drinkers have come out.

JP sez: "It's quite simple really. A transcendent, intelligent supreme being."

Like Zeus, Ra, Ba'al, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Could it have been any transcendent, intelligent supreme being - or just one? Can you provide any way to objectively test which transcendent, intelligent supreme being created the universe and all its life forms, including us, while also being personally interested in your quotidian thoughts and deeds?

Just let me know the name of the test that can be performed to verify your transcendent, intelligent supreme being hypothesis.

JP quotes the CIA on North Korea: "autonomous religious activities now almost nonexistent; government-sponsored religious groups exist to provide illusion of religious freedom."

Thanks for making my point (and you might like this too, cilia). North Korea is not atheist. They have "government-sponsored religious groups" but no religious freedom.

As an atheist, I demand that my government maintain the full religious freedom of its citizens, including the right not to subscribe to any religion and the right not have any religious beliefs officially sponsored.

I fully support your right to believe in ridiculous things like god and that your life has no meaning if god wasn't somehow involved. Party on with that.

Stop trying to define what atheists believe and what follows from atheism because you have never been correct, not once. You keep trying to make atheism like a religion. As I've said before, I can only imagine that you gnash your teeth in fear and loathing of the truth that gods are utterly irrelevant.

By the way, isn't the U.S.A. the first nation to have no official religion? Yay! You always suggest that I go somewhere like North Korea, which has an official religion (as you surely admit now). Now, why don't you leave our atheist country and go to some totalitarian regime, where you can be more comfortable spending your days reading the prescribed texts under the watchful eye of your invisible leader and his all-too-real self-appointed shamans with their guns and prisons?

jewish philosopher said...

"Do you believe that hating gays, shaking a lulav and wearing tzitzis makes you a better person?"

You betcha.

Homosexuality kills.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html

Besides of course not producing offspring.

The lulav has profound meaning.
http://www.ou.org/chagim/sukkot/aspects.htm#symbolism

as do tzitzis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzitzit#Origin_and_practice

bankman said...

Big problem here my friend.

I dont believe that those things make me a better person.

Do you believe following the laws of the land make you a better person?

many in your camp do not

jewish philosopher said...

"Can you provide any way to objectively test which transcendent, intelligent supreme being created the universe and all its life forms, including us, while also being personally interested in your quotidian thoughts and deeds?"

Sure. He revealed Himself at Mount Sinai. Read Exodus 20 for details.

It's also interesting how you define atheists. Swedes - they're atheists. Nazis - they're Christians. Korean Communists - their religion is Korean Communism. Do I detect a little bias here?

jewish philosopher said...

"I dont believe that those things make me a better person."

It depends how you define better.

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

Anonymous said...

So it's OK for JP to hate homosexuals, but then he gets all bent out of shape if he thinks someone like Christopher Hitchens has called religious believers pernicious.

Are you thin-skinned or just hypocritical? (And your little god, too.)

jewish philosopher said...

I wouldn't say I hate all homosexuals. However some hatred is good.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/12/good-hatred.html

Anonymous said...

"However some hatred is good."

Hypocritical it is, then. Thanks.

jewish philosopher said...

Do you know what hypocrisy means?

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

I am the first one to fight that.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/11/hunting-secret-atheists-beginners-guide.html

Anonymous said...

I understand that, in North Korea there is widespread persecution of people who actually practise religion. This doesn't sound like a religious government to me.

Anonymous said...

Here's a study on religion in North Korea:

http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0434A_ReligionI.html

Things are really bad there.

bankman said...

"objectively test"

"He revealed Himself at Mount Sinai. Read Exodus 20"

LOL!!!!

jewish philosopher said...

But worms becoming people is perfectly rational.

bankman said...

is there objective scientific data that supports the theory of life evolving on this planet?

yes

jewish philosopher said...

Such as?

bankman said...

You cannot seriously tell me that you have such strong convictions about orthodox judaism, (you converted for goodness sakes!) that you never even looked into the scientific data about evolution?!?!?

do a freakin google search man, it'll keep you busy for the next 5 years. call me when take off the tzitzit and yalmulka

jewish philosopher said...

Why don't you look into all the data about Judaism? Call me when put on the tzitzit and yalmulka.

Anonymous said...

Here's the difference: an obviously false statement like "worms becoming people" shows you know nothing about evolution or science.

But many of us know Torah as well as you. Many of us have also bothered to study the historical context(s) from which biblical writing and interpretation emerged.

You debunk a science you neither understand nor care to learn. You accept as true a religious belief that you also do not understand.

Notice in your "worms becoming people is perfectly rational" comment that you don't defend the idea that a god-in-the-sky speaking from a mountain is most likely untrue. Who knows? Maybe a bunch of shepherds go caught in a sudden thunderstorm and got scared. Or maybe they were all high on hallucinogenics, as an Israeli scholar had recently proposed. It doesn't matter.


The speaking god-in-the-sky scenario is still the least likely scenario because that's not the way the world works. In contrast, we do see evolution. We do have tangible physical evidence and evidence across several domains of knowledge.

I predict that within 5 years you will have become a full-blown atheist. When that happens, I'll congratulate and jokingly tell you what an a-hole you used to be.

Read up, my friend. Read some books that challenge your worldview and test your knowledge.

Good luck.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"In contrast, we do see evolution."

Really, you've seen monkeys become people? Well that's proof you're on drugs.

On the other, God is evident from every living thing. A machine must have an intelligent designer.

Anonymous said...

A machine is not a living thing.

jewish philosopher said...

Sure it is. The heart is a pump. The eye is a camera. The ears are microphones.

Anonymous said...

Larry

I used to believe in evolution, then I stopped. I still keep up with the science news. What I see is the problems wiht evolutionbecoming bigger and bigger, and the evidence becoming weaker and weaker, e.g. it took just a couple of months for the ida the lemur/monkey to go from a human ancestor and proof of evolution to a side branch on the evolutionary tree. And now they are saying that the whole evolutionary tree scenario is wrong, and they are searcing high and low for a mechanism for a horizontal gene transfer.

Anonymous said...

No. Which came first? You'd be more correct to say the pump is a kind of heart. The microphone is an imitation of the ear.

Don't get overtaken by your machine metaphor.

jewish philosopher said...

Pump and microphone are more general categories and heart and ear are more specific examples.

Anonymous said...

So the tree scenario may be wrong. So what? The scientific ideal is to improve the model and better understand how life actually developed.

When was the last time someone said "x in judaism is incorrect. We're changing the model"?

Again, can you provide any way to objectively test which transcendent, intelligent supreme being created the universe and all its life forms, including us, while also being personally interested in your quotidian thoughts and deeds?

Giving me a quote from some book about an event that allegedly happened one time in history and 3500 years ago is not giving me a test that I can perform.

You're failing again....

jewish philosopher said...

Can you perform any tests on ancient Greek history?

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-history-bunk.html

Anonymous said...

According to this study:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

People who don't practise traditional religions are more likely to believe in things like palm reading, ufo's and bigfoot. Interesting. Evolution,too?

Anonymous said...

The categories are flawed in that they already presuppose that they were intentionally formed.

The fact is that you don't know whether the heart was intentionally formed. You may believe it. And you may choose not to explore the evidence and scientific hypotheses about how complex organs developed. But you still do not know. Neither do I. Whe do you think you'll be able to deal with this?

jewish philosopher said...

We never witness a complex mechanism with many parts all working efficiently for a certain purpose form spontaneously. There is always a designer.

Anonymous said...

When scientists find a piece of flint with a sharp edge, they assume that it was made by a proto-human because there is no good naturalistic explanation. A cell is a lot more complex than a flint knife.

Anonymous said...

And the probel with the tre of life is that genetics does not match morphology. We would expect genetics to match morphology if common descent were true. And sometimes genetics doesn't match genetics. And there is no good naturalistic explanation for this if common descent is true. This is something that evolution can't account for.

bankman said...

HELLO?!?!?

JP!! Are you there?!?

data. objective. sources.

(let me guess, link me to some of your blogposts! LOL)

Anonymous said...

"Can you perform any tests on ancient Greek history?"

Absolutely. We have written records from Ancient Greece - from these we get records, paleographic data, legal accounts and more. We also have contemporaneous written records from neighboring civilizations. We have archeological data - pottery, jewels, weapons, etc. We have geological data.

So, we can indeed test the claims made about ancient Greek history. But there are always controversies and things that cannot be determined conclusively. It is unclear whether the poet Homer actually existed, for instance.

Oddly, however, you seem to be 100% certain that everything reported in your bible is 100% true. Why is that, exactly?

-Larry-

Anonymous said...

"We never witness a complex mechanism with many parts all working efficiently for a certain purpose form spontaneously."

What theory says such things formed "spontaneously"? No evolution. Surely, not even your low-level understanding of evolution suggests that we're talking about spontaneous appearance?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

"When scientists find a piece of flint with a sharp edge, they assume that it was made by a proto-human because there is no good naturalistic explanation. A cell is a lot more complex than a flint knife."

You don't know what you are talking about. When an object of interest is found, it is put through several tests and analyses to see what causes can be likely ruled out. If naturalistic explanations cannot be ruled out, they aren't.

Just because you are personally incredulous at the complexity of a cell isn't evidence of either design or that one of your gods intentionally made it.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Bank, Larry, I have no idea who you guys are or what your particular agendas are, however you’re taking something very simple and making it very complicated.

If you believe that a watch must have a watchmaker, then you must believe that life was created by God.
If you believe that the Peloponnesian War happened, then you should believe that God appeared at Mount Sinai.
If we define “atheist” as anyone who believes that the Biblical God does not exist and that evolution made us, then clearly Orthodox Jews are vastly more sober and peaceful on the average than atheists.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

It's not that I'm incredulous at a cell, its that there is no good naturalistic explanation of its origin, just lke there is no good naturalsitic explanation for a knife with a sharp edge.

Anonymous said...

And the test are used to date a flint knife, not to determine whether it was manufactured or not. Archaeologists were assuming flint tools where designed by humans long before dating techniques were invented.

Anonymous said...

JP,

You are taking something very simple and making it stupid.

If you believe that a watch must have a watchmaker, then you must realize that watches are not living things and that living things are not man-made, so an analogy between a watchmaker and a deity is silly.

If you believe in the Peloponnesian War happened, then you you must realize that we have several primary and secondary sources of evidence that it did - Aristophanes, Diodorus, Siculus, Nepos, Plutarch, Thucydides, and Xenophon. In addition to these accounts we have archaeological evidence. We also know that wars happen: it is, unfortunately, an all-too-common event in human history. We have no evidence whatsoever outside of the Torah that God appeared at Mount Sinai. And this event is supposed to have happened once and only once in human history.

If we define “atheist” as anyone who will not believe the "because our book says so" claims that gods exist - including the gods described in the Torah - and that these gods sat around for 10,000 years before deciding to make people, then clearly atheism is a more rational and reasonable position than religious belief.

FTW.

bankman said...

"If you believe that the Peloponnesian War happened, then you should believe that God appeared at Mount Sinai."

you are on fire today JP! All that logic and reason you learned in gemorah is paying off in spades! kudos!

LOL

jewish philosopher said...

"watches are not living things"

Which doesn't matter.

"that living things are not man-made"

They are God made.

"we have several primary and secondary sources of evidence that it did"

For the Torah - prophets, Talmud, midrash, etc.

"In addition to these accounts we have archaeological evidence."

Such as?

"We also know that wars happen"

Since we know that God made us, we would expect Him to speak to us.

"“atheist” as anyone who will not believe the "because our book says so" claims that gods exist"

Define "god".

jewish philosopher said...

Bankman, how old are you? Do you realize that "LOL" is not an argument?

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter to you that you're trying to compare living things and non-living things?

Uh, ok.....(wonders what kinds of drugs JP takes)

jewish philosopher said...

Why should it matter? Ever heard of bioengineering?

Biological Engineering or bioengineering (including biological systems engineering) is the application of engineering principles to address challenges in the fields of biology and medicine


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

Anonymous said...

Living and non-living things are both subject to the same laws of chemistry and physics. The problem is explaning the existance of living things if you cannot deviate from those laws.

Zach said...

I don't mean any disrespect towards you I am just on an existential quest and wanted to pick your brain for the Jewish answers... Thanks!

I have to ask you one simple question on something you said, Why does the existence of "A transcendent, intelligent supreme being" mean/ imply we have to live our lives a certain way? Because IT said so, and knows more than us?

And I know it's off-topic but how do we really have free will? We can choose to live truthfully (following God 100%) or falsely (doing as we please)? Is this really a choice.... you can be truthful people or "falsers" oh and if your pick is false it's punishable!
Our hands are tied behind our backs into a "free-willed" decision on how to live life?

Thanks for your time again!

jewish philosopher said...

"Why does the existence of "A transcendent, intelligent supreme being" mean/ imply we have to live our lives a certain way?"

I think it's reasonable to expect that our creator would give us some instructions.

"how do we really have free will?"

We can consciously make choices.

Anonymous said...

JP and anonymous -

Here's why the comparison breaks down between watches and living things, as in "a watch needs a watchmaker."

Watches don't reproduce. Without a watchmaker for every single watch, there is no watch. Living things such as people reproduce.

Watches don't grow and develop to maturity. In living things, their systems (skeletal, neurological, etc.) are not static but change and mature over time. Living things are able to grow and adapt to a new environment. Watches and other machines are static. When they've been built, that's the way they'll stay.

Watches can't die. Unlike living things, watches are not in competition with other watches and other machines for limited resources. Watches cannot know, intuit, or otherwise sense threats to their survival.

For these reasons - and I expect others could add additional ones - it's fairly irrelevant that all watches have watchmakers. Watches need watchmakers. It's a different scenario with living things.

I believe Dawkins probably addresses the flaws of the watchmaker argument in his book The Blind Watchmaker, which I know you are familiar with.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"Living things such as people reproduce."

Which means we are super machines, created by a super designer.

"Living things are able to grow and adapt to a new environment."

See last comment.

"Watches can't die."

Watches do die.

"Watches cannot know, intuit, or otherwise sense threats to their survival."

See first comment above.

"Dawkins probably addresses the flaws of the watchmaker argument in his book"

His answer is: You don't need God, evolution did it.

You see both you and I agree that nothing turned into people. I believe God did it. You believe something with no intelligence called "evolution" did it. And since evolution has no intelligence, it can't tell you to do anything, so you can do anything you feel like doing as long as you don't get arrested for it.

Anonymous said...

Is the "Blind Watchmaker" the book with the weasel program that Dawkins uses to demonstrate that evolution is possible? That model is so flawed it isn't funny.

Now, to the bestof my knowledge the reason there are no self replicating watches is because it is beyond the ability of human engineers to design. But "nature somehow mananged to get simple molecules to come together and form a replicator. That's a pretty neat trick.

Anonymous said...

"Now, to the bestof my knowledge the reason there are no self replicating watches is because it is beyond the ability of human engineers to design. But "nature somehow mananged to get simple molecules to come together and form a replicator. That's a pretty neat trick."

Your lack of reverence for nature - which you believe was made by your god - is noted.

Anonymous said...

"You see both you and I agree that nothing turned into people."

False. I don't believe this.

If we separate the evolution of life, including human beings, from the first appearance of things that could be defined by us as "living," I do not think that life arose from nothing.

Besides, I thought you believed that dust turned into people.

jewish philosopher said...

"False. I don't believe this."

Well then I guess you haven't heard about the Big Bang.

"in the Big Bang model, space and time were created in that initial moment"

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

"I thought you believed that dust turned into people."

But nothing turned into dust.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1

Anyway, so we aren't that different. You just choose to fabricate an implausable god named "evolution" who has no mind, conveniently allowing to you to do whatever you please. It's like pretending your parents are gone for the weekend and you can party.

Anonymous said...

I've heard of the Big Bang. It wasn't an explosion from nothing: "According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang). An extremely dense and hot state is not nothing.

The article you cite says: "When astronomers think about the Big Bang, in general they don’t actually mean that one singular moment when the Universe burst into being. It’s really the name given to the model used to describe what happened an infinitesimally thin slice of time after that moment" (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/). Notice how this also does not say the universe came from nothing.

Having failed to make a workable analogy between watches and living things, you now want to say that evolution is like a god. Truly desperate on your part.

Where did your god come from? How? And how, exactly, do you know this? And how do you know it was the god you believe in? Is that god the same god of the chirstians and the muslims? Did that god talk at all to other people, such as aboriginal australians or americans? Why not? How do you know, exactly?

And why do you project these motives on me: "conveniently allowing to you to do whatever you please"? Why do you think you know why I have concluded what I have?

I wonder if you secretly fantasize that atheists lead lives of debauchery and drug abuse. Perhaps you are jealous because you desire this lifestyle for yourself. Sorry, but most atheists I know are extremely straight-laced and more interested in learning and family than anything else.

On the other hand, have you ever noticed that those who profess to be religious are often the most cruel and close-minded people? Surely you will not deny that religious people will brutalize and kill others in the name of their god.

I bet before your "conversion," you partied pretty hard. Care to share what happened to you?

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state"

Before which there was neither time nor space, as I pointed out. In other words, nothing physical. Which is what I also believe - before creation, nothing physical, neither time nor space, existed.

"now want to say that evolution is like a god"

Exactly. Dawkins calls it a "Blind Watchmaker", although actually he means "Mindless Watchmaker". An absurd god with no intelligence.

"Where did your god come from?"

He is eternal and non-physical.

"And how, exactly, do you know this?"

He told us. Read the Torah.

"Did that god talk at all to other people, such as aboriginal australians or americans? Why not?"

Apparently they weren't interesting in listening to Him, just like you aren't.

"conveniently allowing to you to do whatever you please"

It's pretty obvious.

"I know are extremely straight-laced and more interested in learning and family than anything else."

Doesn't seem that way to me.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/05/godlessness-is-not-great-how-lack-of.html

"have you ever noticed that those who profess to be religious are often the most cruel and close-minded people"

Not my religion.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/orthodox-jewish-crime.html
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/08/samsons-struggle-satmar-and-others.html

"I bet before your "conversion," you partied pretty hard."

I was and am the ultimate party animal.

Anonymous said...

"Before which there was neither time nor space, as I pointed out."

But you don't know what "neither time nor space" or "nothing physical" actually means. You don't know this, so you invent a person - i.e., god - to be the reason.

Please quote me the passage where dawkins says that evolution is a god. Where does he say, exactly, that "god." Very strange for an avowed atheist to promote a new god, don't you think?

Clearly, you will not find such a passage. I suspect you will try to pull out some quote and attempt to make an interpretation that dawkins is somehow inserting evolution into the position/function that you would ascribe to your god. But you will be wrong, unless your quote has dawkins telling people to worship evolution, to pray to evolution, and to mind their manners or evolution will punish them.

Your god did not tell you he is eternal and non-physical. You get that from an invented story in a book. Plenty of books have reported on the thoughts and deeds of the gods. You'll need to do a much better job of making the case that your little JP-god is the one and true god.

You err to think that I or any atheist deny or reject god (or the idea of god) in advance. I would be perfectly happy and willing to listen to this god if there were more to recommend his existence and if he were a little more responsible in managing the universe.

However, even if such a god existed, he would have no rights over me at all, and I would have no obligations whatsoever to him. Why anyone would want to be the puppet of someone else is utterly baffling to me.

Who knows, maybe your god realizes the many of us don't need him.

"Not my religion."

Yes, your religion. Of course you know all of the sites and blogs that do report on the misdeeds of jewish clergy. But my point is not about criminals but about regular people who are just jerks.

"I was and am the ultimate party animal."

I thought so. You have your own version of "penis envy" projected onto atheists. I fear it's a sign of immaturity. But I have hope for you. As I said, if you venture to learn about the bible and the people who transformed these stories into the Bible (capital B), you'll admit agnosticism within 5 years.

I highly recommend the scholarship of James Kugel, a former instructor of mine, a devout OJ, and a recognized authority on the bible and biblical scholarship. Read his "How to Read the Bible."

-Larry-

alex said...

Larry, I highly recommend the book by Antony Flew.

jewish philosopher said...

That's what atheism is - the substituation of the Biblical God, who is infinitely intelligent, for a new false god, evolution, who has no mind at all and asks nothing of us.

"people to worship evolution, to pray to evolution, and to mind their manners or evolution will punish them"

Then there would be no point in atheism. Evolution is a "diet god" like "diet soda". Tastes the same, but no calories. Does the same thing as God, but no obligations.

"You get that from an invented story in a book."

Actually, that's where evolution comes from. Origin of Species.

"regular people who are just jerks"

I've actually only been able find one atheist who was not a fraud, addict or criminal.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/01/chandra-good-atheist.html

Not too impressive.

Anonymous said...

The big bang means that the universe, including space and time, came from a singularity, a point with no dimensions, but infinite gravity. How that happened remains to be explained, especially the part about overcoming the infinite gravity. In the book, "The Endless Universe" the authors say that using banging branes approach they can get around the problem of the singularity if they fudge the math. The theory also depends on an infinite amount of gravity, which doesn't exist outside of a singularity. I recently read about another theory that uses an ossilating cosmos, but they also have to be creative with the math to get around the singularity problem. And cosmologists have rejected an ossilating universe in the 1950's. Not enough mass, and zero curvature.

Anonymous said...

Alex,

I've read Flew's book. I like his points on rationalism. Remember that he calls himself a deist and not a (christian) theist. I don't begrudge him his considered opinion. I think he's incorrect, however.

JP - still can't locate that quote from dawkins?


You are mixing up atheism and evolution again. Please do try and keep them straight. Put a sticky up on your computer, if it helps.

I tend to think that is an anthropomorphized nature. Someone realized it was stupid to bow down to trees, stones and the sun, and decided to call it all god.

The idea of evolution pre-dated Darwin and Origin of Species by millenia. Your god, however, remains a story in a book. Had you never read this book, your never would believe in the fantastical nonsense that you try to pass off as religious truth. Not so with evolution and science.

"I've actually only been able find one atheist who was not a fraud, addict or criminal."

The same can be said of theists. You, however, might try leaving your basement for once and talking to real people. In any case, your petty and inconsistent "holy" morality is a joke.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"You are mixing up atheism and evolution again."

Can you name anyone who calls himself an atheist and does not believe in evolution?

"The idea of evolution pre-dated Darwin and Origin of Species by millenia."

Darwinian evolution, which is what we are discussing, did not. And it's just a ludicrous story in a book.

"your never would believe in the fantastical nonsense that you try to pass off as religious truth"

Like worms turning into people all by themselves? Sure, that happens all the time.

"The same can be said of theists."

Really??

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

Florence Nightingale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Nightengale

Mother Teresa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

Sir Moses Montefiore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Montefiore#Philanthropy_in_the_Holy_Land

There are no comparable atheists.

jewish philosopher said...

Also, I would be curious to know, among the over 22,000 Righteous Among the Nations recognized by Yad Vashem, was even one an avowed atheist?

http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/index.asp

Maybe there was, I just haven't heard about it.

Anonymous said...

"Can you name anyone who calls himself an atheist and does not believe in evolution?"

Who cares? How about all the people who maintain theism and yet understand that evolution is a more powerful and productive model than creationism of how life on earth developed?

Mother Teresa was a fraud. Hitchens makes a sadly true assessment of this horribly misguided person whose "help" perpetuated poverty and suffering.

Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman come to mind as two examples of atheists and terrific human beings. These are people who contributed vastly to our understanding of the world. Their positive impact has been immeasurable.

What do you get with religion? Well, see the shooting in Tel Aviv, see another mass murder at a fitness club in PA, and see the Blackwater crusaders for jeebus. When mass murder is not religiously motivated, it's justified by the promise of salvation/heaven/72 virgins. You religious killers don't care what you do because you think you have an automatic ticket to paradise.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"How about all the people who maintain theism and yet understand that evolution is a more powerful and productive model"

They are useful idiots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

"Mother Teresa was a fraud."

The Nobel Prize committee seemed to disagree.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-bio.html

"Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman come to mind as two examples of atheists"

Sagan was agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Personal_life_and_beliefs

Feynman was an open womanizer. In Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, he gives advice on the best way to pick up a girl in a hostess bar. At Caltech, he used a nude/topless bar as an office away from his usual office, making sketches or writing physics equations on paper placemats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Personal_life

"What do you get with religion?"
Depends which religion. With Judaism, you get truth and real happiness.

"Well, see the shooting in Tel Aviv"
I bet the shooter was an atheist.


In any case, let's briefly recap:

Atheism is a religion.
It has a god: Evolution.
It has a prophet: Charles Darwin.
A sacred book: Origin of Species.
A pope: Dawkins
Bishops: Professors who teach evolution.
Priests: Teachers who teach evolution
Cathedrals: Universities.
Churches: Secular schools.

It's followers are motivated by a desire to be free of all guilt, and then lead selfish, destructive lives of bloodshed, casual sex and substance abuse.
It is the world's most obviously false and ridiculous religion.
It is the world's most dangerous religion. It's followers are often killers, usually have unhealthy lifestyles and seldom reproduce.

Anonymous said...

Good re-cap. It's probably 100% accurate except that facts show almost completely otherwise.

jewish philosopher said...

Facts which are mostly visible to alcoholics in nude bars.

Anonymous said...

"Facts which are mostly visible to alcoholics in nude bars."

Clearly you've lost your mind.

Notice how often you are the only one bringing up sex and nude bars and alcohol. These are your personal issues, not those of the atheist.

Your religion isn't saving you. It's only making your problem worse.

As I said, try reading some actual books. Wikipedia isn't all that great, you know.

As for me, I've grown bored with the discussion here. You've lost the ability to make cogent arguments and keep referring back to flawed arguments you made before. I have a lovely wife of 9 years, and three darling children aged 6, 3 and 1-and-a-half. I am no prude but I rarely drink. There are good and decent people in the world who think that religion is a lie and that belief in god has started to become detrimental to world progress. I don't expect you to agree, but I harbored the hope you would back off from your extreme view of all atheists are evil.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"Notice how often you are the only one bringing up sex and nude bars and alcohol"

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

And this isn't from wikipedia.

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

"I have a lovely wife of 9 years, and three darling children aged 6, 3 and 1-and-a-half. I am no prude but I rarely drink."

Sure. I'm Napoleon.

Anonymous said...

"Sure. I'm Napoleon."

Always with the lies. I'm glad you have not reproduced.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Lying is the atheist specialty, excuse me.

alex said...

"Can you name anyone who calls himself an atheist and does not believe in evolution?"

Well, here's one with serious problems with it:
Bradley Monton "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Paperback)"

Then, there's David Berlinski: "not a theist but an agnostic, as was made clear in his recent, hot-selling book The Devil's Delusion. While he is a prominent skeptic of Darwinism, he is not a proponent of intelligent design. "

jewish philosopher said...

Monton also sounds like an agnostic to me.

alex said...

Then you'll have to change your question from "Can you name anyone who calls himself an atheist..." to something else.

alex said...

Larry wrote: "I've read Flew's book. I like his points on rationalism. Remember that he calls himself a deist and not a (christian) theist. [YES, THAT'S WELL KNOWN] I don't begrudge him his considered opinion. I think he's incorrect, however."

You waste your time on JP's blog trying to PROVE JP is wrong, but all you can say about Flew is that you think he's incorrect?

jewish philosopher said...

Monton seems to sort of contradict himself.

On one hand, he's "An Atheist" but then he thinks "'intelligent design' is most likely false". So isn't that the agnostic point of view?

http://www.ybp.com/acad/ads/0709_broadview_god.html

Anonymous said...

I understand Hitchins found an anonymous source that said that Mother Theresa deposited money raised in America in American banks. This is the extent of her fraud. He also had a problem with the fact that she took dying people off the street and put them in "death houses", where they would be comfortable. We have places like this in america. They are called hospices. I guess Hitchins would be happier if she let people die in the street. He also had a problem with the fact that she visited the Pope in a cheap Sari. Well, duh, she took an oath of poverty. And if Hitchins has a problem wiht Mother Theresa's operation, why didn't he encourage a bunch of atheists to get together and show the world how to do it right. Or maybe he would have to sober up first.

Anonymous said...

"You waste your time on JP's blog trying to PROVE JP is wrong, but all you can say about Flew is that you think he's incorrect?"

I try to help JP clarify and define the extent of his wrongness. Flew's stance is basically a combination of an argument from ignorance and an argument from personal incredulity. He's admitted this. What else can I say but that I disagree with him? He doesn't say much of anything that's blatantly wrong, like JP does. Let Flew enjoy his delusion and fade peacefully. Protecting the world from the type of willful ignorance and hate-mongering that so delights JP, however, is an entirely different concern. Far more important, in my opinion.

JP views atheists is much the same manner as Nazis viewed Jews and homosexuals. His nouveau riche brand of ethnocentrism ought to be challenged at every opportunity.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Interesting that you mention Nazis Larry since Goebbels, Heydrich and Bormann belonged to your religion, atheism.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm

And speaking of hate mongering, let's not forget all rabbis shot be the atheist Stalinists.

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

jewish philosopher said...

You know it's very common for abusers to appeal for sympathy as "victims".

alex said...

"Flew's stance is basically a combination of an argument from ignorance and an argument from personal incredulity. He's admitted this. "

Flew literally wrote the book(s) on atheism, so he knows all about the argument from incredulity. He must have come to the conclusion that it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. I bet he backs it up, too.

Anonymous said...

In a recent issue of National Geographic I read that the Soviets killed 50,000 Russian Orhtodox Priests. On a number of occasions atheists have attempted to justifiy the mass murders commited by atheists like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot by saying that it is okay because the motivating factor isn't atheism. But that isn't entiely correct, since manuy of the tens of millions of people murdered by them were murdered for practising religion.

Anonymous said...

And basically they're saying that atheists will kill for any reason, or for no reason at all.

Anonymous said...

JP,

"You know it's very common for abusers to appeal for sympathy as 'victims.'"

Really, when are you going to learn to read? Do you enjoy having people point out that you read things that are not there?

There was no appeal to sympathy. No portrayal of atheists as quote-unquote victims.

I merely pointed out that you play the part of a hate-mongerer on this blog. I also noted that you view atheists in exactly the same way that the Nazis viewed Jews and homosexuals.


Perhaps you wish to avoid admitting that I have written truly - that you are a kind of Ger Nazi - by throwing our a red herring, i.e., the desperate mis-reading that I'm looking for some sort of sympathy (and then followed up by some more of your Nazi blah-blah).

Do you have some sort of substantiation to your claim to be an "Orthodox Jew"? I bet you just started saying it to your folks when you were a teen "rebel."

jewish philosopher said...

"I also noted that you view atheists in exactly the same way that the Nazis viewed Jews and homosexuals."

I'm not sure exactly how Nazis viewed Jews and homosexuals, however sometimes hatred is a good thing.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/12/good-hatred.html

Hitchens, on the occasion of Jerry Falwell's death, felt duty bound to ridicule and condemn him in the most disgusting terms simply because Hitchens disagreed with him.

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

Obviously, atheists agree that heresy (to their beliefs) is the worst crime possible.

Let's hope I have a chance to eulogize Hitchens on Fox News. You ain't seen nothing yet.

"Do you have some sort of substantiation to your claim to be an "Orthodox Jew"?"

Would slamming my fist in your face count as proof? (Ha ha, little joke!)

Anonymous said...

"Flew literally wrote the book(s) on atheism, so he knows all about the argument from incredulity. He must have come to the conclusion that it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. I bet he backs it up, too."

Yes, hes knows all about such arguments, but that's where he ends up. Yes, he backs up his position, too. Read the book.

-Larry-

Anonymous said...

"Would slamming my fist in your face count as proof? (Ha ha, little joke!)."

It would count as proof that you have not taken Ahavat Israel to heart and that you have not carefully read the Pirkei Avot.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, it's bad enough that atheists are God damned heretics, but why don't they have a sense of humor? That really bugs me.

Anonymous said...

A red blood cell walked into a busy restaurant. The hostess asked, "Would you like to sit at the bar?"
The red cell answered, "No thanks, I'll just circulate."

-Larry-

(slamming fists into faces, even with disclaimers: not so funny)

jewish philosopher said...

Maybe I was hinting that you should tone down the insults just a little. You aren't Christopher Hitchens, are you?

Anonymous said...

"Maybe I was hinting that you should tone down the insults just a little."

Hints don't come through very well on the "Interwebs." Try being more direct.

I apologize if you personally have been insulted, but I have tried to be accurate and honest in my response to the character you put across in this blog.

On the other hand, I suppose if you're insulted it means you kind of like me.

Awwwwwww.

jewish philosopher said...

Well, your second comment on this post is "Oh. Actually, the magic snow bunny caused it. Is that better for ya?"

Then the sarcasm just keeps going and going until "you are a kind of Ger Nazi - by throwing our a red herring, i.e., the desperate mis-reading that I'm looking for some sort of sympathy"

It's getting a little old, Larry. Or whatever your name is.

Anonymous said...

Hmm...

Let's back up a little.

Your post calls atheism "the world's worst religion" when it's clearly not a religion at all.

Your post erroneously characterizes the model of life's evolution on earth.

Your post describes atheism as irrational and destructive. No support is given for this description, but other posts and ensuing discussions show that atheism is rational and certainly not more "destructive" than religion.

Your post incorrectly and maliciously asserts that atheists devised Darwinian evolution for the primary reason of "so we can do whatever we want" (this is not a direct quote).

Given this pile of false and unsupported statements, surely some sarcasm on my part is permissible?

As I said, I apologize if you personally have been insulted. Unfortunately, I do mean sincerely that the JP character coming across in recent posts and comments appears to me as a Ger Nazi. I think this character is mean-spirited, eager to judge all people unfavorably, and to hastily jump to conclusions.

If someone were to call me such a name, I would be offended too. But I might also take a look at myself and wonder if I need to make some improvements in my real/blog character.

That JP character has gotten old, too. What now?

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

"surely some sarcasm on my part is permissible?"

Larry you, like your idol Christopher Hitchens, are a total moron. You think that just making a lot of nasty comments means you are right, you have won the argument, you will succeed etc. That is the thinking of a baby, which is exactly what atheists are emotionally.

No, the world does not work that way. That is why Nazism and Communism fell into the dustbin of history and so will you.

Anonymous said...

"Larry you, like your idol Christopher Hitchens, are a total moron."

Hmm. That's a nasty comment by you. A moron is someone of subnormal intelligence. Let's test out your hypothesis and see if I am a moron.

I will try to fairly articulate the difference between your position and mine. Here goes:
1) You believe an invisible, eternal being created all the universe, including us; I am skeptical that there is or ever was such a being because scientific evidence points in the direction that no such being was necessary.
2) You believe that all the universe, including life as we know it, was created over the course of six regular days; I think the more plausible scenario is gradual evolution over millions and millions of years.
3) You believe a global flood wiped out all the life on earth over the course of 40 days, except for one of every living species on earth, which were all fortunately kept upon a single boat; I think the sheer number of species on earth - including the ones that have since gone extinct - makes Noah's Ark highly unlikely.
4) You believe in the existence of angels, demons, cherubs, and giants; I don't.
5) You believe that people once lived to be hundreds of years old; I don't.
6) You believe that people can be resurrected from the dead after days, years or even centuries; I don't.
7) You believe that the bible was dictated by a god to moses, and that it is inerrant; I place more credence in the well-supported hypothesis that the bible is a collection of stories and legends combined together and redacted over a long time, and later understood as a holy and sacred text.
8) You believe that people would kill and destroy themselves and others without a god; I observe that they have done just this with gods and in the name of gods.
9) You believe in the existence or realms where people (or their "souls") go after they die according to a divine system of justice; I observe that the evidence for souls and afterlife rather suggests that when we die we simply stop living and then decompose: that's it.
10) You believe that people cannot be consistently happy in a stable way unless they submit their wills and their lives to a god; I believe that people can achieve a better happiness without the idea of "submit" and without the idea of "god."
11) You believe that Judaism and Jews are relatively free of the inconsistency, violence, and hatred of other religions, nations and peoples; I observe that history and recent situations in the US and Israel suggest no significant difference.

I argue that based on my ability to articulate this difference and that based on the beliefs and opinions, I would not qualify as a moron.

But I ask: which set of positions - yours or mine - tends more toward the moronic side? I think most reasonable people would say yours.

I apologize if this seems like a nasty comment to you, but perhaps the truth appears nasty sometimes.

I note that I - supposedly the nasty, less moral and less disciplined one - have apologized to you three times now. I wonder if you will apologize to me before yom kippur.

-Larry-

jewish philosopher said...

Actually, “moron” may also mean “a very stupid person”.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron

I would say that’s fair.

Note that Hitchens is also not hesitant to call his critics “stupid”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA (55 second point)

“I am skeptical that there is or ever was such a being because scientific evidence points in the direction that no such being was necessary.”

This is not true. In fact just such a being is needed to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of species and the origin of Judaism.

“You believe that all the universe, including life as we know it, was created over the course of six regular days”

Not exactly.

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

“I think the more plausible scenario is gradual evolution over millions and millions of years.”

This is contradicted by the fossils, the only direct evidence of prehistory.

http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-slide13.html

“I think the sheer number of species on earth - including the ones that have since gone extinct - makes Noah's Ark highly unlikely”

If you believe in God, it’s not unlikely.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/10/biblical-deluge.html

#4, 5 and 6 – Why not?

“I place more credence in the well-supported hypothesis that the bible is a collection of stories and legends combined together and redacted over a long time, and later understood as a holy and sacred text.”

Which I have proven is false.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/12/documentary-hypothesis-critique.html

“8) You believe that people would kill and destroy themselves and others without a god; I observe that they have done just this with gods and in the name of gods.”

I agree with all this. However I would add that Orthodox Jews are far more likely to lead peaceful, sober lives and have stable families than avowed atheists are. In fact, judging by how atheists are almost invariably violent and/or don’t have more than one child; it is obvious that atheism would quickly lead humanity to extinction.

“I observe that the evidence for souls and afterlife rather suggests that when we die we simply stop living and then decompose”

The fact that we are conscious of ourselves and that we have free will proves that we are more than merely machines and suggest that we possess a non-physical element. In addition to that, millions of people have attested to out of body, near death experiences.

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

“You believe that people cannot be consistently happy in a stable way unless they submit their wills and their lives to a god”

This is supported by scientific research.

http://www.pse.ens.fr/document/wp200901.pdf

“You believe that Judaism and Jews are relatively free of the inconsistency, violence”

Orthodox Jews, yes.

Your key error is that you are not distinguishing between authentic science and Marxist-Leninist anti-religious atheistic propaganda, which is being promoted by perhaps a few scientists here and there. This might charitably be called “stupid” or “moronic”; it might be called “wicked” and “evil”.

Abe said...

Larry,
Why are you debating Jacob Stein? To debate a serious opponent to scrutinize differently held beliefs, you need to respect your opponent.
Mr. Stein eschews evolution, which deluded as he may be, would not entirely make him crackpot. However he utilizes various crackpot beliefs to make his convictions fit with his septic principles.
On more than one occaision he has cited a midrash that states the black race originated with Ham.

The midrash states that Ham had sex with a dog in the ark and thus became Black.

Bereshit Rabba, Parasha Noach 36.7
"R Hiyya said: Ham and the dog copulated in the Ark, therefore Ham became Black-skinned while the dog publicly exposes its copulation"

So why are you debating an unabashed crackpot. Its like arguing with with a 9/11 conspiricist. They have zero credibility. Are these people really worth your effort ?

jewish philosopher said...

"So why are you debating an unabashed crackpot."

But believing worms can turn into people all by themselves, that's rational. That happens everyday.

Abe said...

Mr. Stein, my response is not to debate you, that is futile as I have demonstrated.
I'm responding to show your readers that you're an idiot on this point. This does not mean that you're not an idiot on your other beliefs. Its simply that you're a liar. Evolutionists do not claim and have never claimed that worms turn into people. You just ignorantly misrepresent evolutionary theory and set up a straw man argument.

OTOH, you really do believe that midrash. Just one more reason that you have proven yourself to be an idiot.

jewish philosopher said...

"my response is not to debate you, that is futile as I have demonstrated"

Because I'm right. Don't argue, just agree and repent.

"you're an idiot on this point"

Based on what? Your personal incredulity? That's a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

"Evolutionists do not claim and have never claimed that worms turn into people."

Sure they do.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990322062150.htm

Abe said...

"Evolutionists do not claim and have never claimed that worms turn into people."

Sure they do.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990322062150
*******************

More lies. Here's the result of the website address and search:

ScienceDailyUpdated: Friday, August 7, 2009 Print Email BookmarkHelp Page
The page you are looking for may have moved or is currently under construction. You can start at our home page or use our search engine to look for a recent science news story. Just type in a keyword in the field below and press the Search button.

It seems that Mr. Stein's resolution to the existance of the black race will continue to rest in his confidence in the veracity of that crazy midrash. I suppose its not much worse than the 9/11 conspiracies, although, personaly I think you have to be just a bit crazier than the conspiratists to believe that Ham had sex with a dog.

jewish philosopher said...

Abe, wow, you really caught me on that one!! I didn't think anyone would actually check it out, but you did, you little atheist bastard!!

Well, here's an idea:
Right click on the "comments" link for this post. Then click on "open in a new window". Then put the ENTIRE url in the browser address box and press enter.

Also, get a spell checker. It's a good investment.

SearchingForMeaning said...

"Nothing became chemicals"

Whoaaaaah. Who ever said anything about nothing? I don't recall anyone ever saying the universe isn't eternal...if god can b eternal, so can the universe.

jewish philosopher said...

Well then I guess you haven't heard about the Big Bang.

"in the Big Bang model, space and time were created in that initial moment"

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

Anonymous said...

The writer of jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com has written a superior article. I got your point and there is nothing to argue about. It is like the following universal truth that you can not disagree with: Just because it's a "well known fact" doesn't mean it's true. I will be back.