Wednesday, October 21, 2009

So what?


[new ads in New York subways]

Probably another million are even better with God and without evolution.

117 comments:

Alex said...

This is where so many atheists get it wrong. They think most believers think of them as being immoral. (JP might be an exception.) In fact, most believers can name very nice and upstanding atheists. It's that believers think that atheists, in general, have no stable moral SYSTEM. It's the cut flowers syndrome. A cut flower might look prettier than a planted flower. However, over a course of time, the cut flower is going to die.

Of course, atheists can point to religious folks who believe in a stable system which includes some BAD ethics, and of course believers can so easily let their adherence to the /good/ ethics slack off, so believers have their work cut out for them in making these arguments.

Anonymous said...

Well, a number of atheists have responded, when I told them that if they succeed in their goal of making the world atheistic that, if history is any indiction, we can expect to see a marked increase in mass murder, that it is okay, because the motivation for the murder wouldn't be atheism. so basically atheists seem to believe that mass murder is not a problem, as long is it isn't done to promote atheism. I find that a little troubling.

Anonymous said...

"over a course of time, the cut flower is going to die."

the planted one too....

jewish philosopher said...

The moral problems I see with atheism are the following:

According to atheism, there are no consequences to our actions other than the obvious material ones. Therefore if I believe that I am smart enough or lucky enough to get away with crime, I’ll do it.

According to atheism human life has no value. We are merely miniscule bags of chemicals stuck to the surface of an insignificant planet.

According to atheism, we have no personal responsibility for anything which we do. If we murder, this is merely the result of brain chemistry and bad influences, but not any bad choice because free will does not exist.

If we do find atheists living peaceful, honest, sober lives (which as far as I know is actually rare) this is the result of the influence of parents and grandparents who were not atheists. It is in spite of their atheism.

Atheists may claim that they are good because invariably crime does not pay in the long run (which is not necessarily true – look at Stalin and Mao who died peacefully in bed) or because humans are instinctively good (which is nonsense – read a history book or a newspaper).

Anonymous said...

so the argunment for God is compelling - but the orthodox, extreme, fundametal religion is too big of a pill to swallow. Too many loose ends, contradictions, unreasonable conclusions.

jewish philosopher said...

"too big of a pill to swallow"

Discipline. That's all it takes. God will help you.

"Too many loose ends, contradictions, unreasonable conclusions."

To me, that sounds like evolution, not Judaism.

Anonymous said...

you avoid the point.

"Discipline. That's all it takes. "

the amish say that too. and the muslims and christians and hindus and moremans....everyone thinks THEY have it - but its all BS

jewish philosopher said...

We've got proof.

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

They don't. And neither to evolutionists.

bankman said...

"proof"

ha! LOL

wish you would just say you have emunah and leave it at that....but "proof" - you just sound like a loser.

jewish philosopher said...

It's a lot more proof than you've got of evolution, believe me. Loser.

Abe said...

>>>According to atheism, there are no consequences to our actions other than the obvious material ones. Therefore if I believe that I am smart enough or lucky enough to get away with crime, I’ll do it.

A lie, a total fabrication of atheistic values.


>>According to atheism, we have no personal responsibility for anything which we do. If we murder, this is merely the result of brain chemistry and bad influences, but not any bad choice because free will does not exist.

Another calumny. Even if man were no more than a higly evolved bag of chemicals, it does not follow that human life has no value.
Another example of rancid inferences derived from septic logic from JP, the master of both. No wonder fundamentalist discernment is held in such disrespute by almost all recognized scholars.

>>>If we do find atheists living peaceful, honest, sober lives (which as far as I know is actually rare) this is the result of the influence of parents and grandparents who were not atheists. It is in spite of their atheism.

Hmmm, you might expect all those newly minted atheists to kill their parents as revenge for keeping them in darkness all their lives. Their retribution would be as dopey as JP's premise.

As ususal JP creates a misrepresented strawman. From a fundie's standpoint its the only way to discredit atheism. He can't employ the rules of logic, so his only recourse is to demonize Stalin and Mao and expand their horrors to all atheists. I bet he enjoys it better than sex. But then again, there are so few pleasures left to fundies when the mind is captured and is rendered to a prisoner to idiocy.

jewish philosopher said...

"A lie, a total fabrication of atheistic values."

Care to explain exactly why?

"Even if man were no more than a higly evolved bag of chemicals, it does not follow that human life has no value."

Care to explain exactly why?

Abe, I think these issues are really beyond you. You should probably just stick to porn. It doesn't require good spelling.

Larry Tanner said...

JP,

I think you are way off base in assessing what atheism implies from a moral perspective.

You say: "According to atheism, there are no consequences to our actions other than the obvious material ones."

I say: "here are no divine consequences. A materialist, a naturalist, a realist - whatever - we all know from observation that every action has consequences.

You say: "According to atheism human life has no value."

I say: This is a patent mischaracterization of atheism. To reject the hypothesis that we have been created in a god's image is not - I repeat, not - to devalue human life. You insist on saying that atheism equals no value to human life, but we continually insist that we absolutely do have value - just not tied to a fictional deity. Indeed, I think by trying to lock people to a god, theists devalue humanity.

You say: "According to atheism, we have no personal responsibility for anything which we do.:

I say: I am very disappointed that you would ascribe this kind of view to atheism when it is precisely the opposite of what follows from atheism. Without gods, all there is is personal responsibility. No longer can we say "God made me do it," or "It's because of man's sinful nature." To be an atheist is to accept personal responsibility fully.

jewish philosopher said...

"we all know from observation that every action has consequences"

What consequences did Mao, Stalin or millions of other unpunished criminals suffer?

"we continually insist that we absolutely do have value"

Of course you do. You're not stupid. No one's going to like you if you tell them that you think they have no value.

"all there is is personal responsibility"

Why is a human murderer responsible for doing something he had to do according to the laws of physics and chemistry?

Larry Tanner said...

"What consequences did Mao, Stalin or millions of other unpunished criminals suffer?"

Are you asking if these people went to hell? truthfully, I don't know if they did and I don't think they did because I doubt the existence of a hell.

Is this all you want out of your religion, the mere idea that these people got what they deserved in the afterlife?

"No one's going to like you if you tell them that you think they have no value."

So you think atheists are lying, that I'm lying. OK, that's your opinion. But as I continue to maintain, the value of your life does not depend on god at all and it never has depended on god.

"Why is a human murderer responsible for doing something he had to do according to the laws of physics and chemistry?"

How interesting that you think atheism overlooks social laws that have been reasonably asserted to define responsibility and deal with it in a consistent way. You seem to see atheism as denying personal psychology, individual responsibility, and the ability to make choices about how to behave. You also equate atheism with both pure hedonism and pure materialism.

I don't think your version of atheism exists. We really just think gods don't exist and that religious self-flagellation and cries for special privilege are silly. Everything else is just the same as you.

jewish philosopher said...

I wonder why you're not answering my questions.

"You also equate atheism with both pure hedonism"

I think atheism mainly appeals to addicts - alcohol, drugs, sex, porn, etc. Atheism means they don't have to feel guilty no matter what they do.

Larry Tanner said...

I think I did answer your questions. Mao, etc. didn't go to hell. Human murderers are responsible because we have, through reason, estabkished laws that define responsibility and assign appropriate punishment for violations.

You say atheism mainly appeals to addicts. That's your opinion, I suppose, but I don't believe it. I think the appeal is mainly to the intelligent.

jewish philosopher said...

You wrote earlier:

"we all know from observation that every action has consequences"

I asked: What about criminals who went unpunished like Mao? I didn't see that answered yet.

"I think the appeal is mainly to the intelligent."

I happen to belong to American Mensa, the national high IQ society. According to the March 2006 bulletin page 26, 4.06% are atheists. We are about as diverse as the general population. Intelligence seems to have little to do with religion.

Larry Tanner said...

"I asked: What about criminals who went unpunished like Mao? I didn't see that answered yet."

You'll need to help me out. What specific action is the one you want to know about consequences?

I said the appeal of atheism is to the intelligent, not that every intelligent person is an atheist. Indeed, we know very smart people who are religious believers.

alex said...

Anonymous wrote: ""over a course of time, the cut flower is going to die."

the planted one too...."

You took the analogy too far.

Larry wrote: "To be an atheist is to accept personal responsibility fully."

Be real. To be an atheist is to choose whether or not you want to accept personal responsibility fully.

Larry Tanner said...

"Be real. To be an atheist is to choose whether or not you want to accept personal responsibility fully."

I think to self-identify as an atheist is to make this choice.

On the other hand, a religious believer gives this up. A believer will say something like "all we can do is repent and pray fervently," which is the opposite of accepting personal responsibility.

jewish philosopher said...

These comments represent the higher atheistic intelligence.

Larry Tanner said...

"These comments represent the higher atheistic intelligence."

Ha. I wish.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't see how you've refuted anything I wrote at Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:35:00 AM.

Just to insist that atheists are good, intelligent people doesn't prove much. I can insist the moon is made of cheese.

Larry Tanner said...

"I don't see how you've refuted anything I wrote at Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:35:00 AM.

Just to insist that atheists are good, intelligent people doesn't prove much. I can insist the moon is made of cheese."

I'm not trying to refute, necessarily. When you say, for example, "According to atheism, there are no consequences to our actions other than the obvious material ones," I think this is basically true if it means that there is no divine retribution for human actions.

But then you go too far to follow with this conclusion: "Therefore if I believe that I am smart enough or lucky enough to get away with crime, I’ll do it."

This statmement forgets that there are indeed other consequences to crime besides divine retribution. Remember all those "obvious material" consequences? They include jail, fining, feeling guilty, hurting someone else's feelings, family shame, and so on - none of which requires a god.

Indeed many people commit crime because of their holy inspiration. They'll shoot people in a place or worship or fly planes into buildings, or embezzle, or commit espionage in the name of their god - to GET a divine reward in the afterlife!

I thik that very often when you try to insist about what atheists believe and what atheism entails, you err in a serious way. I've shown your logic is flawed in these cases by explaining how it moves to nonsequitur and to conclusions that do not follow from the premises.

jewish philosopher said...

"feeling guilty"

For what? We have no free will.

"hurting someone else's feelings, family shame"

Which is not a consequences affecting me.

"many people commit crime because of their holy inspiration"

Any Orthodox Jews in prison due to holy inspiration? The purpose of this blog is to promote Orthodox Judaism.

And incidentally, the greatest criminals in history have, so far, been atheists.

Larry Tanner said...

I don't see the logic behind your no free will comment. Free will is only a problem if you supposedly have an ominpotent god and you need to explain why people do evil things.

Forgive me, but your purpose to 'promote orthodox judaism' boils down to an elaborate exercise to try and maintain the double fantasies of (a) a god and (b) a good god.

jewish philosopher said...

"I don't see the logic behind your no free will comment."

If I have no free will so I chose nothing so I have no reason to feel guilty about anything.

"boils down to an elaborate exercise to try and maintain the double fantasies"

I think my motive is pretty clear: to be honest.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/01/motives.html

Larry Tanner said...

"If I have no free will so I chose nothing so I have no reason to feel guilty about anything."

*Sigh* But how do you get that atheism entails the non-existence of free will?

Just because I don't believe ancient stories of a sky monarch for a desert people doesn't mean that I reject the entirely separate notion that sentient beings can freely choose to take actions on their own behalf.

Indeed, because I reject that these fairy tales are reality I also accept that human behavior is a complex process that ultimately makes the individual responsible for himself/herself.

If I believed in the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing deity , I would also have to believe that I was merely his pawn and he was moving me around and controlling my thoughts and desires.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

So how do atheists explain why people do evil things? Aren't we all suppose to have empathy? And what os your basis fopr saying anything is evil? Or that evil even exists? I'm just curious.

jewish philosopher said...

"But how do you get that atheism entails"

The core belief of atheism is the concept that the Biblical God does not exist and evolution created us. Atheism is the religion based on this belief.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

This is what I have learned based on countless dialogues with atheists over many years.

From this belief it logically follows that we have no free will, since free will implies a non-physical soul and obviously a non-physical soul could not spontaneously evolve from chemicals.

According to atheism, there are no consequences to our actions other than the obvious material ones. Therefore if I believe that I am smart enough or lucky enough to get away with crime, I’ll do it.

According to atheism human life has no value. We are merely miniscule bags of chemicals stuck to the surface of an insignificant planet.

According to atheism, we have no personal responsibility for anything which we do. If we murder, this is merely the result of brain chemistry and bad influences, but not any bad choice because free will does not exist.

If we do find atheists living peaceful, honest, sober lives (which as far as I know is actually rare) this is the result of the influence of parents and grandparents who were not atheists. It is in spite of their atheism.

Atheists may claim that they are good because invariably crime does not pay in the long run (which is not necessarily true – look at Stalin and Mao who died peacefully in bed) or because humans are instinctively good (which is nonsense – read a history book or a newspaper).

Larry Tanner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry Tanner said...

"The core belief of atheism is the concept that the Biblical God does not exist and evolution created us. Atheism is the religion based on this belief."

So you actuallly distinguish between the 'belief' of atheism and atheism as a 'religion.' Uh, OK.

Larry Tanner said...

"From this belief it logically follows that we have no free will, since free will implies a non-physical soul and obviously a non-physical soul could not spontaneously evolve from chemicals."

No, it does not follow logically, and no, there is no implication. Just because you say it follows or itr implies doesn't make it so. Can you explain exactly how rejection of the god myth also destroys the notion of free will as a result?

Besides, as I have shown, belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing god undermines the concept of free will.

You say you want to be honest, but you do not seem to be doing the messy intellectual work to connect your assumptions to your conclusions.

Larry Tanner said...

"If we do find atheists living peaceful, honest, sober lives (which as far as I know is actually rare) this is the result of the influence of parents and grandparents who were not atheists. It is in spite of their atheism."

A reverse 'no true scostman' fallacy. Nicely done.

Larry Tanner said...

"The core belief of atheism..."

Pardon me, but I don't think you know enough about atheism to make statements about what atheists 'believe.'

Have you ever heard christians try to explain judaism? They always get it wrong because they always see judaism in christian terms.

You are doing the same thing by using the cloudy lenses of religion to try and examine atheism.

You are not talking about atheism, you are talking about religion, your religion, your view of what religion is.

I get you now. You see atheism as a kind of anti-religion, an "Other" to use as a receptacle for all the bad things that would otherwise undermine your sense of how great your religion is.

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

Try to see atheism not as religion's (your) other, but as it is.

Larry Tanner said...

Anonymous,

Can we agree that people do evil things? That is, some people at some times perform acts that others consider evil?

Can we also agree that while some cultures currently think it's the height of morality to punish a petty thief by severing his hand, other cultures think the punishment is excessive and even itself evil?

Can we agree on these points?

Honestly, I do not *know* why some people do evil things. But I do know that theism doesn't explain why. If you think that theism gives you the answer - because we're all SINNERS! - then my opinion is that you are fooling yourself with a comfortable untruth.

I've explained the basis for saying anything is evil: http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/10/morality-without-god.html. I tire of having to explain this ad nauseum. Now, what is your basis for saying anything is evil?

jewish philosopher said...

"Can you explain exactly how rejection of the god myth also destroys the notion of free will as a result?"

Well it really follows from embracing the evolution myth. From this belief in evolution it logically follows that we have no free will, since free will implies a non-physical soul and obviously a non-physical soul could not spontaneously evolve from chemicals.

I however believe in God, deny evolution, believe in the soul, free will and personal responsibility.

Larry, your comments would be a lot more interesting if you could provide proof, logic, reasons, etc instead of just saying what you believe - over and over. I don't think you even read half the responses people make to you.

I know many people on the Internet just get a kick out of making anti-theistic rants, but I'm not necessarily going to publish them. That’s why I moderate comments.

Larry Tanner said...

"Larry, your comments would be a lot more interesting if you could provide proof, logic, reasons, etc instead of just saying what you believer or feel - over and over."

Funny, I'm the one using clear reasoning and pointing out the gaping holes in your thinking.

I am sorry that hard-core thinking that bothers with details isn't interesting to you.

Besides, at my spot I post the proofs. Here, I just want to correct your inaccuracies and errors. It's a tough job.

For example (proof and reasoning coming) the baseless definition of atheism as a religion demonstrates how you conceive of atheism as an Other (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other). Because you see atheism as an Other, you are incapable of seeing it in anything but negative terms. It also logically follows that your funadamental position toward atheism is narcissistic. You believe that it's all about orthodox judaism, when - let's be honest - the numbers of people who know about OJ and care about it are shrinking.

Following this logic, it should be clear that your best course of action is to free yourself from your atheism obsession.

Larry Tanner said...

"I however believe in God, deny evolution, believe in the soul, free will and personal responsibility."

Yes, and you hold your beliefs without evidence, clear efinitions, or clear logical grounding. I always back up my statements but you just keep repeating the same baseless opinions again and again.

I'm trying to help you achieve the objectives of your blog, but you need to try and reason more rigorously than you have in the past. It's just not good enough anymore for you to throw out statements that have no tie to reality.

jewish philosopher said...

"Because you see atheism as an Other, you are incapable of seeing it in anything but negative terms."

While you are totally objective. Of course that's obvious.

Atheism is a belief system defining spirituality, the afterlife, man’s origin and morality and therefore I believe it is a religion. The American government defines atheism as a religion and surveys regarding religion usually include "atheism" as an option. This video clip features atheist missionaries.

Atheists may argue that since they do not believe in a personal god and do not pray, atheism is not a religion, however the same is true of some Buddhists and Scientologists.

Frankly, I would like to describe atheism as a dangerous cult.

jewish philosopher said...

"you hold your beliefs without evidence"

Wrong.

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

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, I know that you believe you are infallible and anything you say is self evidently true just because you said it. But I'm not necessarily going to post it.

Larry Tanner said...

That's fine. Censorship becomes you. But for the record, I have indeed directly answered every question asked of me, even the stupid questions. I've provided evidence and a clear path fro premise to conclusion.

If you want to use the watchmaker analogy as evidence of judaism being true, that's your call but it's a ridiculous claim because life and the universe are different than man-made, designed things. You use a bad argument, I call you on it, and then you get huffy. You employ logical fallacies, I identify them for you, and then you get huffy.

Sorry if your balloon has been busted.

jewish philosopher said...

"it's a ridiculous claim because life and the universe are different than man-made, designed things"

Obviously life and a watch are different. That's what analogy means. However both show complexity and purposefulness and in that way prove the existence of a designer.

Of course, Darwin attempted to refute that and I've refuted Darwin.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

Abe said...

>>>This video clip features atheist missionaries.

Hysterical ! JS believes that sarcastic video is evidence that atheists missionize.
But it may not be a bad way to to kill a few hours. Going door to door, debunking god and the hereafter seems a refreshing diversion from porn, drugs, alcohol and unemployment. I think we should try it out in the holy sinicure of Monsey NY.
Larry, you think you might be sober enough to join me next sunday? We'll convert a few chareidim to our religion and patronize the local whorehouse when we've completed our annointed task.
The god of atheism is good!

jewish philosopher said...

Abe, you missed the point of the video. The point was - Mormons would surely object to atheists proselytizing them, therefore it is unfair for them to proselytize atheists. Clearly, the makers of the video, who are atheists, saw no problem with the idea of atheists being missionaries.

Whether you want to call atheism a religion, philosophy or cult is not very important. I would say “evil cult” is good, something like Satanism.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/08/atheism-and-satanism.html

However to claim that atheism is “just the truth” and therefore not a religion is silly. Every religion claims it is truth. What would they claim?

Abe said...

>>>Clearly, the makers of the video, who are atheists, saw no problem with the idea of atheists being missionaries.

Clearly, your incapacity to recognize the sarcasm in that video, clouds your ability to draw logical conclusions.
The producers of that video, dripping with sarcasam, depicts all religions as a laughing stock, not just mormons. They presented mormons as the target of their derision because they are more egregiously offensive in their true-belief, proselytization than other xtian sects.

>>>However to claim that atheism is “just the truth” and therefore not a religion is silly. Every religion claims it is truth. What would they claim?

Atheism, by definition, is the truth about god's nullity, but is in no way a religion. That you persist in claiming that atheism is a religion lends credence to the adage, "misery loves company."

jewish philosopher said...

Actually Judaism, by definition, is the truth about God's existence, but is in no way a religion. That you persist in claiming that Judaism is a religion lends credence to the adage, "misery loves company."

Larry Tanner said...

Our mutual friend Hitchens makes some interesting points about the truth of god's existence. If god exists, he's fairly docile, and not particularly smart or a good decision maker is the gist.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/10/06/2706358.htm

Agree or disagree, it makes one think.

jewish philosopher said...

Christophers Hitchens is the world's best advertisement against atheism.

A drunk and a Marxist who wants to teach me how to be rational.

A man who has memorized a few questions about God which any 12 year old Jew could answer who thinks he's a philosopher.

A man who abandoned his child and pregnant wife for another woman who is going to teach me about ethics.

Anon1 said...

Larry, As Joanie Mitchell's song says,

"round and round and round in the circle game...."

If you're having fun, by all means keep going in your debate with JP. But, as you realize by now, you're not likely to change any of his dogmas.

jewish philosopher said...

I wish there was more of a debated going on. Instead, I post a reasoned article and then atheists dump some irrational rants in the comments section. When pressed for proof or logic, they just disappear.

Larry Tanner said...

I think "The Circle Game" might oiginally be a Tom Rush song, but I'd have to look it up.

I know perfectly well that JP is unlikely to change his dogmatic thinking. However, I am always amused to see how he evades and avoids whenever his faulty logic is called out. Instead of going back and working out details, he attacks.

See, for example, what he says above regarding Hitchens. It's all ad hominem, no substance.

In any event, returning to the original post, it's nice to see a positive ad making peopoe aware that their neighbors are finding natural morality free of religious superstition and dogma.

Shalmo said...

JP Jews have a gene for atheism. Hence why now a third of Jewry are secular in the US while only 6% of americans are atheists.

Also isn't the growth of atheism a good thing in the West? It means there are less christians of the "Jews for Jesus" variety trying to convert Jews to Christianity.

jewish philosopher said...

"It's all ad hominem, no substance."

This isn't:

A man who has memorized a few questions about God which any 12 year old Jew could answer who thinks he's a philosopher.

In other words, Hitchens has nothing worthwhile to say. He just stands up in front of an audience of atheists and makes some stupid jokes.

"it's nice to see a positive ad making peopoe aware that their neighbors are finding natural morality free of religious superstition and dogma."

How about an ad saying:

"A million New Yorkers are good while using drugs. Are you?"

Larry Tanner said...

"A man who has memorized a few questions about God which any 12 year old Jew could answer who thinks he's a philosopher."

You call this substance? First, you don't answer the questions. Second, you simply wave your hands and dismiss Hitchens and whatever he says. You haven't addressed the main ideas or arguments at all.

That's not substance, JP, that's evasion.

As to your last point, I suppose you are trying to say that being good without god is like being good while on drugs. It's a silly and invalid analogy because there is no basis for comparing a reasoned rejection of a certain idea (an idea, by the way, that has no empirically verificable evidence) and being under the influence of dangerous chemicals.

If your analogy were valid, then you could say that holding any unfavorable opinions or reaching any unfavorable conclusions would be equivalent to being high or drunk. If this could be said, then how would the line be drawn between favorable and unfavorale? And who would draw that line?

But again, the analogy stinks at a basic level because ingesting foreign substances has far greater effect than simply thinking and reasoning and reaching a conclusion on a matter.

You want to insist, it seems, that without god being good is aberrent behavior. If you want to make this case, it would help if you have some research from a quality research institution. Until then, you're just blowing smoke from your nether region.

jewish philosopher said...

I'm pointing out that none of Hitchens' question amount to anything.

And I'm pointing out that the subway poster is meaningless. If an addict announces "A million people are good without being clean and sober." it doesn't prove much.

Larry Tanner said...

"I'm pointing out that none of Hitchens' question amount to anything."

Maybe. Since you can't or won't address the ideas/arguments, I guess we'll never know.

The CoR poster isn't trying to prove anything. It's not a fully formed argument and it's not supposed to be. It simply invites people to learn more about the CoR community. Groups and organizations do this all the time, but apparently folks only get up in arms when atheists advertise.

jewish philosopher said...

"you can't or won't address the ideas/arguments"

If anyone has specific questions, I'm here.

"apparently folks only get up in arms when atheists advertise"

Or pedophiles, Islamic terrorists, drug dealers, etc.

Larry Tanner said...

You know, JP, you should really just fuck off. You have no ideas and no originality so you just throw around baseless associations. You really are a malicious and weak-minded imbecile.

Religious orgaizations are famous for breeding pedophiles, enabling them, and covering up their crimes. These are your people, and this is what your religion wreaks.

Once again, you show how facist and propagandist you really are. You must hate yourself to write the kinds of things you do - it's all obvious projection.

jewish philosopher said...

My comments are actually amazingly insightful, wise and well informed. I even surprise myself.

And your ignorance of Judaism is amazing. We don't have sex with children; we bleed them to death for our Passover breads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7kqpY8KtKI

How many time do I have to remind you? You've got to keep your secret atrocity stories straight, Larry.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

Do yuo have any basis for saying tht religious groups breed peodophiles? In order for that to be true, you would have to demonstrate that pedophiliua is more common among religious groups than among the non-religious. A number of studies have shown that public school teachers are, not all of whom are religious are particularly probe to molest children. And the teacher's unions are very quick to send lawyers and advocate whenever a teacher is accused.

And one of the reasons that Rabbis might protect OJ's accused of molesting is because they are afraid that the accused will not get a fair trial in a secular court.

Larry Tanner said...

"Do yuo have any basis for saying tht religious groups breed peodophiles?"

See the catholic church, for example. This qualifies as 'any basis.'

You know the old saying: 'Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym. Those who can't do either, become clergy.'

"And one of the reasons that Rabbis might protect OJ's accused of molesting is because they are afraid that the accused will not get a fair trial in a secular court."

Which I suppose makes pedophilia OK for rabbis and OJs to do, in your view. You and JP must have ripping times when you get together.

jewish philosopher said...

While you're chasing after pedophiles, Larry, you might first want to try to stop some mass murderers in your own religion, atheism.

"Yet the focus on nukes comes at the cost of other things worth noting about North Korea. Human rights, for instance. In recent years the outlines of daily life, and the state’s miserable part in it, have become plain. First came the horror stories told by refugees in China escaping the famine from 1995-98 that killed 600,000-1m people. A more detailed picture has since emerged from refugees now settled in South Korea, from aid-workers, diplomats and from satellite pictures which, among other things, map another form of encampment—the North’s gulag."

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14699661

Anonymous said...

Larry:

You didn't address my first point. Ahve you demonstrated that pedophilia is more common among Catholic preists? If it isn't then there is no basis for saying that religion breed pedophilia.

And there is a very big difference between saying that pedophilia is moral, legal and a justified, and saying that someone who is accused should get a fair trial. The whole basis of the American legal system is that the accused should get a fair trial. Y'know, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Torah also considers a fair trial an important value.

Nathan

Anon1 said...

Religious fundamentalists like JP are deluded and primitive people.

Atheists are enlightened and intelligent who see life as it is.

JP prefers the stories from a 2000 year old book to those of scientists who use reason and observation to formulate and reject hypotheses.

JP, the primitivity of your philosophy speaks for itself.

Taken to its logical conclusion, fundamentalist Judaism leads to a lifestyle such as that in Williamsburg or Bnai Brak where girls are shidduched when they are children and families are blacklisted for marrying of their children if they have inherited diseases or a "wayward" child who reject their version of Judaism.

It leads to "modestry patrols" that assualt women for not going to the back of the bus or wearing short sleeves. Or stoning people for driving on the Sabbath.

jewish philosopher said...

First of all, science doesn't conflict with my religion

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

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

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/02/torah-and-archaeology.html

although science does contradict your religion

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

Violence, drugs and drunkeness are rare in the Orthodox community

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

while atheists kill millions

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

And as far as girls are concerned, I suppose atheist communities are a paradise - where 14 year old girls are given alcohol at parties by older boys and end up in abortion clinics filled with sexually transmitted infections.

So what's wrong with Judaism? It's older than atheism? So what? Atheism is older than Wicca or Scientology.

Atheists like like Anon1 are deluded and primitive people.

Jews are enlightened and intelligent who see life as it is.

Abe said...

>>>Violence, drugs and drunkeness are rare in the Orthodox community.

Nonsense. Those disfunctional afflictions are probably epidemic in the chareidi community. Its bubbling to the surface because it can no longer suppressed by the gedolim.
http://www.vosizneias.com/40064/2009/10/20/jerusalem-opposition-grows-over-knesset-ban-against-underage-drinking.

http://media.www.yuobserver.com/media/storage/paper989/news/2009/05/05/Features/Shame.Shanda.And.Silence.Domestic.Abuse.In.The.Orthodox.Community-3736763.shtml

Larry Tanner said...

JP,

North Korea is deist. They have a living deity named Kim Jong-il. Just do a Google search of Kim Jong-il and deity. They call him the Sun of the 21st Century, the Eternal Sun, the Guardian Deity of the Planet, the Sun of Socialism, and the Ever-Victorious General (see http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... 12_01.html)

The North Koreans are either sufferring from mass delusion or fear. I suspect it is the latter, just like most monotheistic religions - follow me, subject to my will, or I'll burn you.

Alex said...

Larry Tanner wrote:
"Human murderers are responsible because we have, through reason, estabkished laws that define responsibility and assign appropriate punishment for violations."
"To be an atheist is to accept personal responsibility fully."
"Without gods, all there is is personal responsibility. No longer can we say "God made me do it," or "It's because of man's sinful nature." To be an atheist is to accept personal responsibility fully.
"A believer will say something like "all we can do is repent and pray fervently," which is the opposite of accepting personal responsibility." ( @@ )
"I also accept that human behavior is a complex process that ultimately makes the individual responsible for himself/herself."

It's time that you and JP use the exact same definition of "responsibility." It's clear that you're not and are thus talking past each other. Are you talking about /accountability/? If so, then the believer (in his mind) is accountable to God, who he HOPES will forgive him after "repenting and praying fervently" (Larry conveniently neglected to mention "rectifying the situation"). And the atheist (in his mind) is accountable to himself, who he KNOWS will forgive himself.
Sounds like the atheist has it a lot easier.
Oh, and the words before the "@@" are an example of a strawman. A real poor one at that, too.

Larry Tanner said...

"You didn't address my first point. Ahve you demonstrated that pedophilia is more common among Catholic preists? If it isn't then there is no basis for saying that religion breed pedophilia."

Nathan, go back and read. I gave you a perfetly good, factual basis.


The more important issue is why you lie and mis-represent what others say. Here is exactly what I said: "Religious orgaizations are famous for breeding pedophiles, enabling them, and covering up their crimes. These are your people, and this is what your religion wreaks."

Notice the "are famous for" in there? Notice the part after "pedophiles"? Distort and evade, distort and evade ... either you and JP are the same person or you have initimate meetings twice a week to reiterate the baloney you want to spew here.

Anonymous said...

Please pardon my going OT, but this is interesting:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125624463802402117.html

Even more problems fro Archeaopteryx as link beween birds and dinosaurs.

Larry Tanner said...

An long and interesting lecture on the origins of morality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

Bozoer Rebbe said...

JP,

You obviously want Jews to observe mitzvahs. We all have a limited amount of time. Do you think it would be better to reach out to non-frum Jews who have some positive feelings about Judaism, and use those positive feelings to encourage mitzvah observance than to waste your time trying to convince atheists that they're wrong?

It seems to me that it's more worthwhile cultivating positive thoughts about Judaism than it is trying to attack someone who's already set in their way.

Do an honest chesbon nefesh. If you haven't convinced anyone to change their beliefs or actions, you're not using your time effectively.

jewish philosopher said...

"Those disfunctional afflictions are probably epidemic in the chareidi community."

There is no evidence of that, merely anti-Jewish fantasies. You should continue looking for Israeli spies among American Jewry.

"North Korea is deist."

If they do not believe in the Biblical God and do believe in evolution, they are atheists.

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

You are like Christians who argue that the Spanish Inquisitors were not "real Christians". Likewise, Communists are not "real atheists".

"Religious orgaizations are famous for breeding pedophiles"

Atheism is a religion.

"If you haven't convinced anyone to change their beliefs or actions, you're not using your time effectively."

You are not interested in doing anything except silencing rabbis, like the Stalinists who shot us down in pits.

Let tell you a little secret Mr Bozoer Rebbe shit for brains - plenty of bullets have been fired and we are still here. I would advise to worry more about your suicidal and sexually acting out daughters rather than spending time blogging.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

The words "breeding" usually means "producing." That means that you are saying yhat religious organizations, produce more pedophiles. I don't see any basis for this.

And as far as covering it up, the only examples you have produced are the Catholic Church, and some people within the Orthodox Community. Two examples out of hundred or even thousands of religious organizations hardly qualifies as "famous." Unless by famous you mean "got a lot of press". Press reports harrdly qualify as valid statistics. And being scientific and all, you should know about statistics.

Anonymous said...

I don't have time to wathc the video. Does it adress the Darwinian origin of the human ability to act in unDarwinian ways? Like how can a personsacrificwe his life to save a stranger? Or how about unDarwinian self destructive behavior, like suicide, addiction, etc, etc.

Anonymous said...

If it doesn't, I'm not impressed.

Nathan

jewish philosopher said...

The dream of ever atheist is to discover that Orthodox Jews are secretly raping their own kids. What could be more wonderful anti-Orthodox propaganda?

Hella Winston has been banging on this for years.

http://www.atlantajewish.com/content/012006/books-sects.html

The results so far have been pretty minimal.

Larry Tanner said...

"I don't have time to wathc the video. Does it adress the Darwinian origin of the human ability to act in unDarwinian ways? Like how can a personsacrificwe his life to save a stranger? Or how about unDarwinian self destructive behavior, like suicide, addiction, etc, etc."

Yes, most if not all of this is discussed in the video. Please find just one hour for education. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo. You are always asking questions. Well, here is a great answer for you.

"If they do not believe in the Biblical God and do believe in evolution, they are atheists."

This may be your personal definition, but it's not correct general. An atheist believes in no gods, period. The so-called biblical god, who is not the only god mentioned in the bible, is on the same plane as living 'gods' such as Kim Jong-il. The biblical god is simply non-existent while Kim Jong-il is a man, although also a lunatic with enormous political and cultural power.

Alex, you seem to have difficulty making a coherent point, and you don't seem to know what makes a straw man argument a straw man argument.

Anonymous said...

Here's what American Atheists says about atheism as a religion:
-----------------------------------

Theists usually define atheism incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original Greek meaning of "without gods." That is it. There is nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled "Atheism Defined," it would only be one sentence long.

Let us look at the different definitions of religion and see if atheism belongs in any of them.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

No atheism resides in that definition. Atheists do not believe in a supernatural power or powers.

2. Beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Atheism does not have a spiritual leader and atheism does not have any rites or rituals (practices) around such a spiritual leader. Atheism requires no initiation, no baptism, there is no Atheist Bible (Koran, Vedas, etc) to read, no rituals that atheists must go through to join an Atheist Church (temple, mosque, synagogue, sect, etc), and no central beliefs that all atheists must adhere to in order to be "true atheists."

The common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Every atheist is as unique as a fingerprint when it comes to his or her individual philosophy, convictions, and ideals.

http://www.atheists.org/atheism/About_Atheism

jewish philosopher said...

"atheist believes in no gods, period"

How do you know that there does not exist a space alien, made of Dark Energy, who is capable of creating entire galaxies in a nanosecond and who has an intelligence one trillion times greater than ours? Of course you don't know that.

Rather an atheist is someone who does not believe in the Biblical God and who believes that evolution made us. This seems to be the most accurate definition.

jewish philosopher said...

[I think I may have accidentally deleted an atheistic anonymous comment here. Sorry.]

Larry Tanner said...

"How do you know that there does not exist a space alien, made of Dark Energy, who is capable of creating entire galaxies in a nanosecond and who has an intelligence one trillion times greater than ours? Of course you don't know that."

I don't know that. Neither do you. What's the difference between us? You are worshipping a space alien called "hashem" or "adonai" or ba'al" or whatever.

"Rather an atheist is someone who does not believe in the Biblical God and who believes that evolution made us. This seems to be the most accurate definition."

Nope. The biblical god could be any number of deities and semi-deities named in that book. They all are rejected for non-existence just the same as people claiming to be divine and just the same as other supposed gods, like zeus or vishnu. God = fraud.

jewish philosopher said...

"I don't know that."

So your agnostic.

Larry Tanner said...

"So your agnostic."

No, I self-identify as an atheist. Do I possess 100% certainty that my conclusions 100% accurate? No, sir.

But these mere labels are not helpful. You are an agnostic, too, unless you are claiming with 100% certainty that your conclusions are100% accurate.

If this is indeed what you are claiming, then you are either deluded or lying.

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, are you saying that atheism means:

Not believing in the existence of a being more intelligent than man.

Not believing in the occurance of an event which is not caused by the predictable, predetermined laws of nature.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

you said that atheists take resopnsibility for their own ethics. But too often the ethics include mass murder, school shootings, serial killings, etc, etc, etc.

Larry Tanner said...

"Larry, are you saying that atheism means:

Not believing in the existence of a being more intelligent than man.

Not believing in the occurance of an event which is not caused by the predictable, predetermined laws of nature."

If want to learn how indeed the universe may have come from 'nothing,' see the video at http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/, "How Everything Came from Nothing, No God Necessary"

Anonymous said...

I don't get it. Flatness means that the curvature we should expect to see according to the General Theory, if the unverse will either collapse or expand forever is not detectable. It doesn't mean that there is no energy. we know there is energy because we can detect it.

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

jewish philosopher said...

Well, getting back to atheism, to assert that nothing more intelligent than man exists seems to be baseless dogma and is contrary to the opinion of many scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#SETI

Not believing in the occurance of an event which is not caused by the predictable, predetermined laws of nature is contradicted by quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_consequences

Therefore, I suggest that an atheist is someone who does not believe in the Biblical God and who believes that evolution made us. This seems to be the most accurate definition.

Anonymous said...

Flatness is actually one of the many anthropic problems scientists are struggling with.


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


Maybe what he means is that the universe is like a virtual particle. But virtual particles ahve to disappeat before they are detected. The universe is being detected by us.

Anonymous said...

Y'know, there is a growing field called biomimetics. Engineers are studying organisms to get ideas for designing stuff. The bumps on the leaing edge of a humpback whales flippers give it better water flow. Engineers are desgining streamlined cars based on boxfish. Scientists copied a beetle's carapice to make a desalinization plant. And DNA appear to be a better for processing data than silicon. So there is something out there that is more intelligent than people.

Anonymous said...

Random quantum fluctuations are a depend on sapce and time. But before the big bang, there was neither space, nor time. So the universe couldn't bea product of random quantum fluctuations, because they could exist without space or time.

Some of the books I've read recently, like "The Endless Universe" try to get around this problem by saying that there was something before the big bang.

And the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating, so it won't stay flat. All that dark energy.

Larry Tanner said...

Nice to see all the creationists tripping over themselves when confronted with science that shows how vacuous religious explanations are.

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, I'm sorry, but no one really believes in evolution. It's just another scam.

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

Larry Tanner said...

As if I care whether people "believe in" evolution. Maybe you believe in the tooth fairy.

jewish philosopher said...

Well, without evolution, God did it.

Alex said...

Anonymous listed a couple of definitions of "religion", but the online dictionary lists some more.
Ex: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I think, using this definition, Larry Tanner is a religious man.

Anon1 said...

"Larry, I'm sorry, but no one really believes in evolution."

Fallacious argument, JP. Your "proof" that we don't embrace global warming, is reductio ad absurdum and confuses social darwinism, which is a long-defunct political philosophy, with evolutionary biology, which is science.

Most educated secular people in evolution, and to claim that "nobody believes in evolution" is false and really quite pitiful.

Larry Tanner said...

Alex,

Look up "conscientious devotion." I hardly meet that standard. There's no devotion - conscientious or otherwise - on my part.

Cleverness: you're doing it wrong.

jewish philosopher said...

A true evolutionist should be insisting on a global catastrophe. Only such catastrophes have ever caused evolution.

Obviously, the whole thing is baloney. Evolution is the mythical god of atheism, conveniently mindless so that we owe him nothing.

Larry Tanner said...

"A true evolutionist should be insisting on a global catastrophe."

Again with your "No True Scotsman" fallacy!

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

Face it, JP, you don't know what atheism is at all. You just try to religious-ify atheism to drag it into the muck where you live (figuratively speaking, of course).

God is mythical and has only the mind given him by the people who dreamed him up. They found a neat way to employ themselves, fill their coffers, and keep people in ignorance and fear. Congratulations, you're becoming their poster child.

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, the "No True Scotsman" idea is merely an example of a tautology. "All Scotsmen are by definition good. Anyone bad is not a Scotsman. Therefore all Scotsman are good." That may be true as far as it goes, but it is an unnecessary repetition of meaning, effectively saying the same thing twice.

That's basically what atheists do when I point out that Mao or Reinhard Heydrich for example were atheists. I am told "Fascism and Communism are religions so those people were not true atheists." So by definition bad people are not atheists so by definition atheists are always good.

Anyhow, we see that no one puts an ounce of faith in evolution, therefore the Watchmaker Analogy stands and God made us.

Larry Tanner said...

I know you love the watchmaker analogy, but let's think for a minute....

Are you really placing your entire bet on an analogy?

Are you really giving all your confidence in the extistence of a supremely intelligent being that is otherwise empirically unobservable to a mere analogy?

So your (ahem) logic is "I have no empirical evidence but there's an analogy I like. Therefore God exists. Therefore my God exists. Therefore my religion is correct. Therefore I am completely justified in commiting any injustice against anyone I consider to be out-group and/or thwarting me and/or my in-group."

jewish philosopher said...

"a mere analogy"

Human thought would be almost impossible without the use of analogies.

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

But of course when God is involved then suddenly analogies become flimsy and worthless. We'll deny 2 + 2 = 4 rather than accept God.

"I am completely justified in commiting any injustice against anyone I consider to be out-group and/or thwarting me and/or my in-group."

The US is currently blowing up Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and probably a few other places, while denying health care to people in the US with the wrong documents. Are there some evil priests behind all that? Or perhaps human nature?

Actually, I find Orthodox Jews are relatively pretty nice.

Anonymous said...

Larry:

I don't see how the last step in your chain follows. In the case of Judaism, it certainly isn't the case. The Torah says specifically that we are not to hate an Egyptian, harm a moabite, etc.

And atheists have no trouble killing people who belong to the "out group." They even have no trouble killing members of the in group. Just study history.

Anonymous said...

this is the problem. some sects of orthodox Jews have aligned themselves (for political reasons) with the christian far right. thus, many of their ideologies have permeated the wall that separates the two and have distorted orthodox ideals. Rav Joseph B Solveitchik himself said that their is nothing wrong with evolution, unless it guides ones ethics. just as the origins of man is not a book of morals, the bible is not a science book, evolution, creationist evolution works well with Judaism and makes more sense than the alternatives. the six days of creation were not actually six days, the Rambam states how these "days" before time are merely reference points to help us understand as they are indeed periods of time rather than 24 hr cycles of the earths rotation. in conclusion, it is sad to see that some orthodox Jews blindly reject science and truth based on elements of another religion, which in fact go against many traditional tenants of Judaism.

jewish philosopher said...

The Torah states clearly - all humans today are descended from one couple created by God 6000 years ago. Therefore evolution and Torah are contradictory.

Anonymous said...

yes, this couple was the first couple of "intelligent beings" not the first actual man-like sapiens, the torah states many things which need to be seen through a knowledge and understanding that is taught by the oral torah, which was given on sinai along with the written torah. Thus, one must be careful not to take the written torah at face value all the time lest you end up as a ka'arite.

jewish philosopher said...

Where does the oral law endorse evolution?

Anonymous said...

the teachings of the rabbis in the oral torah has always followed the science of the times. Concepts of a flat earth, geocentric universe, spontaneous generation, and many other scientific concepts which have since been disproved are all stated by the rabbis in the talmud. thus, it is appropriate to say that evolution like these other modern scientific theories are compatible with the unique LIVING BIBLE of the jews. Unlike fundamental christians we do not align ourselves with a scientific view based on the bible, just as Rashi state in Genesis that the bible is not a history book, it is not a science book either! (by the way, where do you wear your teffilin?)

jewish philosopher said...

Evolution contradicts the Torah itself and is not supported by the Talmud.

Anonymous said...

How so? If as rashi states , the torah is not a history book, the one is not bound to strict christian interpritarions. Thus no such contradictions exist!

jewish philosopher said...

In that case, was Noah a real person? What about Abraham? Moses?

Anonymous said...

Yes, the torah as well as historians, scientists, and anthropologists agree that these were all major figures in history.