Sunday, July 03, 2011

Know What to Answer a Heretic (Avos 2:19)


[the Jonestown victims - don't drink the Kool Aid]

In my experience, there are two primary arguments which atheists use to support their belief that the Biblical God does not exist and evolution created us.

The first, more logical however lesser known, is an argument from facts.

The fact is a something known as biostratigraphy. This is the discovery, about 1840, that fossils in sedimentary rock present themselves in distinct assemblages. There are for example fossil assemblages which include trilobites, other assemblages which include dinosaurs and so on. This seems to contradict the creation story in Genesis, which seems to imply that all life was created six thousand years ago and while some species have surely become extinct since then, any fossil strata should include modern day living species as well as any extinct ones. In fact, many strata, perhaps most, contain only extinct species of plants and animals.

The correct explanation for this is that these fossils represent remnants of earlier eras in earth's history, prior to Adam, as I have explained here. The facts therefore do not contradict the Torah.

The second, and more popular, argument for atheism is an argument from authority.

This argument states that if a vast majority of eminent, let's say Nobel prize winning, scientists, believe that a certain concept is true, then it is true beyond reasonable doubt and any rational person should be willing to literally bet his life, his afterlife, his family's lives, everything in this world and in any other worlds, on the truth of that concept. This applies even if the concept appears to be absurd, even if the scientists are not able to provide convincing evidence supporting the concept to a layman and even if there is a clear self serving reason for the scientists to promote the concept. Therefore evolution must be accepted as a fact and the Bible rejected as a myth, even though evolution is clearly nonsense and even though scientists clearly have a strong interest in discrediting the Bible and endorsing evolution, because by doing so they negate the influence of the clergy and promote themselves as being society's most important intellectuals. They are no longer merely studying God's handiwork while the theologians study God Himself; rather now scientists are unraveling the secrets of the universe while the clergy are simply liars or idiots.

Of course, if someone is willing to set aside his own critical thinking and blindly embrace anything taught by the "great leaders", he could just as well have followed Jim Jones into his suicide pact.

78 comments:

Joe said...

Two comments.
First, Why couldn't it be that most species got extinct by the deluge and therefore it is seen just a little modern species of today in the fossils?
Second, I would like to say that today with the scientists reminds me of the dark ages when the clergy held everyone hostage with their ideas and no one couldn't dare question them. the same is today no one dares to question the scientists no matter what they tell you to believe.
No freedom then, No freedom now.
Happy fourth of July!

Alex said...

"even though evolution is clearly nonsense "

You should've narrowed down your criticism, because even you probably believe in some subset of the theory of evolution.

jewish philosopher said...

" Why couldn't it be that most species got extinct by the deluge"

The problem basically is that together with dinosaurs we should find rabbits and rose bushes, however we don't or it is extremely, extremely rarely found that way.

"even you probably believe in some subset of the theory of evolution"

This is a trick evolutionists frequently use. They'll say "Look, Americans today are on the average taller than their great-grandparents were a century ago. You see - evolution is real!"

Evolution actually is what Richard Dawkins calls "The Blind Watchmaker" - a mindless natural process which refutes intelligent design theories because it can create machines without any intelligent agent being involved. This is the basis of atheism, as I've explained here.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/06/atheism-myth_13.html

This is clearly nonsense, as I've explained here.

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

Joe said...

JP.
I'm not sure if a lot of today's species are being found in the fossils or not.
however if they do, I would say that this is the reason why its rarely found, because it was rare then too, the others just got extinct by the deluge.

Alex said...

Evolutionists are not playing any tricks when they say to you, "Why are you carelessly stating your objection to all of evolution, when in fact you believe in some of it, such as micro-evolution"?

My comment was not about the truth or falsehood of evolutionists' positions. It's about your not-thought-out statement of your position.

jewish philosopher said...

"Evolutionists are not playing any tricks when they say to you"

That's exactly what the deception is. "You believe that children are different than their parents, right? Anyone can see that. Therefore you must agree that great-great-great etc etc grandchildren could sprout completely new limbs and organs! Watchmaker analogy of Reverend Paley refuted! Atheism wins!"

This is just nonsense and an obvious lie.

It's like claiming that each new copy of a manuscript is a little different than the last one, new copyist errors being introduced. Therefore you must agree that eventually entirely new chapters and volumes will appear, proving that books need not have any author at all.

Alex said...

You're giving an extreme example of "evolution".
I'm talking about regular examples, like bacterial resistance, and the like.

avraham said...

hello jp...is there an e mail address i can contact u at?

thanks

jewish philosopher said...

"You're giving an extreme example of "evolution"."

I'm giving the only meaningful example of evolution. Evolution means: watches don't need watchmakers, therefore William Paley's watchmaker analogy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#William_Paley

is refuted and atheism is now plausible as Richard Dawkins points out

"although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

and physicist and atheist Steven Weinberg also points out

"What happened was that much of the early basis for religious belief was dissolved by science. It wasn't that scientific discoveries made religion impossible... it's that they made irreligion possible. It became possible to understand how things worked without the religious explanation and particularly, I think, more important than anything any physicist did, was what Darwin did, Darwin and Wallis."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7800058/Atheism-Tapes-II

So no spontaneous watch, such as an eye or heart, then no refutation of Paley and no basis for atheism.

"is there an e mail address i can contact u at"

harrydubois@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

I'd say the primary argument that God does not exist is that there is no good evidence that any gods exist. The burden falls to you to establish that gods can exist. Then you must establish that your special god exists. You can do this very easily by showing the specific effects in the universe that gods make exclusively. A second part of your burden to establishing gods (including your personal one) is identifying their features. For instance, is your god omnipotent? Is it omniscient?

Plenty of philosophers, scientists, and random bloggers have laid out cases for atheism. These cases usually involve (1) the logical incoherence of the god concepts employed by mainstream theists, (2) the lack of direct evidence sufficient to warrant a god hypothesis, (3) the existence of a stable methodology that better accounts for events once attributed to gods, and (4) the historical fact that gods have been found ever less useful in explaining natural and human events.

Focusing on fossils and evolution as the primary arguments against the existence of gods is rather disingenuous of you because fossils and evolution are a small part of the reason that theism is ultimately incoherent.

jewish philosopher said...

Of course there is endless silly drivel out there critiquing Judaism, however these are apparently the two most impressive arguments.

If all fossil strata included modern plants and animals and if the vast majority of scientists supported intelligent design and creationism, I think atheists would have a pretty hard time convincing anyone.

Anonymous said...

"these are apparently the two most impressive arguments"

No, they are not the most impressive arguments. Far from it. As mentioned before.

The most impressive arguments deal with the logical inconsistency of all-powerful gods and the lack of evidence foe them.

Since you are not a credible source on earth's biological and geological history, your overall argument (i.e., boo to atheism) is better served by defending your concept of god. Explain why the concept is viable and how the evidence directly points to divine intervention. Poetic swoons over the wonders of the kidney do not make a direct path to gods because kidneys can be shown to have evolved (like the eyes, etc.).

But I guess it's like you say: theist have an increasingly hard time convincing anyone because the evidence always shows against them.

jewish philosopher said...

I think the leading atheists themselves have spoken on what is most convincing.

Richard Dawkins points out

"although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

and physicist and atheist Steven Weinberg also states

"What happened was that much of the early basis for religious belief was dissolved by science. It wasn't that scientific discoveries made religion impossible... it's that they made irreligion possible. It became possible to understand how things worked without the religious explanation and particularly, I think, more important than anything any physicist did, was what Darwin did, Darwin and Wallis."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7800058/Atheism-Tapes-II

While Daniel Dennett has written that evolution is a universal acid:
“it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea#Universal_acid

Anonymous said...

These folks are setting Darwin's achievement in its proper context in intellectual history. They are not saying that evolution is the best argument against theism.

1) Dawkins says that Origin of Species allowed for the greatest intellects of the time to have an outlet beyond theology. Instead of having to consider how many angels could fit on the end of a pin, one could use observation and analysis to gain knowledge of the world. God was no longer sufficient, reasonable, or necessary as a hypothesis for explaining life on earth. Evolution wasn't an argument against God; it was an evidence-based hypothesis that was separate from any questions of God. Now, 150 years later, the hypothesis has come into much sharper focus than what Darwin gave us.

(2) Weinberg echoes Dawkins. in 1859 Darwin gave us an example of learning useful things in an about the world. There was no reason to invoke God. Other sciences found that they too had no reason to conjure a magic person in a magic land.

(3) The "dangerous idea" in question is natural selection, not evolution. Sh*t happens in the world, like it or not. The world adjusts and develops in response to what happens. Once you realize this, you understand that designers and creator gods are the products of wishes and hopes, not clear-headed reason.

jewish philosopher said...

"Before Charles Darwin, God was seen as the ultimate cause of all design, or the ultimate answer to 'why?' questions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea#Part_I:_Starting_in_the_Middle

You can ramble on all you like, however Darwin is to atheism what Jesus is to Christianity.

And when all the evidence of evolution is refuted

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/

Atheists ALWAYS fall back on the appeal to scientific authority

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_83_of_139

natschuster said...

Anonymous:

The origin of the Universe is still a mystery. Scientists are still struggling to explain why the Universe appears exquisitely fine-tuned to accomodate life. The origin of life is still a mystery. The only thing atheists have is evolution. for everything else the only response is "we hope to have an answer for you someday." There are, of course, big problem with evolution. And evolution itself is an attempt to explain the fact that life appears to be designed without actually coming on to design. Design is the default explanation. And there are big problems with evolution. Evolution requires constant adjustments like deep homology,horizontal gene transfer, etc. And evolution still can't explain things like the mind, morality, or the origin of religion. Of course, scientists come up with lots of theories.
The response is inevitably "we have faith that science will answer the big questions someday." I don't see how tht faith is justified.

Anonymous said...

"You can ramble on all you like, however Darwin is to atheism what Jesus is to Christianity."

Even if this were so--although your analogy is completely absurd--you've danced yourself away from the real issues. These issues are, again: (1) the logical incoherence of the god concepts employed by mainstream theists, (2) the lack of direct evidence sufficient to warrant a god hypothesis, (3) the existence of a stable methodology that better accounts for events once attributed to gods, and (4) the historical fact that gods have been found ever less useful in explaining natural and human events.

It's very simple. You have no reason upholding your religious beliefs, you cannot answer the strongest objections to theism, and evolution works better as an explanation than god. You're afraid and angry.

jewish philosopher said...

In this post, I list and refute the two strongest and most popular arguments used to support atheism. Of course, people could dream up all kinds of arguments. "If there is a God, He would make me pancakes everyday for breakfast." Sure.

Regarding the validity of Judaism, I demonstrate that here

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

I don't see where you have refuted me.

natschuster said...

Anonymous:

I listed a whole lot of things that science can't explain. Does that mean that science isn't useful? The Stable Methodology leaves a lot of stuff unanswered. Evolution based entirely on indirect evidence, so I guess that means it is no good.

Nc said...

"The correct explanation for this is that these fossils represent remnants of earlier eras in earth's history, prior to Adam, as I have explained here. The facts therefore do not contradict the Torah. "

There is no logical or honest way to reconcile the two. Your proposed explanation of repeated creative emanations each week day does not fit into the biblical story, and certainly not with the account of the creation of the celestial bodies occurring in the same period.

Regarding the argument from authority, your "refutation" could be made about much scientific knowledge in other field in which we much rely on the expertise of others. These include quantum physics and relativity. So because you, the layman JP can't understand something, it must be a bullshit conspiracy theory.

jewish philosopher said...

My interpretation of Genesis  

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

cannot be brushed off as an ad hoc apology since it is based on rabbinic sources written centuries before any apology was needed.

Do quantum physics and relativity appear to be absurd, are scientists not able to provide convincing evidence supporting them to a layman and is there a clear self serving reason for scientists to promote them? If all those conditions are met, I would be highly suspicious of them too.

natschuster said...

NC:

The Midrashim and Agadatas that talk about cyckes of creation and destruction are based on very careful precise readings of the Torah. That's how Midrash works. So they do not contradict what the Torah writes.

nc said...

The Midrash that you quote addresses only the fossil problem, and does not at all reconcile the question of astronomy/cosmology, and it's obvious contradiction with the 6000 year biblical account.. It also does not address the fact of finding remnants of MODERN MAN dating back 100,000 years. How could Adam be the "ancestor of all men alive today"?

The remainder of that post, regarding the days of the week, etc, seems to be entirely your invention.

nc said...

Nathan

Please tell me how a "precise and careful" reading of the Torah would reconcile jp's midrash with the text. I challenge you.

And if you can do that, I can make the Torah say anything that I want, too. I can claim that between the lines, the Torah allows homosexuality and premarital sex.

Anonymous said...

"My interpretation of Genesis...cannot be brushed off as an ad hoc apology since it is based on rabbinic sources written centuries before any apology was needed."

No, people recognized early on that Genesis conflicted with the reality. An old, wrong apology is still a wrong apology. The main question is what evidence is available to support the explanation. This question, conveniently, never gets answered.

"Do quantum physics and relativity appear to be absurd, are scientists not able to provide convincing evidence supporting them to a layman and is there a clear self serving reason for scientists to promote them? If all those conditions are met, I would be highly suspicious of them too."

Do Judaism and other religions appear to be absurd, are clergy and religious bloggers not able to provide convincing evidence supporting them to a layman, and is there a clear self -serving reason for clergy and religious bloggers to promote them? If all those conditions are met, I would be highly suspicious of them too.

Exactly.

jewish philosopher said...

"The Midrash that you quote addresses only the fossil problem"

Which is the only real problem. No fossils, no atheism.

"No, people recognized early on that Genesis conflicted with the reality"

Who?

"Do Judaism and other religions appear to be absurd"

Nope.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/12/look-at-world-with-innocent-eyes.html 

"are clergy and religious bloggers not able to provide convincing evidence supporting them to a layman"

Nope.

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

Anonymous said...

"I can make the Torah say anything that I want, too. I can claim that between the lines, the Torah allows homosexuality and premarital sex."

Of course you can. There's nothing in the Torah itself that indicates it should be interpreted the way JP and Nat want. JP and Nat rely on three fallacies: the argument from authority, the argument from tradition, and the argument from age.

What they don't rely on is reason, observation, and experiment. If they want to claim that the world is freshly created every Thursday at 4:00 PM EDT, then they better show how others can verify the claim. Otherwise, the claim cannot be taken seriously.

jewish philosopher said...

Let me put it like like this. Find one statement written by an orthodox rabbi prior to 1859 implying that we are descended from monkeys and you win $100. Anything - Talmud, Kabbala, you name it.

natschuster said...

Anonymous:

the fossil record actually matches the midrash better than evolution. The fossl record does not show change from one species to another, which is what evolution is. The fact that the fossil record shows different species living at different times, which is exactly what the Midrash says.
So we are using observation to support our beliefs.


And yuo rely on authority when you say what you say.

NC and anonymous:

First of all, saying that the Torah doesn't what we say it says isn't a probelm for us, because we believe that the Judaism has always considered the Torah Se Bal Pe to be Torah. So it isn't a problem Judaism.

And how would Rabbi's living 2000 year ago recognize that at some point in the distant future wuld say things that would contradict the Torah?

Now, Midrash Rabba says that the Posuk says Veyehi Erev Vayehi Boker, when it could have said Vayehi erev Vavoker. The extra word is refering to extra periods.

And the Gemora in Chagiga syas that the Troah starts with a Beis because Beis is faces away from what proceeds Bereshis, telling us we should concern oursleves with what came before. That means that something came before. The Gemora learnes from here that this would is like a palace built on a garbage dump. The fossil record is exactly waht we would expect if this was true.

And the Gemora extrapolates from a posuk in Tehillim that there is were 976 generation that proceeded Adam.

Anonymous said...

"Let me put it like like this. Find one statement written by an orthodox rabbi prior to 1859 implying that we are descended from monkeys and you win $100. Anything - Talmud, Kabbala, you name it."

Let me put it like this. Show me how others can verify your claim. It's been done before: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtml

nc said...

JP, you didn't answer my question. How do you reconcile 100000 year old human skeletons and the age of the celestial bodies with the creation story?

jewish philosopher said...

"Let me put it like this. Show me how others can verify your claim."

I don't get it. What claim?

And incidentally, the burden of proof lies on atheists to demonstrate that evolution is true; I don't need to prove it's false.

"JP, you didn't answer my question. How do you reconcile 100000 year old human skeletons"

I explain that.

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

Anonymous said...

"What claim?"

The one that different creations "are spiritually reenergized today" [your words].

jewish philosopher said...

This is how I interpret the bible in light of current science.

Anonymous said...

"This is how I interpret the bible in light of current science."

Wonderful. Now, show how others can verify your interpretation.

nc said...

JP, I do not understand how your post explains this. The Torah very clearly states that prior to the first day, there was emptiness and void, and only afterwords were the sun, moon, and people were created. You state that the words are literally true, how could that be true 6000 years ago, if there were lost worlds before that? how could fossils exist if there was no universe prior to 6000 years?

jewish philosopher said...

Read “Mysteries of the Creation” by Rabbi David Brown.

http://www.eichlers.com/Product/Books/Jewish_Thought/Mysteries-of-the-Creation-%5BHardcover%5D-_f145-x.html

Anonymous said...

Sweet. You just cannot provide a direct answer to a direct question.

If you can't explain how others would verify your interpretation through observation and experiment, just say so.

You've wasted my time. All you have is "your interpretation," a convenient mix of arguments from your preferred authorities.

jewish philosopher said...

It gets much sweeter. The burden of proof lies on you, the atheist to prove that the fossils demonstrate that the Torah is bogus. You can't do that because I have demonstrated how the Torah and the fossils can be easily reconciled.

Anonymous said...

"The burden of proof lies on you, the atheist to prove that the fossils demonstrate that the Torah is bogus."

Sure. No problem: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtml

and a commentary of Senter's paper:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/turnabout_is_fair_play_2.php

The money quote: "So, effectively, these results, made using the creationists own tools, demonstrate a genetic relationship between a diverse group of animals that evolution predicted, and confronts young earth creationists with the problem of a kind of frantically prolific speciation that is unimaginably rapid. If species are that fluid and can change that rapidly, their own claims of fixity of species are patently wrong."

I look forward to seeing you at the next Atheist convention. If you need money for admission, I'm happy to front it.

jewish philosopher said...

These articles are, regarding my beliefs at any rate, a straw man argument: a fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

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

Apparently Phil Senter, Associate Professor of Biology Fayetteville State University Fayetteville, NC has demonstrated that the fossil evidence contradicts baraminology, a subfield of creation science developed in the 1990s among creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise.

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

Now that's great, however I have never before heard of baraminology, I'll bet no other Orthodox rabbi has either and it may well be complete nonsense. If Professor Senter has proven that, it's fine with me. He hasn't disproved Orthodox Judaism.

ksil said...

"He hasn't disproved Orthodox Judaism."

He hasn't disproved Christianity
He hasn't disproved Islam
He hasn't disproved Budhism
He hasn't disproved Santa Claus
He hasn't disproved FSM
He hasn't disproved Zeus

Its all the same BS JP, just with a different tag. too bad you cant see that

take off your blinders

jewish philosopher said...

But your god, evolution, is so much better. Worms turned into people. The Virgin Mary is the ultimate in rationalism compared to that.

Anonymous said...

"But your god, evolution, is so much better."

Amen. Let us worship evolution by refraining from bacon. Let us make love to our wives through holes in a sheet. Let us light magic candles every week and let us kill those who don't. And let us make mortal enemies of our neighbors because evolution gave this land to us, not them. It says so in our 3500 year old book that wasn't recently shown to have been composed as the Documentary Hypothesis said.

jewish philosopher said...

"The Torah very clearly states that prior to the first day, there was emptiness and void, and only afterwords were the sun, moon, and people were created."

Prior to Sunday. But which Sunday? Perhaps a Sunday 15 billion years ago.

You must bear in mind that the Genesis creation story has always been regarded as laden with mysterious, mystical meanings which may not be publicized.

According to the Talmud "Ma'aseh Bereshit [the creation story] must not be explained before two"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah#Prohibition_against_study

The simple southern baptist Sunday school version is incomplete and misleading.

jewish philosopher said...

"Let us worship evolution by refraining from bacon"

Bacon's actually not so healthy.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/pork-products/7356/2

Lean beef is better

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3574/2

Or chicken breast

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/poultry-products/703/2

"Let us make love to our wives through holes in a sheet."

 Anti-Semitic lie.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/sheet.asp

But if it turns you on, I have no objections. Whatever works.

"Let us light magic candles every week"

Sorry, they are just regular candles. Talmudic law actually discourages magic shows.

http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5757/kedoshim.html

"let us kill those who don't"

There are almost no orthodox Jewish killers. 

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

It's a shame atheists can't say the same. The mass murderer Jim Jones mentioned in this post was an atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple#cite_note-19

"And let us make mortal enemies of our neighbors because evolution gave this land to us, not them."

Along with about 85% of orthodox Jews, I'm not a zionist.

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

"Documentary Hypothesis"

I refute that here.

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

ksil said...

"But your god, evolution..."

stop with the straw man - just try to support your own views

"Genesis creation story has always been regarded as laden with mysterious, mystical meanings"

JP, its makes more sense when you say it like this

"Genesis creation story has recently been regarded as laden with inconsistencies, untruths and out right false hoods. in addition, its so far removed from reality that such an event could NEVER have occured, we are going to start keeping the bible with the children's books in the library"

jewish philosopher said...

Take a worm, put it in a jar and when it turns into a person you can start critiquing my religion. Lol.

natschuster said...

Ksil:

Evolutionists often say "we hope to have an answer for yuo someday" or " if it could have happened, then it duid happen." Or they say things like "well, we know its a problem, but since we know evolution happened we expect to find a solution any day now." Evolution requires lots of epicycles like horizontal gene transfer, deep homology, punctuated equilibrium, etc. And there are contradictions. Assisstant Professor, P.Z. Myers recently said that evolution predicts similarties between embryos. It also predicts differences. But I forgot. Your beliefs are based entirely on a pure, simple, childlike faith. It must be sooooo easy living possessing faith so that it can remains unshaken dispite all evidence and logic. I envy you.

nc said...

"Take a worm, put it in a jar and when it turns into a person you can start critiquing my religion. Lol."

JP, please tell us why an imagined, unseen, intelligent creator who is also a sadistic mass murderer is more believable than your worm in a jar.

jewish philosopher said...

I've made that quite clear here

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

And here

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

Also, you're confusing tough love with sadism as I've explained here

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/kindness-of-suffering.html

NC said...

"Also, you're confusing tough love with sadism as I've explained here"

That's a tough sell, JP. Killing your children to "teach them a lesson" doesn't make sense to most people, I'm afraid.

"Prior to Sunday. But which Sunday? Perhaps a Sunday 15 billion years ago."

JP, if the creation story refers to something that happened 15 billion years ago, then what exactly is literal about the story?

Nathan- everybody relies on somebody. You have no choice in a complex world. So you rely on rabbis from 2000 years ago. I rely on present day scientists. Neither are infallible, but when it comes to understanding nature, I'll go with where the money is.

jewish philosopher said...

"Killing your children to "teach them a lesson" doesn't make sense to most people, I'm afraid."

Let's say I would be psychic and I would know the future and I would strangle little baby Adolf Hitler in his crib in 1889. I don't see any sadism there. You're indulging in insane ranting. You are questioning God's justice while you stuff yourself with all the blessings God showers on you. Do you still think that eternal damnation is too extreme a punishment for atheists like you?

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

"if the creation story refers to something that happened 15 billion years ago, then what exactly is literal about the story?"

What's not literal? It's you're assumption that Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is referring to seven consecutive days which happened one time only.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

nc said...

JP- so what happened 6000 years ago?

so all the Jewish babies killed in the death camps were destined to become Hitlers?

you're having a tough time hiding your psychopathic tendencies. only a psychopath could see "justice" in such a scheme. somewhat like the psychopathic mass murderers who see "justice" in killing their victims.

have you been diagnosed?

nc said...

JP- so what happened 6000 years ago?

so all the Jewish babies killed in the death camps were destined to become Hitlers?

you're having a tough time hiding your psychopathic tendencies. only a psychopath could see "justice" in such a scheme. somewhat like the psychopathic mass murderers who see "justice" in killing their victims.

have you been diagnosed?

jewish philosopher said...

"JP- so what happened 6000 years ago?"

The creation of Adam.

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_calendarstart.

"so all the Jewish babies killed in the death camps were destined to become Hitlers?"

They might have become heretic like you, which may be worse.

natschuster said...

NC:

When scientists talk about what they see in nature, they tend to get it right. The problem is when they start speculatng about origins based on metaphysics and theologyu, that they run into trouble. And, since evolution is largy based on theology, can't theologians have some say?

Joe said...

Everybody suffers only for his sin if he hadn't commit a sin he wouldn't suffer. Good people suffer for not protesting against or/and not separating themselves from the evil doers.
And every child, once it starts existing chooses its character traits whether to be bad or good or in between, And that what it states that in heaven is not being punished someone under 20, is only for the thinks the child couldn't have known for he was too young find out, but a evil person gets punished no matter how old.

ksil said...

I wish i had it in me to believe in such fairy tales - every week when i listent to the parsha, thats what i think.

bila'am, balak, talking donkeys - oh i wish i was just so irrational. but alas, god gave me a brain! and reason! and an ability to think! so i use it, and realize that these are all man-made stories.

but you guys can enjoy the fairy tales all you want. i hope it makes you happy. (i just feel bad for your kids, who are being brainwashed and given no "freedom of choice")

jewish philosopher said...

I think you're forgetting that according to atheism we have choice; we're all zombies.

http://www.naturalism.org/atheism.htm#littlegod

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/04/0915161107.full.pdf+html

ksil said...

"according to atheism ...."

please change the name of your blog to strawman.blogspot.com

thank you

jewish philosopher said...

Like many religious believers, atheists are ignorant of many of their own religion's more ridiculous teachings.

ksil said...

just say this "I know what you beleive better than you do!!"

HAHAHAHA

genius

i know what you believe to. you believe in an invisible man in the sky, that listens to your prayers and wants you to smell spices on saturday night and walk around a room 7 times with willow branches. oh yea, he likes slavery and hates fags.

be proud, JP!

LOL

jewish philosopher said...

You hate pedophiles.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/11/stop-hatred-all-of-it.html

Who decided that's OK. lol.

jewish philosopher said...

here is the correct link for the Jewish calendar starting from Adam

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_calendarstart.htm

Abe said...

"nc said...
JP- so what happened 6000 years ago?

so all the Jewish babies killed in the death camps were destined to become Hitlers?

you're having a tough time hiding your psychopathic tendencies. only a psychopath could see "justice" in such a scheme. somewhat like the psychopathic mass murderers who see "justice" in killing their victims.

have you been diagnosed?"

Yeah, he's been diagnosed, but won't heed the advice of physicians to refrain from interupting his anti-psychotic prescription regimen.
Why do you think he's been fired from his job, been expelled from nursing school and has become a pariah in his community? .. Oh yeah ... he'll try to convince you its because he's really a reincarnation of Job and all his suffering is really a manifestation of gods love. But that's the standard confession of a common psycho.

jewish philosopher said...

Abe, I see, so anyone having the courage to express an unpopular idea is a psychopath.

From the sound of some people like you and ksil, you are probably both in a locked psychiatric ward. Some allow Internet access.

natschuster said...

Ksil:

Why is quantum mechanics, or evolution, bacteria turning int oblue whales any more logical than talking donkeys? And if multiverse the perfectly scientific theory of multiverse is true, then there exists a universe where donkeys talk. All perfectly scientific.

Abe said...

"natschuster said...
Ksil:

Why is quantum mechanics, or evolution, bacteria turning int oblue whales any more logical than talking donkeys? And if multiverse the perfectly scientific theory of multiverse is true, then there exists a universe where donkeys talk. All perfectly scientific."

Because there is substantial scientific evidence for evolution, but there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for talking donkeys. Multiverse is not a theory. It is unproven conjecture. You really need to understand the scientific difference between conjecture, hypothesis and theory.
I'm not surprised at your sclerotic logic, considering that it develops from similar torah vacuity.

Abe said...

"jewish philosopher said...
Abe, I see, so anyone having the courage to express an unpopular idea is a psychopath."

Its not just your ideas that are unpopular. Many people may have ideas that are unatractive but rarely display them. Its your psychopathic motivations that causes you to act them out. Job termination and school expulsion are probably the least of your anti-social activities. God only knows what other unbalanced activities you engage in.

jewish philosopher said...

It would be fascinating to know what percentage of Jewish skeptic bloggers have ever held a job, been accepted into a school, gotten married, purchased a home, raised children, etc and what percentage are blogging from within the walls of a locked institution. Like you, I would guess.

You know what they say: pot - kettle.

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

natschuster said...

Abe:

Quantum physics is just as miraculous as talking donkeys. Multiverse is an attempt by scientists to explain an observed phenomenon of our universe. It is certainly considered a possibility.

ksil said...

"what percentage of Jewish skeptic bloggers have ever....."

keep hoping - but, JP, we are regular dudes, with good jobs, families kids, well-adjusted.

no brainwashing going on in our homes

jewish philosopher said...

Sure. I'll bet you're a gay girl in Damascus.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/06/dont-trust-anonymous-bloggers.html

natschuster said...

Ksil:

When people become Orthodox, they often get involved in the Chesed, Tzedaka, etc. etc. etc. that is so all peervasive in every Orthodox community. The people who leave Orthodoxy talk about how happy they are, but there is no mention of Chesed involvement. Could it be when people leave Orthodoxy there is a net decrease in Chesed? That's just sad.

ksil said...

Could it be when people leave Orthodoxy there is a net decrease in Chesed?

i would say that the chesed that people do for others outside of their (old) little bubble increases.

OJ's care about 1 type of person. OJs. thats sad.

jewish philosopher said...

And atheists care only about #1.

natschuster said...

Ksil:

Hatzola in my neighborhood aswers calls from everybody. They don't ask about the caller's ethnicity. And non-frum people avail themselves of some of the local tzedaka's. Now, when people leave orthodoxy, how much involvement is there in chesed for anyone, inside the group or out.

I recall reading a study that showed that OJ's give more to non-denomonational charities, e.g. medical research than non-OJ's.