Sunday, October 28, 2012

The Church of Atheism

this could just as well be Richard Dawkins the atheist leader
It's interesting how atheists passionately insist that atheism is not a religion. This is apparently done in order to make an impression that atheism is superior to mere religion. Atheism is some sort of scientific fact, according to it's believers, not just a religion.

On the other hand, I recently came across an article on salon.com. The author, Chris Stedman, a homosexual atheist, descibes having begun searching for an organized community of nontheists, which led him to a reception following a public discussion organized by a nonreligious group. At the reception he was shocked to discover that religion — and religious people — were roundly mocked, decried, and denied. He heard comments such as “Wasn’t it wonderful how intelligent the panelists were and how wickedly they’d exposed the frauds of religion? Weren’t they right that we must all focus our energy on bringing about the demise of religious myths?” and “We have the superior perspective; everyone else is lost,”

Stedman claims that as a former Evangelical Christian, these words were hauntingly familiar, and they represented a kind of sure-handed certainty and dismissal — a kind of fundamentalist thinking, really — that he’d hoped to leave behind with his “born again” beliefs.

So when you come down to it, atheists are not merely religious, but religious fundimentalists. Their belief that there is no Biblical God and evolution created us is ultimately no different than a Christian's belief that Jesus Christ is his lord and savior and anyone who believes differently is evil.

54 comments:

Dave said...

Let's imagine for the moment that atheism is a religion.

Since it is not possible for ALL religions to be true, at best all religions except one are full of crap. Only one might be true.

So which is the one true religion?

On one hand you have thousands of world religions (including Judaism of course) which are based on errant ancient books, and whose precepts rely on the authority of clergy with so-called special knowledge, and who believe in the existence of non-testable entities and phenomena.

On the other hand you have atheism, whose followers reject the authority of ALL ancient texts and holy men, reject the supernatural, and rely only on science and evidence at hand, and believes in reality as defined only by the material world.

So who has the key to truth among these two options? Bearded men, so called religious "scholars" (most of whom have no idea what true scholarship means), pouring over 2000 year old books, or men and women leaning over telescopes, microscopes, fossils and petri dishes?

The answer to me is as clear as the light of day.




jewish philosopher said...

"On one hand you have thousands of world religions (including Judaism of course) which are based on errant ancient books,"

Well, not necessarily. The Book of Mormon, the sacred text of Mormons, was published in 1830

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/03/180-years-later-book-of-mormon-nears-150-million-copies

just 29 years before Origin of Species, the sacred text of atheists

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

"authority of clergy with so-called special knowledge, and who believe in the existence of non-testable entities and phenomena."

Such as atheists who have blind faith in nonsense like evolution because people in lab coats tell them it's true, in spite of all evidence.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

"Bearded men"

Like Darwin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_Darwin_by_Julia_Margaret_Cameron_2.jpg

and Daniel Dennett

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

laugh out loud said...

A lot of the Atheist arguments are really theological. They don't believe in G-d. But they believe a lot of things about G-d.

Dave said...

I trust lab coats before black coats and hats.
Books that can be criticized rather than books that are revered and beyond criticism
I believe words etched in paper which can be changed, more than letters etched in stone forever
I prefer a system where dissenting opinion is "non conforming" but not heresy because it contradicts "sacred" texts.

Dave said...

The exceptions prove the rule. It's harder to invent religions nowadays.

Speaking of religions, since you believe that Judaism is the one and only true religion, how can you live with yourself, when 99.9999% of the worlds population doesn't accept that? All of those ignorant people, living in the darkness of the WRONG religion! You must live in eternal agony.








Anonymous said...

To be fair, JP, the five features match you more closely than they do someone like Dawkins.

And you think you're scoring points by trying to argue that atheism is just as bad as the fundamentalism you exhibit?

Anonymous said...

Fundamentalism at its--ahem--finest:

Let there be no hope for informers, and may all the heretics and all the wicked instantly perish; may all the enemies of Your people be speedily extirpated; and may You swiftly uproot, break, crush and subdue the reign of wickedness speedily in our days. Blessed are You L-rd, who crushes enemies and subdues the wicked.

May Your mercies be aroused, L-rd our G‑d, upon the righteous, upon the pious, upon the elders of Your people, the House of Israel, upon the remnant of their sages, upon the righteous proselytes and upon us. Grant ample reward to all who truly trust in Your Name, and place our lot among them; may we never be disgraced, for we have put our trust in You. Blessed are You L-rd, the support and security of the righteous.

jewish philosopher said...

"I trust lab coats before black coats and hats."

That would include people in lab coats like the distinguished German physician Dr Karl Gebhardt

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

who was hanged in 1948 in appreciation for his groundbreaking research performed on concentration camp inmates. Who wouldn't trust a guy like that?

"Books that can be criticized rather than books that are revered and beyond criticism"

Try going to the next Atheist Alliance convention and tell people you believe Darwin was a lunatic and the Origin of Species is nonsense

http://www.atheistalliance.org/activities/conventions

Then try going to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting and tell people you believe Jesus was a lunatic and the New Testament is nonsense

http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc13/default.asp

I think you'll get about the same reaction.

"The exceptions prove the rule. It's harder to invent religions nowadays."

Not as far as I know. It's actually probably easier.

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

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

"You must live in eternal agony."

I'm fine thank you. The wicked create immense temptations for the righteous thereby magnifying our reward.

"To be fair, JP, the five features match you more closely than they do someone like Dawkins. 

And you think you're scoring points by trying to argue that atheism is just as bad as the fundamentalism you exhibit?"

Actually, we're probably about even, which makes it hilarious when atheists name a website "Fundies Say The Darndest Things".

http://www.fstdt.com/

Pot calling the kettle "black".

"and may all the heretics and all the wicked instantly perish"

When atheists are in power they don't just pray; they shoot non-atheists.

The Society of Militant Atheists, under Stalin’s orders, issued on May 15th 1932, the “Five Year Plan of Atheism” – by May 1st 1937, such as the “Plan”, “not a single house of prayer shall remain in the territory of the USSR, and the very concept of God must be banished from the Soviet Union as a survival of the Middle Ages and an instrument for the oppression of the working masses.”!

http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406.htm

Anonymous said...

Dave:

How can you trust lab coats when there is so much scientific fraud out there?

Anonymous said...

Dave:

I recfently read "Teh Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. He wrote that all the important positions in physics were held by proponents of Sting Theory, and that anyone who questioned Sting Theory found their careers theatened. He also descirbed a great deal of racism and sexism in the Physics community. This would seem to indicate that dissenting opinion is not tolerated.

Dave said...

"“not a single house of prayer shall remain in the territory of the USSR.."


In this I think Stalin was right on target. Too bad he didn't smother religion completely. Perhaps he went about it the wrong way. He did manage to supress religion in many of the far reaches of the Soviet Union. Then, look what happened when religion was allowed a resurgence-- Chechnya, the Balkans, Albania.

The so called Arab Spring has come about after the failure to suppress religion. The rebels in Syria, Sudan and elsewhere are not exactly constitution-toting democrats.

Even accounting for Nazi Germany, proportionally Europe is a far more peaceful place now than it was hundreds of years ago, when blood flowed through its streets as one religious zealot slaughtered (or burned alive) another.

Its interesting that you insist on classifying people as "atheists" or non-atheists, as though the non-atheists are also monolithic. You forget that at least a billion and a half of your non-atheist compatriots are Muslims--who enjoy shooting AND praying and blowing themselves up, far more than any good atheist.

And YOU can't escape responsibility for Islam. Islam is a consequence of the possibility of believing in an all-powerful, angry and veageful (but loving!) god--the same god that you believe in! If atheism became universal there would be no Islam. No 9-11, no Al Qaida, no Taliban and no burkas.

The sacrifice of Judaism would be a very small price to pay. Its a no brainer!

Wouldn't you give up your Judaism if all Muslims agreed to give up Islam??? I would in a second!

jewish philosopher said...

"In this I think Stalin was right on target."

So your solution to religious conflict is quite simple - force everyone to accept your religion, atheism, which is obviously the one true religion and problem solved.

You know this idea is not very original. A lot of religious people have that idea.

In fact, I agree completely. Let's force everyone to accept my religion, Judaism, which is obviously the one true religion and problem solved.

Dave said...

I'm talking only in the realm of theoretical, as is much of this blog (like your advocating a death penalty for men of have anal intercourse).

Personally I wouldn't do it by physical force like Stalin, but rather using systematic pursuasion, propoganda and education. Perhaps like what has been done in some Scandanavian countries. There religion is a curious relic but nothing else.

So, for example, the 70% of Norwegians who are atheists

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

I think that referring to these atheists as "religious" would be like calling Nazi ideology "morality"

jewish philosopher said...

"Personally I wouldn't do it by physical force like Stalin,"

Fine, me too.

laugh out loud said...

Dave:

Stalin was a major mass murderer. So was his fellow atheist, Mao. Th worst mass murderers in history were atheists. Moreover, a disproportionate number of mass murderers were atheists and vise-versa. And every time atheists run a country, they wind up committing mass murder. IF you are successful in your quest of making the world atheistic we can expect to see a marked increase in mass murder.

laugh out loud said...

Here's a list of atheist mass murderers.


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


Mussolini


laugh out loud said...

Dave:


"And YOU can't escape responsibility for Islam. Islam is a consequence of the possibility of believing in an all-powerful, angry and veageful (but loving!) god--the same god that you believe in! If atheism became universal there would be no Islam. No 9-11, no Al Qaida, no Taliban and no burkas."

And You can't escape responsibility for all the mas murder committed by your fellow atheists, which far excede those committed by Jihadis. And you can't escape responsibility for the Holocaust committed by your fellow Darwinist, Hitler. (I know, I know. You read on a atheist web site that Hitler was not a Darwinist. All you have to do is read "Mein Kampf" and Hitler's second book to see quite clearly that Hitler was a Darwinist. and please don't make me cut and paste from "Mien Kampf". It is such a tedious excercise.)

laugh out loud said...

Dave:

I read the Wiki article on religion in Norway. I couldn't find the 70% that are atheists. It seems that 78% are Lutheran. I even copied the graph:

Religion[21] Members Percent
Christianity 4,115,675 83.6%
Lutheranism 3,911,622 79.4%
Roman Catholicism 83,018 1.6%
Pentecostalism 39,599 0.8%
Jehovah's Witnesses 11,739 0.2%
Methodism 11,055 0.2%
Baptists 9,922 0.2%
Orthodox Christianity 9,894 0.2%
Seventh-day Adventist Church 5,066 0.1%
Other Christianity 33,760 0.6%
Non-Christian religions 133,219 2.7%
Islam 106,735 2.1%
Buddhism 14,580 0.2%
Hinduism 5,858 0.1%
Sikhism 2,975 0.06%
Bahá'í Faith 1,064 0.02%
Judaism 819 0.01%
Other religions 1,188 0.02%
No religion and unknown 671,411 13.6%
Humanism 84,481 1.7%
Total 4,920,305 100.0%

I'm a little confused.

Dave said...

"Fine, me too".

OK, so you guys use "soft persuasion", too.

May the best man win!

laugh out loud said...

I reread the article. It actually says from 30% to 70%. The source cited said that 70% don't believe in a personal god. That doesn't make them atheists necessarily. I believe the term is deist But I'm not sure how accurate those numbers are when 78% listed as Lutheran. Or maybe it's another case of scientific fraud.

Dave said...

JP- BTW, there is a great South Park episode poking fun at atheists and Dawkins. "Go God Go"

Hilarious
(if you watch that sort of thing)

Anonymous said...

"It's interesting how atheists passionately insist that atheism is not a religion. This is apparently done in order to make an impression that atheism is superior to mere religion."

If atheism were a religion, then atheism would be the very type of thing it criticizes.

Religions are based on worship, ritual, and authoritative texts/offices. The passion of atheists against the false charge of religion is possibly attributable to the fact that atheism bears no resemblance to a religion.

Atheists worship no person--not Darwin, not Dawkins, not anyone. Atheists subscribe to no ritual activity, unless you wish to call reasoning and inquiry religious practice. Atheists acknowledge no leader and no authoritative text. Origin of Species has been superseded and improved. It is recognized as flawed and time-bound.

Here's a deal: You can continue to peddle the lie that atheism is a religion if you admit that the Torah gets some things wrong and is a flawed text.

If you can write this, then atheism is a religion. If you cannot, then there is a clear difference between the way your religion approaches its holy text and the way atheism approaches all texts.

Finally, calling atheism a religion simply dodges the the fact that atheism's claims are more powerful and knowledge-based than the central religious claims. Instead of weakly trying to drag atheism into the mud with your religions, why don't you try to face the facts that atheism uses to discard ancient superstitions in favor of reason-based decision making.

jewish philosopher said...

As I explain, atheism is a religion and it is also the worst religion.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

beamish said...

Atheists don't exist. Why must we accept, on faith no less, that someone claiming to be an "atheist" isn't merely irreligious and / or irreverent?

How do we know an "atheist" doesn't believe in the existence of gods? I can look at sun worshippers and see their god plain as day. Someone claiming to be an "atheist" will try to impose his own definition of what a "god" should be - in effect, he's no better than a Pope or Ayatollah trying to push his own theology.

Atheists don't exist. No one has ever seen one.

Dave said...

Beamish, your comment is like a word salad. (That's the clinical term for the nonsensical speech of a schizophrenic)

Please explain yourself.

Anonymous said...

"As I explain, atheism is a religion and it is also the worst religion."

A statement right out of your #1, 2, and 5.

Nice work, JP bin Osama.

jewish philosopher said...

First of all, I'm not a Muslim and in fact I bitterly oppose Islam as well for many reasons.

Having said that, Islam is a thousand times better than atheism.

Just compare the body count of Communism and Fascism, both basically atheistic movements,

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/07/nietzsche-atheist-icon.html

with the number of deaths caused by radical Islam.

Osama bin Laden, a wicked maniac, was an innocent girl scout next to Stalin or Mao.

Anonymous said...

"First of all, I'm not a Muslim and in fact I bitterly oppose Islam as well for many reasons."

Sorry, but the turban fits you, so you have to wear it.

The "death toll" numbers you like to cite have been widely discredited as attributable to atheism as a specific cause.

But of course the popular rejoinder to your point is that you religious folk ought not to care about how many this person or that person has murdered, for God--as you believe in him--is documented as the greatest mass murderer and genocide artist of them all. God loves nothing better than smiting. Every time you see a murderer, you should say to yourself, "well, isn't he just like my beloved Lord."

jewish philosopher said...

About God, I think that it's generally accepted that if you create something you have the right to destroy it. If Picasso tore up a Picasso that's his business. If I tear up a Picasso I'll get twenty years.

Name one primarily atheistic community which is reproducing at a replacement level and which has not experienced mass killing witihin living memory. Atheism is a religion of death and extinction.

Anonymous said...

"Atheism is a religion of death and extinction."

pot...kettle

wondering ew said...

JP/JS, I was wondering you can direct me to the best online resources that debunk evolution. Also if you have any recommended book.s

jewish philosopher said...

"pot...kettle"

The orthodox Jewish community is almost violence free

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/09/orthodox-jewish-crime.html

while the birthrate is very high.

"direct me to the best online resources that debunk evolution. Also if you have any recommended book.s"

I think these are good

http://www.trueorigin.org/

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.php

and I like "Not By Chance" by Lee Spetner

Anonymous said...

"The orthodox Jewish community is almost violence free."

I see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpZP2pKRBtU

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/85975/violence-dishonours-judaism-and-threatens-israel

The atheist community is less prone to violence, and more prone to violent attack from your co-religionists.

Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo said...

Nu?
Atheists declare there is no divinity - and they care about this.
Theists claim there is a divinity - and they care about this.
Agnostics asservate there may or may not be a divinity - and they care about this.

I just don't care if there is a divinity or not. In which category do I belong?

"......The author, Chris Stedman, a homosexual atheist,....."

Query?
Is an homosexual atheist 'worse', as in; more atheistic, than a heterosexual atheist?
If so, are there other gradations? I reckon isosexuals would be quite near the bottom then.

Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo said...

My English tutor thinks you might find this amusing

WARNING!
There is profanity - the word kind, not the dropping fire on people kind.

John Genovese said...

"About God, I think that it's generally accepted that if you create something you have the right to destroy it. If Picasso tore up a Picasso that's his business. If I tear up a Picasso I'll get twenty years."

So you don't oppose abortion? Or are you just another theist hypocrite?

jewish philosopher said...

"Is an homosexual atheist 'worse', as in; more atheistic"

I have an impression that homosexual men are generally very devout atheists.

http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/gaytheist.htm

Therefore I assume that homosexual atheist is a real true believer.

"So you don't oppose abortion?"

Following that logic, an adult as well could be put to death by his parents.

The fetus possesses a soul contributed by God. It is not only the product of the man and woman.

Dave said...

"The fetus possesses a soul contributed by God. It is not only the product of the man and woman."

But according to you, the soul is immortal, so God's rights arent being infringed upon if we kill the body.

All of this shows that just because you make something it doesn't mean you can destroy it. Being the maker doesnt mean you are the owner. You could tear up a Picasso if you owned it.

jewish philosopher said...

If you make it, you can break it. That is logically accepted.

The soul wasn't made by you. God put it into your child. Unless you have His permission, you can't seperate the body and soul. Therefore murdering even one's own child is a crime.

Dave said...

"Therefore murdering even one's own child is a crime."

Do you think you need your Torah Philosophy to tell you THAT?

Murder is a crime because it causes suffering, it is bad for communities, and as a society we agree to make it a crime.

"If you make it, you can break it. That is logically accepted."

So if you are a contractor, and build a house and somebody buys it, you may destroy it if you want, since you created it? Are you on weed or something?

Your rights over something have nothing to do with you being "the maker". It is ownership that determines that.

jewish philosopher said...

"Murder is a crime because it causes suffering, it is bad for communities, and as a society we agree to make it a crime."

How about if a lot of people in lab coats tell you that it's a scientific fact that society would benefit from eliminating certain classes of people like for example the disabled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

Jews

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

or the elderly

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1058404/Old-people-dementia-duty-die-pushed-death-says-Baroness-Warnock.html

"It is ownership that determines that."

So God owns everything.

Anonymous said...

Atheism is a religion, in fact the worst one, that's exactly why having no religion is the way to go.

Dave said...

"So God owns everything."

Owners take full responsibility for the actions of their possessions. So god is responsible for all of the mass murderers as well. Why bother trying Eichmann or Jeffrey Dahmer? We should have put god on trial.

"How about if a lot of people in lab coats tell you for example the disabled...."

How about if a lot of people in black hats and beards with holy books told you that....eliminating apostates and homosexuals...

Yea, authority is a problem, isn't it? I have a problem with it too.

It seems as if people just pick their authorities according to their tastes. Especially phony authorities who claim to speak for god.


Dave said...

By the way, TP, it is interesting that the most atheistic of European countries have the most socialistic policies, in contrast to "religious" America. Could it be perhaps that atheism and secularism lead to HIGHER sensitivity to society's responsibility towards the welfare of individuals?

Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo said...

You did not answer my question.

"Is an homosexual atheist 'worse', as in; more atheistic, than a heterosexual atheist?"

Does the appending of the word 'homosexual' as an adjective modifying the noun 'Atheist' effect a change in the degree of atheism you purport to convey?

jewish philosopher said...

"no religion is the way to go."

Among mentally normal humans religion, like language, is universal. We all have an opinion about our origins, our future after death, etc.

"We should have put god on trial."

He created the victims too.

"authority is a problem, isn't it?"

I follow my own reason, unlike atheists who invariably as a last resort justify evolution by claiming "the scientists can't be wrong".

"European countries have the most socialistic policies"

You have to understand first of what socialism means.

Socialism ultimately means "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" to quote Marx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

This is essentially how a family, or a functional family anyway, should work. In a family of even a dozen people, for example two parents and ten children, there is no feeling "this is my couch" or "my stove" or "my money" or "the baby never diapered me, why should I diaper him". There is a love between all family members and a sense of "we're in this together".

Socialism teaches that the entire world should work that way, [Note how the kibbutzim, Israeli communal farms, were organized with communal children's homes - one big family in other words.] which would be nice however in fact there is not that much universal brotherly love.

Probably the most truly socialist country ever was Sweden in between 1930 and 1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party#Voter_base

The reason why is because Sweden has a relatively small population, one religion, one language and all are descended from a small original founding population. Sweden is closer to being a family than any other nation.

The United States, obviously, is a relatively huge country, diverse in every way imaginable, so socialism could never work here.

"Does the appending of the word 'homosexual' as an adjective modifying the noun 'Atheist' effect a change in the degree of atheism you purport to convey?"

Yes.

Dave said...

1. Socialism has evolved, and we now speak of social democracy, not Soviet-style communism.

2. "I follow my own reason" Great! So do I. And now you have just debunked Judaism with your own hands.
Because this means that God himself is subject to reason and morality, he doesn't create it. (Because you said you CHOOSE a moral guide). I agree.
Since he doesn't create it, he must himself be accountable for immoral acts of his creations. God himself could not suddenly say "Murder is moral".

jewish philosopher said...

"Socialism has evolved"

It's still far less effective in a very diverse society where people are much more tempted to game the system for personal advantage rather than feeling a brotherly love for all members of the community (which really never worked too well; even within families unfortunately it's pretty shaky).

"Because this means that God himself is subject to reason"

God gave me the reason to find Him.

Dave said...

OK, so you say that God gave you the faculty of moral reasoning-- to choose God and do the "right" thing.

This means that even you admit that human beings have moral reasoning, independent of a book or commandments!

(Otherwise you are begging the question--since if you were not given moral reasoning, than how would you even be able to judge whether one system of religion or morality, such as Judaism, is superior to another)

jewish philosopher said...

People can find the truth if they want too.

Sometimes walking down the street in New York City I've seen filthy drunken men sleeping on the sidewalk. What a waste. Each one of them could in one moment decide to repent and become as rigtphteous in God's eyes as Moses. If they wanted to. But they don't.

Dave said...

"Each one of them could in one moment decide to repent "

Like you, right?

jewish philosopher said...

If they aren't Jewish they would only have to accept the seven Noahide commandments.

Dave said...

I suspect that very few of them are violating the Noachide laws.

jewish philosopher said...

They have to accept them as God given. And I imagine a few are a little weak about the prohibition of theft.