what religion were you raised?

[pelov]

Lunatic fringe.

Couldn't this be attributed to nearly all radical acts of violence that are inspired by religion, regardless of which particular religion?

I understand you want to shine a positive light on Judaism but distancing it from other religions in an attempt to claim it more "peaceful" is a whole lot of horseshit. Like I said, the Abrahamic religions have their creation rooted in violence, slavery, genocide and degradation of women. So much so that for generations such rules that came out of its text were followed as dogma. Even today you've got Israeli women being forced to ride in the back of the bus and Hillary Clinton describing the situation as "Rosa Parks-like" because of some ultra-orthodox male Jews not wanting them to be treated equally.

I live in NYC, btw. Not exactly secluded from the Jewish community, or any community in fact.

 

[MotionMan]

There's little difference. That's like saying my belief in a multiverse is a religion because?? There's little difference in that than there is in some kind of supernatural being, except for the tiny shreds of evidence supporting a multiverse. I believed in a multiverse before there was ANY evidence though, so is that a religion?

Could be, yes.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Couldn't this be attributed to nearly all radical acts of violence that are inspired by religion, regardless of which particular religion?

I understand you want to shine a positive light on Judaism but distancing it from other religions in an attempt to claim it more "peaceful" is a whole lot of horseshit. Like I said, the Abrahamic religions have their creation rooted in violence, slavery, genocide and degradation of women. So much so that for generations such rules that came out of its text were followed as dogma. Even today you've got Israeli women being forced to ride in the back of the bus and Hillary Clinton describing the situation as "Rosa Parks-like" because of some ultra-orthodox male Jews not wanting them to be treated equally.

I live in NYC, btw. Not exactly secluded from the Jewish community, or any community in fact.

Again, I am focusing on the religions in their somewhat modern form. All of the Biblical religions had violence, slavery and worse. I was just curious what about, I guess, "modern" Judaism people found to be violent.

MotionMan

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Atheism is a belief that there is no G-d. Some Atheists treat Atheism like a religion.

This is where you are wrong, and where I have shown you to be wrong before. It is dishonest in the utmost to continue to repeat this falsehood when you know it is not true.

 

[AFurryReptile]

Atheism is a belief that there is no G-d. Some Atheists treat Atheism like a religion.

I think the confusion here is regarding the definition of religion.

From reference.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Religion specifically addresses "who created the universe". Most atheists believe in evolution, not a higher creator. Thus, you can't classify them as a religion.

Not to mention organizing atheists is like herding cats.

Anyway, this is kindof a stupid thing to argue about 😀

 

[SlitheryDee]

Atheism is a belief that there is no G-d. Some Atheists treat Atheism like a religion.

It's the same as an opinion on anything else where you can't really say for sure about something, but tend to lean in a certain direction. Do you consider all your opinions to be little religions?

"Opinions" about the existence of G-d are religious beliefs.

MotionMan

Are you prepared to say that your religion is based on opinion rather than certainty then?

 

[AstroManLuca]

There's little difference. That's like saying my belief in a multiverse is a religion because?? There's little difference in that than there is in some kind of supernatural being, except for the tiny shreds of evidence supporting a multiverse. I believed in a multiverse before there was ANY evidence though, so is that a religion?

I'd consider that more of a philosophy. Philosophies are great because you can change them at will, you can tailor them to your own personal experiences, and there's no dogma attached to them.

Religion is inherently limited because it implies that you MUST follow someone else's belief system, and if you stray from that then you are violating its rules. I think it was slayer earlier in the thread who pointed out that if you "make up" your own religion or pick and choose your favorite parts from different religions, you're not really following any religion at all. I'd contend that what you're doing is creating a philosophy.

 

[MotionMan]

This is where MotionMan is right, and where I have shown MotionMan to be right before. It is honest in the utmost to continue to repeat this truth when you know it is true.

Fixed.

MotionMan

 

[pelov]

This is where you are wrong, and where I have shown you to be wrong before. It is dishonest in the utmost to continue to repeat this falsehood when you know it is not true.

The problem lies in the definition of atheist and its counterpart of agnostic.

Bertrand Russell pointed it out beautifully when he said that he considers himself an atheist when asked the question in public but at a convention of Philosopher's and other scholars he would use the term agnostic. The difference lies in the burden of proof or lack thereof. Where an atheist knows for certain that there is no god, an agnostic realizes the complexity of the situation. For an agnostic, the question itself is unanswerable because its technically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. It's also foggier when you consider that god can be anything from an old guy with a beard to a mathematical formula, which if we're honest seems to be far more likely.

Thus most agnostics are technically atheists in that they don't believe in god because it can't be proven, or hasn't been proven, but they're also aware of the inherent difficulty of the question and that it's nigh impossible to prove thus claiming agnosticism. This doesn't mean that god exists but rather that it hasn't been proven and until it can be proven god doesn't exist.

Most atheists are in fact agnostic. Differentiating the two generally means you don't know what either word really means, which apparently he clearly doesn't 😛 Bertrand Russell was an atheist in a crowd and an agnostic among peers. The difference in definition lies with the intellect of the individual.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Fixed.

Whaddaya know, a dishonest lawyer. Who'da thunk it? 🙄

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Where an atheist knows for certain that there is no god...

This is false. An atheist is one that does not believe in a god. "Does not believe in a god" |= "believes there is no god."

An atheist that does not believe that it can be known if there is a god is an agnostic atheist.

An atheist that believes that it can be known, or that it is known, is a gnostic atheist.

 

[AFurryReptile]

The problem lies in the definition of atheist and its counterpart of agnostic.

Bertrand Russell pointed it out beautifully when he said that he considers himself an atheist when asked the question in public but at a convention of Philosopher's and other scholars he would use the term agnostic. The difference lies in the burden of proof or lack thereof. Where an atheist knows for certain that there is no god, an agnostic realizes the complexity of the situation. For an agnostic, the question itself is unanswerable because its technically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. It's also foggier when you consider that god can be anything from an old guy with a beard to a mathematical formula, which if we're honest seems to be far more likely.

Thus most agnostics are technically atheists in that they don't believe in god because it can't be proven, or hasn't been proven, but they're also aware of the inherent difficulty of the question and that it's nigh impossible to prove thus claiming agnosticism. This doesn't mean that god exists but rather that it hasn't been proven and until it can be proven god doesn't exist.

Most atheists are in fact agnostic. Differentiating the two generally means you don't know what either word really means, which apparently he clearly doesn't 😛 Bertrand Russell was an atheist in a crowd and an agnostic among peers. The difference in definition lies with the intellect of the individual.

One could also say that an invisible flying spaghetti-monster floats just above my head. You obviously can't prove or disprove it, because you can't see it, but does that make you agnostic toward it? Do you hold the belief that it could really be possible?

In my opinion, and agnostic is a sort of "fence-sitter." Just because you cannot disprove something does not make it a realistic possibility.

 

[MotionMan]

Are you prepared to say that your religion is based on opinion rather than certainty then?

All religions are based on, to some extent, beliefs or opinions that are not certainty.

For example, I was not present at the time the events of the Torah took place, so I am going to have to rely on the reports of others regarding those events. There is some evidence to support that those events took place and some of the events have no factual support at all. I tend to believe those that have support more than those that don't.

MotionMan

 

[crashtestdummy]

Again, I am focusing on the religions in their somewhat modern form. All of the Biblical religions had violence, slavery and worse. I was just curious what about, I guess, "modern" Judaism people found to be violent.

MotionMan

The problem is that the conservative sects of any religion will use the old texts to continue some of those ideas. I went to an orthodox synagogue a few years ago (my cousin is orthodox) where they offered a prayer for the troops, where they asked God to protect our soldiers and "kill all of our enemies". More recently, I was at a conservative synagogue, where they used the book of Esther to argue that a preemptive strike and war with Iran would be justified.

My point is not to claim that Jews are evil. Far from it, but they are human like all others. On the other end of the spectrum, the liberal (reconstructionist) synagogue I attend is far less hawkish. We have introspective discussions about why the Bible discusses laws of slavery just after the Israelites were freed from bondage, or how Abraham could even consider sacrificing his child, and the damage it caused Isaac.

There are many inherent advantages to Judaism as well, some of which you hinted at. Primary among them is that Jews do not evangelize. We have no interest in killing people under the guise of "saving their souls", as so many other religions have done. The flip side of this coin is that we as a culture have tended to lack an interest in interacting with other peoples, feeling that we are the chosen people, and that is enough. This gives us a lack of empathy for others, and perhaps an overgenerous sense of self worth.

I suspect at the root of your question is the sense that we have, for the past couple thousand years until the last 50, been the victims and not the aggressors. This is true, but is more reflective in my opinion of the fact that we have been the minority population, and thus not in a position to abuse power, rather than by some intrinsic trait of our religion. You can see how that has changed now in Israel, where we wield power no differently than any other majority population.

Judaism, and we as modern Jews, are not any more violent than the rest of the world, but neither are we inherently any less so.

 

[pelov]

One could also say that an invisible flying spaghetti-monster floats just above my head. You obviously can't prove or disprove it, because you can't see it, but does that make you agnostic toward it? Do you hold the belief that it could really be possible?

In my opinion, and agnostic is a sort of "fence-sitter." Just because you cannot disprove something does not make it a realistic possibility.

Well, that's just it. In fact that's a great example.

In practicality, you'd be an atheist because you'd dismiss the thought for being completely stupid -- much like I do with any religion, thus I consider myself an atheist. But if you're going to be very anal with respect to what "proof" is, then you can only reach the conclusion that you're technically agnostic.

In practicality you'd be an atheist. Technically speaking, though, it's agnosticism. Most people try to differentiate the two as two completely different frames of thought but in reality it's essentially the same thing.

 

[MotionMan]

This is false. An atheist is one that does not believe in a god. "Does not believe in a god" |= "believes there is no god."

Atheism is more like a religion than it is not.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Whaddaya know, a dishonest lawyer. Who'da thunk it? 🙄

Whaddaya know, an atheist defending his position like a religious fanatic. Who'da thunk it? 🙄

MotionMan

 

[pelov]

Atheism is more like a religion than it is not.

MotionMan

Only for the religious who want to reinforce their own faulty ways of thought 😉

There are many atheists who don't understand what the term means just as there are many religious folks who have no idea what atheist and agnosticism mean. I'd recommend you read the two above comments I posted for a bit of clarity.

 

[MotionMan]

Only for the religious who want to reinforce their own faulty ways of thought 😉

There are many atheists who don't understand what the term means just as there are many religious folks who have no idea what atheist and agnosticism mean. I'd recommend you read the two above comments I posted for a bit of clarity.

I have read them before, many times. I know exactly what they mean. I am not religious.

Atheism is more like a religion than it is not. The more people argue with me about it, the more they prove my point.

MotionMan

 

[SlitheryDee]

All religions are based on, to some extent, beliefs or opinions that are not certainty.

For example, I was not present at the time the events of the Torah took place, so I am going to have to rely on the reports of others regarding those events. There is some evidence to support that those events took place and some of the events have no factual support at all. I tend to believe those that have support more than those that don't.

MotionMan

I'm talking about your view on the existence of God. Is it an opinion or a belief?

 

[MotionMan]

I'm talking about your view on the existence of God. Is it an opinion or a belief?

I am not sure there is a difference. Once can have an "opinion" based on little to no factual basis. Some would call that a "belief". You can also believe something based on empirical data. Some would call that an "opinion".

What's your point?

MotionMan

 

[AFurryReptile]

Interesting tidbit:

Did you guys know that Nazareth did not exist for several centuries AFTER Jesus was born? The first known record, in history, is that of the Empress Helena making a pilgrimage to the site in the 4th century, and finding only an ancient well. She built a church, and slowly the city grew around the tourism that was becoming more popular to the area.

Nazareth is not mentioned in the old testament. The Talmud names 63 Galilean towns, but omits the so-called Nazareth. No mention of the city even comes up in ancient history. What does this tell you? It tells you that Nazareth was a town built BECAUSE of Christianity; it did not exist before it. It also tells us that "Jesus of Nazareth" could not possibly have grown up there, let alone chase 35 acres worth of merchants out of this supposed temple.

More reading here.

 

[pelov]

I have read them before, many times. I know exactly what they mean. I am not religious.

Atheism is more like a religion than it is not. The more people argue with me about it, the more they prove my point.

MotionMan

By not stating what it is 😛 The mere fact that you're differentiating the two means you're having an issue with the semantics of the argument.

Lets put it more simply:

If a person claims to be atheist, you can also reach the conclusion that they're agnostic. The term atheist, and in turn agnostic, have been used, misused and abused so much that their original definitions have been lost and misconstrued. If you're getting hung up about it then you quite clearly don't understand either or you're arguing about semantics and missing the point.

The only thing you've proven here is that most people don't know what the fuck atheist or agnosticism mean and how they relate to each other. Oddly enough, you've done that by misinterpreting the two yourself.

 

[lxskllr]

I'd consider that more of a philosophy. Philosophies are great because you can change them at will, you can tailor them to your own personal experiences, and there's no dogma attached to them.

I think it's more just mindless musing. My opinion of the consistency of the greater multi(uni)verse has no bearing on anything other than idle musing. There's little practical application of it unless we somehow find that multiverses are simultaneous, and can be crossed over in some easy fashion. I'm not willing to go that far. I think this "universe" is just one of many, floating like a bubble in the greater whole. Am I right? Who knows? It doesn't matter much when we can't even practically get out of this solar system.

I'd consider my dabbling in Buddhism more of a philosophy. It has practical application in this time/place, but no ritualized bullshit to bring down the truth as I perceive it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Whaddaya know, an atheist defending his position like a religious fanatic. Who'da thunk it? 🙄

A correction about a misuse of a term is not a defense of the position that term represents, genius.