Most atheists have never read the bible

[McCulloch]

Most atheists have never read the bible and so I believe that if they had, the basics would be the same. Clearly they do not speak as if they have this knowledge.

I throw down the gauntlet. Faith has made a positive claim. Either back up this claim with evidence or withdraw it.

On a less confrontational note, do atheists reject religion and God because they are ignorant of religion as many staunch religionists claim?

[Cephus]

Cephus,
It appears your post 117 indicates you are posting highly charged criticism towards another.In view of post 117 are you to clarify to whom your criticism is directed to?

If you have to ask...

[Goat]

That was not your contention. We were speaking of what Judaism is, and even atheist Jews would agree that religion is an aspect of Judaism whether they agree with it or not.

Which is ridiculous because an atheist Jew would not recognize that a religon that they reject is part of their Judiasm.

Not quite. There are atheist Jews that practice the religion. The only difference is they don't believe in a supernatural deity.

[Beto]

That was not your contention. We were speaking of what Judaism is, and even atheist Jews would agree that religion is an aspect of Judaism whether they agree with it or not.

Which is ridiculous because an atheist Jew would not recognize that a religon that they reject is part of their Judiasm.

Not quite. There are atheist Jews that practice the religion. The only difference is they don't believe in a supernatural deity.

I would say the same "supernaturalism" they reject in Judaism, they reject in all "facets" of the tradition. It's not as relevant as which part of the tradition (ritually-wise) will be the most "beneficial" for them to follow.

[earl]

Cephus,
From your reply you have confirmed my suspicion from post 117.
In the light of your post It is clearly visible that atheist is as atheist says.

[Flail]

most Christians have never read the Bible...they have only listened to "sound bites"...Jesus is not a Christian...never was...never would be...

[cnorman18]

That was not your contention. We were speaking of what Judaism is, and even atheist Jews would agree that religion is an aspect of Judaism whether they agree with it or not.

Which is ridiculous because an atheist Jew would not recognize that a religon that they reject is part of their Judiasm.

Oh, I see. Not Judaism. Just their Judaism.

(snicker)

Go ask a dozen atheist Jews if religion is part of Judaism. Not their Judaism. Judaism, which is what we were discussing.

Care to place a bet on what 12 out of 12 of their answers will be?

Can you name any religious organization--or any organization of ANY kind, for that matter--that doesn't reserve the determination of who is or is not a formal member to itself? One may be a generic "Christian" without belonging to any specific church, but one may not be recognized as a Baptist, for instance, if one has not been baptized in a Baptist church by a Baptist minister. Even the Democratic Party recognizes the difference between one who regularly votes Democratic and a registered member of the party.

One can register Democratic without any regard for the party's "acceptance" of them whatsoever. Hell, I'm a registered Republican, have been all my life, that doesn't mean that the current Republican party would lay any claim to me at all, considering my views and my utter contempt of the party, that's not surprising. It doesn't stop me from being a registered Republican though.

So you can be a Republican regardless of your belief, as long as you go through the procedure? Hmmm, interesting--very much like the Jews....

You do realize you just argued MY point, don't you?

They still count you when they report membership numbers, don't they? Gee, you must be a Republican, as far as the party is concerned.

But I'm talking about belief, you're talking about club membership. Who cares if someone "accepts" you as a member so long as you act, for all intents and purposes, as one.

It's matter of Jewish law, true for all the branches. Sorry. Jews get to set the standards. You don't.

If you follow all the beliefs and rituals of the Baptists, whether any particular Baptist church considers you a member, you're a Baptist.

Even if you haven't been baptized? LOL! Go ask a Baptist about that.

If you've got to pass tests and pay dues to be a member, it's not a religion, it's a club.

Well, you only have to pay dues if you're a member of a particular synagogue. And if you're born a Jew, you don't have to declare commitment to the community before a . Bet Din (as opposed to "passing a test"). Can you be born into a "club"?

You want to consider Judaism a "club"? Feel free. We've been falsely called worse things.

If you want to pretend that correct theology determines who is a Jew, good luck with that. I thought you wanted to talk about reality, not personal fantasies about the way you want things to be.

(1) Prove that taking a text seriously requires that it must be taken literally.

If you're going to take it as the basis of your belief system, you have to be able to trust what it says.

As literal history? Or as to the principles it teaches?

If you cannot trust your source....

About literal history, or principle? You're pretending to hold my feet to the fire, but you keep dancing around the questions about your premises.

...then how can you rationally decide which parts of it are true and which parts are not?

I asked before, and you didn't answer: Which parts of the Bible do you think Jews believe are literally true? That makes your question about "which parts" kind of meaningless, doesn't it? Why do you think ANY of it has to be taken literally?

You still aren't defending your premise. You're just repeating it.

I keep asking you that and you keep ignoring it.

Like I said; showing that your questions are based on false premises IS answering them.

Sorry, Cephus, not even close. In any case, that poor attempt was only on your premise #1, and it implicitly assumed premise #2, which you didn't even attempt: can you prove that not taking a passage (or a whole book) literally is equivalent to "throwing it away"?

For myself, I feel a certain sadness for one who is totally and arrogantly confident of the rationality and logic of an argument with holes in it that one could sail an aircraft carrier through.

Then you should stop having such an argument and try actually using some reason for once.

You want to talk about reason? Show me some. Repeating your same old mantras without explaining or defending them isn't "logic."

If not, prove it:

(1) Why does the Bible have to be taken literally or not at all? Don't you object if it's taken literally, too?

(2) Why is not taking it literally "throwing it away"? Isn't NOT taking it literally the right approach to you? You've argued against it often enough.

And, as long as we're at it:

(1) Why do you keep insisting that the Bible is the highest authority and "the basis of [our] belief system," as you said above? I've shown you more than once that it's neither.

Why don't you just admit that your only real objection to Judaism is that it (usually) involves a belief in God, instead of trying to come up with phony arguments to try to make it appear intellectially dishonest and internally self-inconsistent?

If you don't believe in God at all, what gives you the right to dictate the standards of belief for those who do? The fact that you think you're right and we're wrong? Isn't that really all there is to this?

[Fallibleone]

Cephus,
From your reply you have confirmed my suspicion from post 117.
In the light of your post It is clearly visible that atheist is as atheist says.

There are 'blunt' speakers on all sides of the belief issue.

[otseng]

I didn't respond because a) he's either a troll and talking to him is pointless or b) he's so stupid that anything you say will go over his head. In either case, it's like talking to a brick wall... a particularly stupid, drooling brick wall without the mental tools to handle a reasonable conversation.

Moderator note:

Please avoid comments such as this. It does nothing to promote a civil debate. Thanks.

[Cephus]

Oh, I see. Not Judaism. Just their Judaism.

What you fail to recognize, and I think this applies to a lot of people in the Jewish community, is that there is a difference between being religious Jewish and ethnically Jewish. Whether you like it or not, if you're born of ethnically Jewish parents, you're a Jew whether you practice or recognize the traditions and religion that you want to tack on. That's like saying you can't be black unless you're a Southern Baptist and listen to rap music. You're confusing a particular sub-culture with everyone who has a particular ethnic heritage.

Go ask a dozen atheist Jews if religion is part of Judaism. Not their Judaism. Judaism, which is what we were discussing.

Actually heard the answer to that on the radio last night when someone who was ethnically Jewish, but rejects the religion entirely. You keep acting like Judiasm is monolithic and it isn't. Your claims that Judiasm includes particular religious beliefs is made invalid by the fact that many do not accept it. Further, which specific beliefs do you want to declare "true Judiasm"? Orthodox? Conservative? Reform? Hasidic? Reconstructionist? Renewal? Heck, throw in Humanistic Judiasm, the non-religious branch, for good measure.

So you can be a Republican regardless of your belief, as long as you go through the procedure? Hmmm, interesting--very much like the Jews....

You argued that you have to be "accepted" and now you're arguing that you can just go through a procedure? Make up your mind.

It's matter of Jewish law, true for all the branches. Sorry. Jews get to set the standards. You don't.

All branches, huh? Even those who don't recognize Jewish law?

Well, you only have to pay dues if you're a member of a particular synagogue. And if you're born a Jew, you don't have to declare commitment to the community before a . Bet Din (as opposed to "passing a test"). Can you be born into a "club"?

Sure, just ask all the fraternities who allow membership simply because their parent(s) were a member.

If you want to pretend that correct theology determines who is a Jew, good luck with that. I thought you wanted to talk about reality, not personal fantasies about the way you want things to be.

Hey, you're the one who keeps changing your position. I'm the one who can differentiate between ethnic and cultural Judiasm. You keep claiming that in order to be a Jew, you have to accept that the religious aspects are a valid part of the culture and be accepted by the community.

You don't have to do any such thing.

As literal history? Or as to the principles it teaches?

There comes a point where there's a crossover. You can learn valid principles from a lot of sources, everything from Aesop's fables to Harry Potter, without believing there are really talking foxes trying to get grapes. But if you want to accept that Harry Potter is real, you pretty much have to accept that what J.K. Rowling wrote is accurate and true. Otherwise you have no valid source for the existence or characteristics of Harry Potter.

If you want to take the Torah and say it's a source of some good moral teachings and Jewish history, that's fine. As soon as you start taking the mythical character of God and declaring him to be real, especially when you start attributing characteristics only found in the Bible to him, then you need to have a source which is demonstrably reliable.

You don't.

(1) Why does the Bible have to be taken literally or not at all? Don't you object if it's taken literally, too?

I don't object to it, it just fails under examination. Unfortunately, you're just taking the spiritual elements and declaring them to be true without having any valid reason for doing so. How do you determine that the spiritual elements are valid when so much of the rest of the Torah, you discard as wrong? What is the logical criteria? I keep asking that, you keep refusing to answer.

(2) Why is not taking it literally "throwing it away"? Isn't NOT taking it literally the right approach to you? You've argued against it often enough.

Are you or are you not rejecting portions of the Torah as false, invalid or not applying? Again, how do you make that determination, logically, that some parts are valid and some parts are not?

(1) Why do you keep insisting that the Bible is the highest authority and "the basis of [our] belief system," as you said above? I've shown you more than once that it's neither.

Well, the Torah and related writings anyhow, the Bible is the Christian version. Unfortunately for you, you seem to be of the mind that your highest authority is yourself.

[Cephus]

Please avoid comments such as this. It does nothing to promote a civil debate. Thanks.

Neither do people who blatantly violate your own rules, specifically:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

When can we expect that they are going to get moderated for their violation of the rules?