As children it's just an imaginary friend

[Sweet~T]

And he isn't very friendly.

So what is the cause for our global mental illness?

[99percentatheism]

no evidence no belief

And he isn't very friendly.

So what is the cause for our global mental illness?

Begging the question. First, establish your premise as a given; that theists are crazy, and that God 'isn't very friendly' as described by those who actually believe in God.

Can we agree that if I drowned a bunch of puppies, it would be reasonable to say that I wasn't very friendly to puppies?

No. The puppies deserved death because their mother wasn't evolved enough to avoid you.

Can we agree that if I drowned a bunch of pregnant women, it would be reasonable to say that I wasn't very friendly to pregnant women?

No. There is no such thing as murder in materialism. Just life and death. It doesn't matter how the dead get to be fertilizer and food for bugs and carrion-eaters.

Great flood. Case closed.

What? How absurd. The Great Flood brought us all the great classics. The great civilizations we have now.

The horror and revulsion and perverted madness of God's subsequent actions doesn't even matter. The Great Flood alone, the systematic genocide of EVERY LIVING ORGANISM IN THE WORLD except for Noah and his ilk, is sufficient to irrefutably conclude that God is not very friendly.

To a very, very, very myopic view of reality. God wiping away the depraved saved a lotta misery for future generations.

Now, with regards to theists being crazy:

They aren't. Not according to mathematics. Only the truly feeble-minded could believe that everything (let alone something) can come from nothing. It doesn't matter how loud the feeble-minded shout about the importance of their PhD.

Craziness is defined as "a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior"

Then atheism has been defined as craziness hasn't it? Those that wear that moniker (and proudly so) seem to demand that we all believe their madness that the entire universe is an accident. An impossible accident at that.

1) Theists believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, flying horses, and flying reindeer.

So what? There are better odds that a snake can being made to talk by a Designer than a snake being created from nothing.

[strike]2) These things are not real[/strike]

The ones that can't talk are not real you mean.

3) Therefore theists are crazy

Well reality says your accusation is wrong. We have waited long enough for nothing to create something. Ask the poor and starving in places where nothing means you die.

It's really not a hard argument to make.

To the insane.

Theists have perfectly normal perception when it comes to paying their taxes, taking the bus, making a sandwich. But when it comes to their theism they just stop having a normal perception of reality.

How utterly fascinating how illogical your premise is. ALL of the things you describe theists doing have cause and effect to their logic.

Good math.

YET, materialists demand that EVERYTHING happened by nothing causing it.

That sounds like insanity to me.

It will take me no effort at all to persuade you that penis-enlargement pills are a fraud, but if I have to convince you that several of the animals mentioned in the BoM did NOT exist in the Americas before Columbus, nor did several tools, that DNA testing shows native americans have no genetic connections to Jews but rather to northern asiatic people, that no lingustic connection to ancient egyptian or Hebrew exists, but rather to Siberian languages, that native americans did NOT have a 7 day week, that no ruins were ever found of the wondrous cities that were used for centuries, you'd just be impossible to persuade.

You would prove that Joseph Smith was an exceptional con man. In the same ranks as Richard Dawkins.

It doesn't matter how completely and irrefutably the empirical claims of your faith are debunked, you do not see it.

One should not affirm the rantings of a lunatic. take for example your drowning puppies. You are appealing to some kind of morality that cannot exist in a mindless universe. And yet, you seem utterly incapable of seeing that.

Theists are in "a state of mind that prevents normal perception".

That just doesn't add up to the facts. "Theists" are some of the greatest and most accomplished people the world has ever known. Now, in a materialist universe, there is no such thing as love, beauty, art, hate, murder, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons and so on. Just organisms interacting and reacting to other organisms. Yet, materialists seem to really believe in "right and wrong' when they can't even prove it exists. That sounds like a mental illness to me.

It couldn't be more obvious. It is extremely easy for me to convince Muslims, Scientologists, Hindus etc that your beliefs are patently false, and to convince you that their beliefs are patently false, but when it comes to your OWN preexisting beliefs, the same arguments you use to conclude scientology and islam are false cease to carry weight.

Pot meet Kettle.

So, now that the two premises of the OP have been established to be true, that the fairy tale of God clearly depicts an unfriendly deity, and that theism in most cases is a state of mind that prevents normal perception, lets address the question the OP asks. Why?

The only thing you have proven is what you hear yourself saying. When you hear and believe something that doesn't exist, isn't the diagnosis: psychotic?

The answer, in my opinion, is this: Fear of death, fear of the unknown, mental laziness whereby the brain finds a comfortable falsehood preferable to an uncomfortable truth.

Then why are materialists creating drugs and other "care" products for the weak and mentally injured? Anyone that isn't self-sufficient does not posses life. There is no such thing in a materialist universe for "caring" about the less fortunate, because there is no such thing as the less fortunate. Yet, materialists seem to think there are.

So, who is it that is listening to voices inside their head?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 24:

...
Then why are materialists creating drugs and other "care" products for the weak and mentally injured?

Profit and / or compassion come to mind.

Anyone that isn't self-sufficient does not posses life.

You'd do well to learn about others, as opposed to trying to speak for 'em.

Materialists are fully capable of compassion, only they lack the need to call it "God said to do it, so there it is, ya gotta". That's most covered under the don't let your momma find out if ya did clause, under the section about don't let your momma down.

There is no such thing in a materialist universe for "caring" about the less fortunate, because there is no such thing as the less fortunate.

And how fortunate is the materialist, that he has you to declare him incapable of caring about his fellow human beings.

For the record, we prefer to call 'em "differently fortunated".

Yet, materialists seem to think there are.

While others speak for gods they can't show exist to even care.

So, who is it that is listening to voices inside their head?

I happen to suffer from the whole "voices inside my head" deal. Have for nigh on all my life. I know how very, very 'real' they can seem.

Only don't it beat all, ain't the first one yet said to me that if I don't stop my ways, he's gon' send floods and plagues and all kinda whatnot that negatively impact the lives of others, up to and including kittens. The voices tell me to kill myself, not the kittens. They don't hate the kittens, it's me they hate.

What kinda god drowns a planet full of kittens? That's gotta be it the most spiteful god known to the gods.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 24 by 99percentatheism]

There's no such thing as the "less fortunate" in Christianity. There's only those who deserve to go to Hell, and go there by their own accord; and those who deserve to go to Hell, but choose not to go there.

[Danmark]

Then atheism has been defined as craziness hasn't it? Those that wear that moniker (and proudly so) seem to demand that we all believe their madness that the entire universe is an accident.
The ones that can't talk are not real you mean.
....
Yet, materialists seem to really believe in "right and wrong' when they can't even prove it exists. That sounds like a mental illness to me.
That sounds like insanity to me.
....
You would prove that Joseph Smith was an exceptional con man. In the same ranks as Richard Dawkins.
....
One should not affirm the rantings of a lunatic. take for example your drowning puppies. You are appealing to some kind of morality that cannot exist in a mindless universe. And yet, you seem utterly incapable of seeing that.

Moderator Final Warning

Please review the Rules.
This post is full of personal insults. Please make your arguments without reference to personal remarks about your opinion of the mental stability of others.

______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[help3434]

So what? There are better odds that a snake can being made to talk by a Designer than a snake being created from nothing.

It is the fundamentalists Christians that believe that the snakes and other creatures of the Garden were created, and that the universe was created ex nihilo.

[no evidence no belief]

Hey Cnorman, I think we're on the same page with regards to almost everything, so I will not answer line by line, and just raise two points.

You are absolutely right that the definition of theist that I cited does have some qualifiers built in. In other words "most theists believe in a manifest deity". That's well and good, but could you describe to me what a theist who doesn't believe in a manifest God looks like? How is that not like a square which doesn't have 4 corners? If you consider yourself a theist, and you don't believe in the existence of God, could you outline what your belief is, and how it classifies you as a theist?

First, Ive never said that I dont believe in God.

Second, Ive often written about my own beliefs, and VERY often about the teachings of Judaism. Ill decline to write a 30-page post on those subjects now. Take a look at some of the threads in the Judaism subforum, for starters, particularly on the nature of Judaism and the Bible as it IS.

And perhaps this recent exchange on another thread between Goat and myself might be helpful to you:

I disagree. "Yes," "No," and "I don't know," are all perfectly rational positions on God. How can you demand that people claim to know things that they simply don't? Doesn't sound reasonable to me...

I think that "I don't know what you mean when you say God" also is a reasonable position... since there are so many contradictory and mutually exclusive views.

You know, I've argued against that view for some time, but I've finally concluded that my own view is pretty similar. I might phrase it as, "I don't know what I mean when I say God." And I'm OK with that.

As I keep saying: "God" is not the point.

I am not sure I hold to that view, but I can accept it as perfectly valid.

There also is the Aptheist view.. "I don't care if there is a God or not, it doesn't make any difference to the way I am living my life"

Never heard of that one before, but that works for me too: "I don't care if there is a God or not, it doesn't make any difference to my understanding and practice of Judaism." I can see how it might work for those of any religion, or none, as well. It's just not that important an issue, since there's nothing we can do about it either way -- not even conclusively PROVE or DISPROVE it. As I keep saying -- if a question cannot be answered, it has no importance.

For myself I might add, "God may be something in some sense or other, or he may be just a human mental construct that is useful for thinking about these matters; or something in between, or something other than any of those. But since I can't do anything about it in ANY case -- what difference does it make?"

Do I really believe in God? To be honest, it depends on my mood, rather like "Do I like peanut butter sandwiches?" I find it convenient to think about God in many ways, depending on circumstances and context. Others may require a more rigid structure and not care for my formless approach. I can understand that; I prefer a mattress to a waterbed -- but that, too, strikes me as no more than a matter of taste. Odd to condemn others for being or thinking differently from oneself.

Secondly, we touched upon the moral lessons of the Bible. It seems to me that, for example, killing children is a direct and explicit commandment that God personally gives to the patriarch of Judaism.

That could only be considered a commandment upon you (1) if you read the Bible as a literal and historically accurate account of Gods direct dealings with humans, and (2) if you are the patriarch of Judaism.

Literature, remember? These are the written records of men, and a few women, THINKING about God. These are the first attempts at formulating laws for human behavior. They are not the Last Word on how humans should behave. They are the FIRST.

I mean, do you agree that the 10 commandments are commandments?

In the tradition, surely. Direct from God? THAT is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Which ones do you have a problem with? I dont see any commands to murder children among the Ten. There is, in fact, a commandment that FORBIDS murder, no?

Can you please read exodus 19 through 21 real quick, please? The setting couldn't be clearer. God says to Moses, "come on top of the mountain and I will give you commandments that you have to relay to your tribe. Here goes:", and then he gives him a bunch of COMMANDMENTS. Not to be mistaken with not-commandments, in that they are the exact opposite of commandments.

Now, the first 10 are very famous. Read them, and then flip the page to exodus 21, which starts with the words "THESE ARE THE LAWS YOU ARE TO SET BEFORE THEM", where God continues to give commandments, without change in tone of voice, or literary style, or setting, or pace, or context, and tells Moses that children who curse their parents must be killed, that slavery is ok as long as you don't hit your slave too hard with a rod, etc.

I understand that as a sophisticated Jew, a theist who doesn't believe in a manifest God, you don't believe that any of this actually happened in reality. You believe that these commandments are given in a metaphoric setting, but are you going to argue that "kill unruly children" is a metaphor for "do NOT kill unruly children" and "totally own slaves" is a metaphor for "slavery is wrong"?

How can you say that there aren't horribly immoral commandments in the Torah (Hebrew for "the law") in the face of the fact that THERE ARE!?

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

If I was babysitting your children, and tried to persuade them that it's right to kill rape victims, would you hire me to babysit your children again?

Once again: All those stories are scenes in a literary narrative. All those laws are early attempts at formulating a code of human behavior, and are perfectly understandable and rather typical in the context of the Bronze Age. What is so difficult about that concept for you?

Cant you see it yourself? You are INSISTING that the only authentic religious approach, and the only proper way to understand the Bible, is through STRICT LITERALISM and RIGID DOGMATISM!

Ive written this MANY times: The teachings of Judaism have CHANGED and DEVELOPED over the centuries. In our belief, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO. When you go back to a literal, strictly interpreted, rigid reading of documents from as early as the 10th century BCE, you are taking an approach that WE DONT.

Once again I ask: Why don't you consider the actual teachings of Judaism, as opposed to the laws that you insist on reading into the Biblical text? WE dont read it in that way; why would YOU, an ATHEIST, insist on doing that " and apparently insist that WE must read it in that way as well?

What do you think ancient literature MEANS? Why dont you even WANT to know what Judaism actually TEACHES? I must conclude that you dont really want to know; its not that hard to find out, after all.

Once again; implacable hostility and contempt doesnt make for a very objective approach. You've as much as admitted that previously.

Ill ask you straight out: Do you REALLY want to understand this material, or is that just a convenient pose? If you REALLY DO, then pick up The Jewish Study Bible and FIND OUT how we explain (not "explain away") and understand those passages that trouble you so much -- or, more properly, that you think give you such great ammunition in your obsessive efforts to prove that religion is always and in every way a pernicious, negative thing and worthy of nothing but your contempt.

Here's an ancient aphorism from REAL Jewish history: When asked to explain the "whole Torah" -- that is, all of Judaism -- while "standing on one foot (meaning briefly) the great rabbi Hillel, a near-contemporary of Jesus, said, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Now go and study it." Did you notice that he did not mention God?

Do you really want an intellectual challenge? Or do you just want to promote your personal agenda? If the former, then go and learn something about that which you profess to despise.

If the latter -- well, if the latter, why would I waste my time trying to tell you anything at all? You'd just be looking for more ammunition.

I hope this helps. If you have more questions, Ill be happy to try to answer them; but if they amount to just beating that same old drum, Ill merely note that and decline to engage, thanks.

Be well. I have enjoyed the exchanges thus far, but I am inclined to think weve now hit a dead end.

We're having two separate discussions about two different topics, so lets make sure not to conflate the two. First, we are discussing your belief in a God that manifests itself. Second we are discussing the moral value of the Bible irrespective of the fact it wasn't wasn't actually written by God.

Let's tackle the question of your belief in God first. I reject your analogy of belief vs non-belief in God to a preference for a mattress over a waterbed. This is not an issue of preference, this is a truth-statement. Your social security number either ends with the number 5 or it doesn't. God either manifests itself or it doesn't. If you believe it does, you're a theist, otherwise you're not.

There are countless numbers of worldviews and approaches to spirituality, probably as many as the total number of people who ever lived. But whatever your belief system is, if it does not involve the belief that a deity manifests itself, THEN YOU'RE NOT A THEIST.

If you believe that a deity manifests itself, you're a theist. Since the belief in a manifest deity is unwarranted, then the belief is wrong, or crazy, or deluded. Whatever word you want to use for it.


Now, about the teachings and value of the Torah as a morally inspiring work of literature. I COMPLETELY understand that you and most rational Jews don't believe that an actual entity called Moses spoke to an actual entity called God who said these words. Of course. But completely separate from the authorship, let's discuss the content.

First, can we agree that in the OT, the fictional character "God" gives the fictional character "Moses" some COMMANDMENTS while talking to him on top of Mount Senai, and tells him that these commandments are to be followed by all Jews? I am not saying that God actually exists, or that Moses actually exist. I'm just saying that these concepts appear in the work of literature called the Torah. Can we agree on that?

Now lets look at some of those 600+ commandments given to Moses by God on top of Mount Senai. Some are relatively benign. For example the commandment not to covet your neighbor's ox, donkey, slaves or wives. Implicit in this commandment are the endorsement of slavery and the endorsement of the objectification of women by lumping a wife in with "objects a man owns" such as his house, his pets and his slaves. But that's ok. I can look past that, I can understand the context of bronze age barbarism and amorality, ignore the pro-slavery and pro-sexism undertones, and look to the heart of the commandment, which is not to covet other people's stuff. Now, I disagree with a commandment not to covet something. Coveting happens inside your head, and I dislike the notion of a thought crime. There is nothing wrong with coveting a Ferrari just like your neighbor, if it propels you to work really hard as a doctor who saves children's lives, so eventually you can afford one just like it. I guess that this commandment, to make any sense at all, must be interpreted as meaning that if you happen to covet your neighbor's property you should not act upon it in a way that would hurt him, such as for example stealing it. Of course the commandment not to steal already exists, so that doesn't make much sense. In short, even if you look past the pro-slavery and pro-objectification-of-women portions, this commandment seems to outline a thought-crime and is thus morally incorrect. I guess I could read it as "Don't even think about stealing your neighbor's stuff" which, as I said, is relatively benign. It's not Socrates, it's not Confucius, it's not Lao-Tzu, it's not Buddha, but hey, it's not the KKK manifesto either.

Then there are commandments that may or may have not been useful at the time, but truly have nothing to do with modern life, such as the pages upon pages of detail on how to deal with bulls, cattle, sheep, goats, etc. Whatever. I'm totally ok with ignoring those as purely contextual and inapplicable to me.

But then there are commandments that are worded as no more and no less as commandments than the first 10, and contextually cannot be interpreted as anything other than commandments just like the first 10, which are truly monstrous! These are dozens of clear, unmistakable, unequivocally worded commandments. It's undeniable that in each and every context imaginable, no matter what, the irrefutably moral thing to do, is to always do the EXACT OPPOSITE of obeying those commandments.

Kill your children if they hit you, kill your children if they curse at you, kill a woman if she is raped inside the village, force her to marry her rapist if she is raped outside the village, kill witches, kill gay people, beat your slaves, sell your daughters as sex slaves, etc, etc, etc.

These commandments are written as explicitly and clearly as "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy", in the same literary style, in the same context, with the same intention, in the same chapter. These commandments EXIST, and they are EVIL.

Now, as I said above, I'm happy to look at Exodus 20:17 as a relatively harmless and feeble attempt at enforcing thought crime, imbued with pro-slavery and sexist bronze-age mentality, and interpret it as a reinforcement of Exodus 20:15. I'm ok with extracting a modern interpretation from the original text. I'm also ok with ignoring irrelevant passages about cattle and whatnot.

But can you please explain how all those other evil commandments should be explained/interpreted? The only way I can think of is this: These commandments are evil, twisted, misguided and immoral, they are no more excusable as "a product of their time and context" than the Holocaust is (even though it was preceded by millenia of official Christian antisemitism). The right thing to do, without exception, no matter what the circumstances, geographic or historical context, is to always do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what these commandments tell you. Never EVER kill a woman for not being a virgin, never EVER kill somebody for being gay, never EVER kill somebody for worshiping a different God. There is objectively nothing wrong whatsoever with being a non-virgin, being gay, or worshiping a different God. Not only should you not KILL non-virgins, gays and people of other religions, you should not hurt them, harass them, discriminate against them when it comes to housing, employment or anything else, you should CHERISH these people as your brothers and sisters and treat them like you would like to be treated. There is no better definition of the concept of "the opposite" than "What one should do when reading these commandments". Those commandments are evil, and the more active you are in doing the exact opposite of them, and persuading others to doing the opposite of them, the better a human being you will be. But maybe I missed something. Please explain.

Earlier, I compared going to strip clubs to going to a religious event, and you called that "calculated trivialization" of religion. I'm sorry, but unless when you go to your Synagogue, you spend a significant portion of the time actively denouncing and rejecting the objectively and irrefutably immoral and evil portions of "The Law", then I get to claim the moral high ground as I stuff singles in a girl's panties*.

If the subject of murdering children, owning slaves, killing gay people, forcing women to marry their rapists, killing non-virgins, etc, comes up, and you don't actively denounce and reject these immoral edicts, then you are yourself immoral. It is your moral and social responsibility, whenever the fact that you're a Jew comes up, to say "Yes, I'm a Jew, but I completely reject the clear and explicit commandments to murder gay people and non-virgin-brides which are written black-on-white in "The Law", the central book of my religion".

You mentioned that the rules of conduct of Judiasm have changed. That's great. Have they changed to the point where you guys now admit that the clearly written and contextually non-ambiguous COMMANDMENTS to kill gay people, non-virgins and unruly children in the same chapter of "The Law" as the 10 commandments, are ALWAYS wrong no matter what the historical context, and that anybody who does anything short of denouncing these horrible evil commandments is himself morally corrupt?


* Personal note. I don't ACTUALLY go to strip clubs. I went once for a friend's bachelor's party and I found it the most depressing place in the world.

[Danmark]

So what? There are better odds that a snake can being made to talk by a Designer than a snake being created from nothing.

It is the fundamentalists Christians that believe that the snakes and other creatures of the Garden were created, and that the universe was created ex nihilo.

That is what I thought as well.
99%:

Only the truly feeble-minded could believe that everything (let alone something) can come from nothing. It doesn't matter how loud the feeble-minded shout about the importance of their PhD.

Perhaps my JD protects me from this charge.
I agree with what I believe is the opinion of the vast majority of physicists in the field that the universe did not come from absolute nothingness but in one form or another has always been. Isn't that the same position theists take, that "God has always been?" And then this immaterial 'spirit' created a material universe from nothing?
To me, THAT position = the belief "... that everything (let alone something) can come from nothing."

[cnorman18]

We're having two separate discussions about two different topics, so lets make sure not to conflate the two. First, we are discussing your belief in a God that manifests itself. Second we are discussing the moral value of the Bible irrespective of the fact it wasn't wasn't actually written by God.

Let's tackle the question of your belief in God first. I reject your analogy of belief vs non-belief in God to a preference for a mattress over a waterbed. This is not an issue of preference, this is a truth-statement. Your social security number either ends with the number 5 or it doesn't. God either manifests itself or it doesn't. If you believe it does, you're a theist, otherwise you're not.

There are countless numbers of worldviews and approaches to spirituality, probably as many as the total number of people who ever lived. But whatever your belief system is, if it does not involve the belief that a deity manifests itself, THEN YOU'RE NOT A THEIST.

If you believe that a deity manifests itself, you're a theist. Since the belief in a manifest deity is unwarranted, then the belief is wrong, or crazy, or deluded. Whatever word you want to use for it.

Okay. I'm not sure why you think I have to share your demand that "theism" requires belief in a god that "manifests itself," but let's go with that.

I do. Okay? I believe that God has "manifested himself" (you'll forgive me for using the theistically conventional pronoun) and does "manifest himself" in events in my own life. My incredibly happy late marriage; my escape from a dreadful first marriage; and various other close calls and strange and beneficial coincidences. Now, none of those are useful for proving anything about "the nature of God," and so don't help at all with any kind of "coherent" definition; and none of those are useful for proving anything to anyone else, either, of course -- but I don't have any interest in doing that anyway, and I also don't think that is or should be a requirement of "belief," either.

Okay?

I really don't see why I should have to jump through the hoops you hold up to define myself as a theist and my beliefs as theism, anyway. Who made YOU the "theism police"? I shall call myself what I want. If you don't agree, tough.

Now, about the teachings and value of the Torah as a morally inspiring work of literature. I COMPLETELY understand that you and most rational Jews don't believe that an actual entity called Moses spoke to an actual entity called God who said these words. Of course. But completely separate from the authorship, let's discuss the content.

No, let's not. If you can't be bothered to FIND OUT what the Jewish view of those passages is, and why it is what it is, and take a look at the centuries of debate and discussion that gave rise to them, I don't have any interest in pursuing that discussion at all. That is PRECISELY the same as taking stereotypes of "Darwinism" as described by fundamentalist science-haters and asking me to justify my belief in them.

For example: You pretty clearly don't even understand the concept of "commandment" in Jewish belief. The Hebrew word is mitzvah, which translated loosely as "a good thing to do." We don't speak in terms of "prohibitions" and "SINS" and punishments and all that so much, as in terms of what is GOOD to do. Even eating pork is not a "sin" in the Christian sense, something forbidden and for which act there will be condemnation and punishment; on the contrary, NOT eating pork is a "good thing to do." That's all.

So the literal sense of the text is troubling to you? That's too bad. It doesn't bother us at all. Something my converting rabbi said in a Torah study a long time ago has stayed with me: "If you see something in the Torah that you KNOW to be immoral, unethical or factually untrue, there are two possibilities: Either you are not reading the Torah properly, or the Torah is wrong."

Notice that the third possibility -- overruling our own rational and moral sense in favor of religious dogmatism -- is not available to us. We are not ALLOWED to stop thinking and obey some set of dogmas like good little automatons. Sorry about that.

So the primitives thought that disobedient children should be stoned to death? Yeah, we know that, and we joke about it a lot; but it's not taken seriously as a "COMMANDMENT," and as far as the history and heritage that has been passed down to us tells, it never was. Here's another saying; "God has a vote, but not a veto." WE have to decide the meaning of the Torah and change the laws as necessary. That's been true from the beginning. So you think parts of the Bible are brutal and wrong? So do we -- so we ignore them. Something wrong with that?

Wait, wait, don't tell me -- we shouldn't be allowed to do that, right? Louses up your whole argument. Too bad. That's what we do.

Others want to insist that since there are evil things and immoral "laws" in the Bible, we must accept them as good and binding, or are otherwise ipso facto contemptible hypocrites, because "theists" HAVE TO BE dogmatic literalists or we're "not REALLY religious."

We greet that sort of pontification with a shrug.

Learn something about this tradition, and then perhaps we can talk. I stand by my observation that you have not, so far, demonstrated any interest in doing that.

[no evidence no belief]

We're having two separate discussions about two different topics, so lets make sure not to conflate the two. First, we are discussing your belief in a God that manifests itself. Second we are discussing the moral value of the Bible irrespective of the fact it wasn't wasn't actually written by God.

Let's tackle the question of your belief in God first. I reject your analogy of belief vs non-belief in God to a preference for a mattress over a waterbed. This is not an issue of preference, this is a truth-statement. Your social security number either ends with the number 5 or it doesn't. God either manifests itself or it doesn't. If you believe it does, you're a theist, otherwise you're not.

There are countless numbers of worldviews and approaches to spirituality, probably as many as the total number of people who ever lived. But whatever your belief system is, if it does not involve the belief that a deity manifests itself, THEN YOU'RE NOT A THEIST.

If you believe that a deity manifests itself, you're a theist. Since the belief in a manifest deity is unwarranted, then the belief is wrong, or crazy, or deluded. Whatever word you want to use for it.

Okay. I'm not sure why you think I have to share your demand that "theism" requires belief in a god that "manifests itself," but let's go with that.

I do. Okay? I believe that God has "manifested himself" (you'll forgive me for using the theistically conventional pronoun) and does "manifest himself" in events in my own life. My incredibly happy late marriage; my escape from a dreadful first marriage; and various other close calls and strange and beneficial coincidences. Now, none of those are useful for proving anything about "the nature of God," and so don't help at all with any kind of "coherent" definition; and none of those are useful for proving anything to anyone else, either, of course -- but I don't have any interest in doing that anyway, and I also don't think that is or should be a requirement of "belief," either.

Okay?

I really don't see why I should have to jump through the hoops you hold up to define myself as a theist and my beliefs as theism, anyway. Who made YOU the "theism police"? I shall call myself what I want. If you don't agree, tough.

Absolutely. You can call yourself whatever you want. It's just that if you deviate too much from the definitions of words that the rest of humanity has agreed on, it will be hard for you to communicate with the rest of us.

For example, you have every right to use the word "sandwich" when what you mean is that which most of us call "bus", and you can use totally the word "gigantic" when you mean that which most of us call "downtown". Of course if you do that, if you ask somebody "Where can I catch the gigantic sandwich", don't expect us to understand that you're trying to catch the downtown bus.

So, in your head, feel free to label yourself however you wish, but please understand that if you believe in a manifest deity, then the rest of humanity will refer to you as a theist.

That having been cleared up, let's discuss your belief. You believe in a manifest deity because you, just like billions of others, got married, got divorced, got remarried.

The observable universe has a radius of 46 billion light years. We know that, taking dark matter and dark energy into account, that 46 billion light year radius accounts for 5% of the actual universe. All the hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars, with the statistically inevitable countless life forms and civilizations in them, are 5% of that which exists. To believe that the entity which created this, also meddles with the mundane and banal social and romantic interactions of homo sapiens, which only showed up in the last few moments on a cosmic timescale and will become extinct in a few moments more, is ABSURD. It's laughable. To believe that, without the slightest shred of evidence, is madness. To believe in the existence and manifest interactivity of a deity, when such a proposition is utterly and completely indistinguishable from the non-existence and non-manifest non-interactivity, is the definition of insanity. Please give me an example of anything at all that it is more absurd to believe than that!

Now, about the teachings and value of the Torah as a morally inspiring work of literature. I COMPLETELY understand that you and most rational Jews don't believe that an actual entity called Moses spoke to an actual entity called God who said these words. Of course. But completely separate from the authorship, let's discuss the content.

No, let's not. If you can't be bothered to FIND OUT what the Jewish view of those passages is, and why it is what it is, and take a look at the centuries of debate and discussion that gave rise to them, I don't have any interest in pursuing that discussion at all. That is PRECISELY the same as taking stereotypes of "Darwinism" as described by fundamentalist science-haters and asking me to justify my belief in them.

That's not even remotely the same. There isn't a scientist in the world who would fail to unequivocally state that Darwin was wrong in some things. There isn't a single scientist in the world, albeit Newton is every scientist's idol, who will give Newton a free pass for his beliefs in alchemy, for example. Every single scientist in the world will say Newton is great for calculus and Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and whatnot, BUT WAS WRONG ABOUT ALCHEMY!

So why can't you say "I love the fairy tales about the talking snake and whatnot, but the Torah is WRONG ABOUT KILLING GAYS. Why can't you just go ahead and say that?

For example: You pretty clearly don't even understand the concept of "commandment" in Jewish belief. The Hebrew word is mitzvah, which translated loosely as "a good thing to do." We don't speak in terms of "prohibitions" and "SINS" and punishments and all that so much, as in terms of what is GOOD to do. Even eating pork is not a "sin" in the Christian sense, something forbidden and for which act there will be condemnation and punishment; on the contrary, NOT eating pork is a "good thing to do." That's all.

I see, so killing a gay person, or beating your slaves, or stoning a woman to death for getting raped, is just a "good thing to do"?

So the literal sense of the text is troubling to you? That's too bad. It doesn't bother us at all. Something my converting rabbi said in a Torah study a long time ago has stayed with me: "If you see something in the Torah that you KNOW to be immoral, unethical or factually untrue, there are two possibilities: Either you are not reading the Torah properly, or the Torah is wrong."

Perfect. Can you agree that the Torah is wrong in a LOT of ways?

Notice that the third possibility -- overruling our own rational and moral sense in favor of religious dogmatism -- is not available to us. We are not ALLOWED to stop thinking and obey some set of dogmas like good little automatons. Sorry about that.

Great. That's not all jews, by the way. Right?

I've seen Jews here in New York give up on a $400,000 deal because they couldn't pick up the phone on a saturday. Seems to me like overruling rationality in favor of religious dogmatism. Not to mention that whole "slicing a piece of your children's penis off without their consent. That seems rather dogmatic to me.

So the primitives thought that disobedient children should be stoned to death? Yeah, we know that, and we joke about it a lot; but it's not taken seriously as a "COMMANDMENT," and as far as the history and heritage that has been passed down to us tells, it never was. Here's another saying; "God has a vote, but not a veto." WE have to decide the meaning of the Torah and change the laws as necessary. That's been true from the beginning. So you think parts of the Bible are brutal and wrong? So do we -- so we ignore them. Something wrong with that?

No, nothing wrong with that. That's great. You absolutely HAVE TO ignore the parts that are brutal and wrong. Don't just ignore them, though, publicly denounce and reject them. It's the moral imperative of all human beings to denounce and reject immorality and evil.

Could you do me a favor? There must be thousands of hours of recorded speeches, sermons, ramblings by rabbis and jewish thinkers on youtube. Could you find me one in which a person in authority within judaism says "the Torah is wrong in many ways, I denounce it, I reject it, I am not ashamed of it because we all have violent, amoral and savage ancestors, but i certainly am not proud of it either."

Wait, wait, don't tell me -- we shouldn't be allowed to do that, right? Louses up your whole argument. Too bad. That's what we do.

Others want to insist that since there are evil things and immoral "laws" in the Bible, we must accept them as good and binding, or are otherwise ipso facto contemptible hypocrites, because "theists" HAVE TO BE dogmatic literalists or we're "not REALLY religious."

We greet that sort of pontification with a shrug.

Dude, you completely misunderstand me. I agree with you 100% that you are only bound by the principle of consistency to accept and abide by all the teachings of the Bible, if you claim it's the inerrant word of God. If you don't make that claim, and you clearly don't, then clearly you are free to ignore whichever segments you want.

I just have two points to make. First, how many evil and perverted portions of a book must you ignore, before you realize that the whole book might be an interesting historical novelty, but is not really worth making a significant part of your life?

By analogy, imagine you're taking your kids to the movies, and you know it's a nice movie, but there is a violent and sexually explicit scene, and you plan on covering up your kids eyes. That's fine if it's only one scene. What if 30% of the movie is violent, scary, explicit or otherwise unsuitable for kids? What if 50% is? 80%? At what point do you say "forget it, this movie is too violent/scary/explicit, let's just go see Toy Story 3"?

At what point do you say "forget it, the Torah is too immoral, too evil, too twisted, too perverted, too savage, too barbaric, let's just read about Socrates"?

It's just a horrible book, isn't it?

If I asked you to open a page of the Torah at random and read forward until you find some kind of commandment or Mitzvah, a direct instruction to do something, and once you read it... DO IT, would you be willing to play that game? How much of a minefield of horrible immorality can a book be, before you just chuck it all out and move on to Lao-Tzu?


Second point: Why don't moderate theists (Jews and otherwise) do MORE to publicize their opinion that the majority of the directives, teachings and commandments in the Bible are evil? Is ignoring them enough? I say it isn't. Not while 800 women a year are killed in Pakistan in honor killings which are rooted in the Abrahamic tradition you embrace. Draw a line in the sand. Yell it from the rooftops. "We, the Jews, renounce and reject the immoral and evil teachings of the Torah. The incitations to genocide, homophobia, sexism and slavery of the Torah, are no more a part of a modern Jew's life, than the incitations to antisemitism and hatred of Mein Kampf are a part of a modern German's life."

[cnorman18]

This is really getting tiresome. Just a few points:

We're having two separate discussions about two different topics, so lets make sure not to conflate the two. First, we are discussing your belief in a God that manifests itself. Second we are discussing the moral value of the Bible irrespective of the fact it wasn't wasn't actually written by God.

Let's tackle the question of your belief in God first. I reject your analogy of belief vs non-belief in God to a preference for a mattress over a waterbed. This is not an issue of preference, this is a truth-statement. Your social security number either ends with the number 5 or it doesn't. God either manifests itself or it doesn't. If you believe it does, you're a theist, otherwise you're not.

There are countless numbers of worldviews and approaches to spirituality, probably as many as the total number of people who ever lived. But whatever your belief system is, if it does not involve the belief that a deity manifests itself, THEN YOU'RE NOT A THEIST.

If you believe that a deity manifests itself, you're a theist. Since the belief in a manifest deity is unwarranted, then the belief is wrong, or crazy, or deluded. Whatever word you want to use for it.

Okay. I'm not sure why you think I have to share your demand that "theism" requires belief in a god that "manifests itself," but let's go with that.

I do. Okay? I believe that God has "manifested himself" (you'll forgive me for using the theistically conventional pronoun) and does "manifest himself" in events in my own life. My incredibly happy late marriage; my escape from a dreadful first marriage; and various other close calls and strange and beneficial coincidences. Now, none of those are useful for proving anything about "the nature of God," and so don't help at all with any kind of "coherent" definition; and none of those are useful for proving anything to anyone else, either, of course -- but I don't have any interest in doing that anyway, and I also don't think that is or should be a requirement of "belief," either.

Okay?

I really don't see why I should have to jump through the hoops you hold up to define myself as a theist and my beliefs as theism, anyway. Who made YOU the "theism police"? I shall call myself what I want. If you don't agree, tough.

Absolutely. You can call yourself whatever you want. It's just that if you deviate too much from the definitions of words that the rest of humanity has agreed on, it will be hard for you to communicate with the rest of us.

For example, you have every right to use the word "sandwich" when what you mean is that which most of us call "bus", and you can use totally the word "gigantic" when you mean that which most of us call "downtown". Of course if you do that, if you ask somebody "Where can I catch the gigantic sandwich", don't expect us to understand that you're trying to catch the downtown bus.

Thats ridiculous. You are STILL maintaining that RELIGION must be all about BELIEF IN GOD and that BELIEF IN GOD must be the CENTER and FOCUS of everything called a religion. Tossing ludicrous examples like using sandwich for bus is just an attempted distraction from the stereotype you insist on using. Ive already shown how the term theism is neither as rigid nor as limited as you tried to show " and now youre going back to that same claim. Sorry, but pretending that calling a bus a sandwich isnt making your point.

Once again, in other words, you refuse to even begin to take these ideas seriously; you only DENY them and paint them as ludicrous.

So, in your head, feel free to label yourself however you wish, but please understand that if you believe in a manifest deity, then the rest of humanity will refer to you as a theist.

That having been cleared up, let's discuss your belief. You believe in a manifest deity because you, just like billions of others, got married, got divorced, got remarried.

No, not at all. I believed long before any of those things happened; its just that my belief, in an admittedly subjective manner, was " for me and no one else " validated in those ways, and in a likewise subjective manner, for me and no one else, God manifested himself as far as my own belief is concerned.

Now, if you want to amend your requirements for theism to include manifest in a way objectively provable to others, then do so; but you have then defined theism completely out of existence. Thats not a debate. Thats just polemic and propaganda.

The observable universe has a radius of 46 billion light years. We know that, taking dark matter and dark energy into account, that 46 billion light year radius accounts for 5% of the actual universe. All the hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars, with the statistically inevitable countless life forms and civilizations in them, are 5% of that which exists. To believe that the entity which created this, also meddles with the mundane and banal social and romantic interactions of homo sapiens, which only showed up in the last few moments on a cosmic timescale and will become extinct in a few moments more, is ABSURD. It's laughable. To believe that, without the slightest shred of evidence, is madness. To believe in the existence and manifest interactivity of a deity, when such a proposition is utterly and completely indistinguishable from the non-existence and non-manifest non-interactivity, is the definition of insanity. Please give me an example of anything at all that it is more absurd to believe than that!

All of which comes down to nothing more than belief in God is absurd.

Thats an opinion and an assertion, not an argument.

Now, about the teachings and value of the Torah as a morally inspiring work of literature. I COMPLETELY understand that you and most rational Jews don't believe that an actual entity called Moses spoke to an actual entity called God who said these words. Of course. But completely separate from the authorship, let's discuss the content.

No, let's not. If you can't be bothered to FIND OUT what the Jewish view of those passages is, and why it is what it is, and take a look at the centuries of debate and discussion that gave rise to them, I don't have any interest in pursuing that discussion at all. That is PRECISELY the same as taking stereotypes of "Darwinism" as described by fundamentalist science-haters and asking me to justify my belief in them.

That's not even remotely the same. There isn't a scientist in the world who would fail to unequivocally state that Darwin was wrong in some things.

And theres not a rabbi in the world who would advocate stoning gays to death, or killing disobedient children, or slavery.

Like I said; its precisely the same. Insisting on going back to the source and challenging your opponent to prove its validity.

So why can't you say "I love the fairy tales about the talking snake and whatnot, but the Torah is WRONG ABOUT KILLING GAYS. Why can't you just go ahead and say that?

I just did, did I not?

For example: You pretty clearly don't even understand the concept of "commandment" in Jewish belief. The Hebrew word is mitzvah, which translated loosely as "a good thing to do." We don't speak in terms of "prohibitions" and "SINS" and punishments and all that so much, as in terms of what is GOOD to do. Even eating pork is not a "sin" in the Christian sense, something forbidden and for which act there will be condemnation and punishment; on the contrary, NOT eating pork is a "good thing to do." That's all.

I see, so killing a gay person, or beating your slaves, or stoning a woman to death for getting raped, is just a "good thing to do?

Nice try, but those are among the parts that we discount and ignore.

Killing gays was never among the 613 traditional mitzvot anyway; there are a number of lists (none definitive), and that isnt on any of them. You might say that NOT sleeping with another man (3,500 years ago) and NOT committing adultery (as opposed to being raped) might be considered good things to do " the former of which isnt taught by modern Jews any more, as I said.

In any case, prescribed punishments are not commandments " another principle with which you seem to be unfamiliar. (Theres no such thing as getting stoned for being raped in the book "thats just your polemic distortion of those passages, which, again, no one ever enforced anyway, even in the way that they WERE understood.)

Does it matter to you at all that Jews are more supportive of LGBT rights than any other religious group? Or are you too obsessed with overstating and grossly exaggerating the evils of an old book to acknowledge that? Ill give 5 to 1 that youll either not acknowledge this point at all, or youll claim that its somehow irrelevant to your argument " which is isnt.

Hows this? If a belief isnt MANIFEST in some sort of actual concrete behavior, then its NOT AN ACTUAL BELIEF. Explain to me why THAT standard is wrong.

So the literal sense of the text is troubling to you? That's too bad. It doesn't bother us at all. Something my converting rabbi said in a Torah study a long time ago has stayed with me: "If you see something in the Torah that you KNOW to be immoral, unethical or factually untrue, there are two possibilities: Either you are not reading the Torah properly, or the Torah is wrong.

Perfect. Can you agree that the Torah is wrong in a LOT of ways?

Surely, and I implicitly already have; but I doubt very much if the longest list I could compose would satisfy you. You want me to condemn ALL OF IT. See below.

Notice that the third possibility -- overruling our own rational and moral sense in favor of religious dogmatism -- is not available to us. We are not ALLOWED to stop thinking and obey some set of dogmas like good little automatons. Sorry about that.

Great. That's not all jews, by the way. Right?

I've seen Jews here in New York give up on a $400,000 deal because they couldn't pick up the phone on a saturday. Seems to me like overruling rationality in favor of religious dogmatism.

I would think its just a matter of deciding which was more important in that particular case. Heres a counterexample; Jews are also forbidden to drive on the Sabbath, but its also an ancient principle that one may violate ANY commandment to save a life, or even prevent risk to health or life. If any person, Jew or not, were seriously ill, any Jew would drive him to the hospital without a second thought.

Saving a life, or preventing risk to a life, trumps the tradition and the commandment, even for the Orthodox.

Making money? Thats not of quite the same priority, now is it? (And your story rather gives the lie to the stereotypes about Jewish greed, too, doesnt it?)

Sorry, but you dont get to pronounce things irrational merely because you dont agree with them.

Not to mention that whole "slicing a piece of your children's penis off without their consent. That seems rather dogmatic to me.

Dealt with elsewhere, and at length, and with no response to my last post on the subject.

In any case: There it is again. If you have nothing but hatred and contempt for religious ideas and traditions, you wont even begin to consider that there might be another point of view on that subject, too " and you demonstrate your total hatred and contempt for religion with every post.

So the primitives thought that disobedient children should be stoned to death? Yeah, we know that, and we joke about it a lot; but it's not taken seriously as a "COMMANDMENT," and as far as the history and heritage that has been passed down to us tells, it never was. Here's another saying; "God has a vote, but not a veto." WE have to decide the meaning of the Torah and change the laws as necessary. That's been true from the beginning. So you think parts of the Bible are brutal and wrong? So do we -- so we ignore them. Something wrong with that?

No, nothing wrong with that. That's great. You absolutely HAVE TO ignore the parts that are brutal and wrong. Don't just ignore them, though, publicly denounce and reject them. It's the moral imperative of all human beings to denounce and reject immorality and evil.

We do " but you wouldnt know that, since you dont read Jewish magazines or newspapers or look at Jewish websites for any reason other than seeking ammunition for your arguments; and of course you dont consider working against the attitudes such passages advocate, in both private conversations and public policy, as counting for anything in that regard. But that " renouncing the evil passages " is not your real concern anyway, as we shall see.

Could you do me a favor? There must be thousands of hours of recorded speeches, sermons, ramblings by rabbis and jewish thinkers on youtube. Could you find me one in which a person in authority within judaism says the Torah is wrong in many ways, I denounce it, I reject it, I am not ashamed of it because we all have violent, amoral and savage ancestors, but i certainly am not proud of it either."

And now it comes out. Not just the evil parts of the Torah " but the whole thing, as highlighted by the bolding above. Lets skip down and see that again, made even clearer:

First, how many evil and perverted portions of a book must you ignore, before you realize that the whole book might be an interesting historical novelty, but is not really worth making a significant part of your life?

At what point do you say "forget it, the Torah is too immoral, too evil, too twisted, too perverted, too savage, too barbaric, let's just read about Socrates"?

Its just a horrible book, isn't it?

If I asked you to open a page of the Torah at random and read forward until you find some kind of commandment or Mitzvah, a direct instruction to do something, and once you read it... DO IT, would you be willing to play that game? How much of a minefield of horrible immorality can a book be, before you just chuck it all out and move on to Lao-Tzu?

Clear enough. You want Jews to do FAR more than just reject the parts of the Torah that you object to; you want us to abandon it entirely and express the same hatred and contempt for it that YOU feel.

Not bloody likely. We dont look at it in the obsessively twisted way that you do.

Second point: Why don't moderate theists (Jews and otherwise) do MORE to publicize their opinion that the majority of the directives, teachings and commandments in the Bible are evil?

NONE, because NONE of us believe that to be true.

The MAJORITY of the directives, teachings and commandments in the Bible are evil?

Really?

Up to now, youve merely been expressing your opinion " as contemptuous and extreme and filled with hatred and revulsion as it is. But you have now made a factual claim, and I challenge you to PROVE IT.

Since youve never read the Hebrew Bible (not the same as the Torah, by the way, which is yet another fact that you dont seem to be aware of) except to seek out the parts you find horrible and disgusting, I dont think you can " unless, of course, you work very hard at twisting the GOOD teachings, directives and commandments and trying to make them LOOK evil. More on that later.

Now lets consider the astonishing depth of your extreme hatred and your determination to savage and misrepresent Jewish teachings and traditions:

Is ignoring them enough? I say it isn't. Not while 800 women a year are killed in Pakistan in honor killings which are rooted in the Abrahamic tradition you embrace.

This is astonishing and incredibly repellent, by ANY standard.

You blame JEWS for the excesses and atrocities of MUSLIMS? You actually claim that I, and other Jews, embrace the tradition of HONOR KILLINGS?

I think that makes your attitude clear. The puzzle is why that kind of bizarre and absolutely indefensible smear doesnt make it clear to YOU.

Draw a line in the sand. Yell it from the rooftops. We, the Jews, renounce and reject the immoral and evil teachings of the Torah. The incitations to genocide, homophobia, sexism and slavery of the Torah, are no more a part of a modern Jew's life, than the incitations to antisemitism and hatred of Mein Kampf are a part of a modern German's life.

Never gonna happen " because neither the WHOLE TORAH nor the WHOLE HEBREW BIBLE is wholly, or even MOSTLY, evil, in spite of your contempt-fueled certainty that they are; and they will ALWAYS remain a part of Jewish life.

We dont renounce and reject the Torah because we are too busy teaching and proving by example the GOOD teachings and traditions of the Torah and Judaism. You wish that there werent any; but claiming that there ARE NONE, or even that those are a MINORITY, no matter how much you wish that were so, is IRRATIONAL.

I COULD give a list of the GOOD things taught in the Hebrew Bible " a list MUCH LONGER than any list you can compile of its horrors " but I wont bother; as I say, you would work as hard as you could to find a way to twist ALL of them into something evil, or just dismiss them with some kind of counter, no doubt using the same ones over and over and over again.

In any case, you made the claim that the MAJORITY of the teachings, traditions and commandments in the Hebrew Bible " or the Torah, if you like " are EVIL.

Lets see what youve got to SUPPORT that outrageous falsehood.

Now, to conclude: Barring an attempt to prove your slanderous and objectively false claim, I dont intend to reply to your posts again, for several reasons: (1) your position is too extreme to merit with replies, since that tends to give them credence: (2) you either ignore or distort everything I say; and (3) you still refuse to even acknowledge my repeated requests, nay, demands, that you LEARN SOMETHING about the teachings and traditions of Judaism, most likely because you are NOT open to learning ANYTHING that might challenge your pre-judgment (sometimes call prejudice) of all things religious and your blatantly hateful and shockingly slanderous ideas about both the Jewish religion and the Jewish Bible.

Be well. If you post an attempt to prove the hateful baloney you posted above as a factual, quantitative claim, Ill respond. Otherwise, I have nothing further to say. Deal with THAT first; prove it or retract it. If you try to go on without doing one of those two things first, youll get no response from me.