The 'New' Number One Reason We Know there is No God . . . :D

[Danmark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... traditions lists a very length assemblage of religions and cultures. I submit it is woefully incomplete. It is a fair assumption that the only ones that made it on the list are one's we have historical references to. This assertion is self defining. We can assume there were/are thousands more we are not aware of.

The question for debate is, "Why is YOUR particular version of "God" correct and the tens of thousands, or millions, of others wrong?

[cnorman18]

Precisely right. Some of the rabbis of old, as well as those of our own day, regarded any attempt to define God as a form of idolatry -- the making of a mental image, if you will; a human construct that is then worshiped as God. The Biblical metaphors themselves seem to indicate this -- no man can see God's face and live, he refuses to give his true name, he is hidden in smoke and flame, and so on. A rabbi once agreed when I told him that this was the significance, in the story, of our hearing his voice at Sinai, but not seeing who (or what) spoke. Ein Sof -- the Wholly Other.

Even when I was a fully 'true believing' evangelical Christian I could not understand why most Christians did not get this. Exactly! This Bible worship and "Jehovah worship" always struck me as idolatry. The single most profound and impressive passage in the Bible is "I AM." There is more theology in those two words than in thousands of books on the subject. Yet so many misunderstand the subtle profundity of the phrase.

Again, precisely right.

But don't tell me; tell Divine Insight. He apparently still thinks that if the book isn't accepted as the literal, direct word of a real, supernatural God, it's nothing more than a bunch of silly superstitious fables with no "profundity" to be found anywhere in it, and should be discarded and ignored.

(shrug)

Maybe religion is like an old aphorism about chess: Chess is a sea in which a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe.

I quite agree. Children -- and others -- find comfort and certainty in a very shallow, and frankly superstitious, view of religion. So long as they do not attempt to impose such views on others (and children, at least, don't generally do that), I see no harm in such belief, and much good. On the other hand....

I know of a young woman who approached an aged rabbi with the words, "Rabbi, I know all about Judaism and I want to convert."

The rabbi, facetiously of course -- he was smiling -- slammed both hands on his desk and declared, "How DARE you say that you 'know all about Judaism"! I have devoted my life to learning about Judaism for more than eighty years, and I have only begun!"

[cnorman18]

Dear Charles,

I actually suspected that you might chime in when I was writing my thoughts on Judaism above. I almost hate to mention Judaism anymore in the fear that I might rile you up.

And until you stop spouting your stereotypes and gross misunderstandings of Judaism, I will continue to do so.

But I can't help but ask how you can you take the stance that for Jews Judaism is just heritage literature when it's based upon the Ten Commandments that God supposedly gave to Moses, and that the first Four of those Commandments are commandments to worship this God?

They don't call these "The Ten Suggestions". And even if they did, it's still suggestions being made by a God about how he is supposed to be worshiped.

How in the world do you dismiss this as not being about a God who is telling people how to behave and how they should worship the God?

Like I said:

"The difficulty is that you won't, or can't, accept the FACT that we Jews consider all those "commands," and the Scripture itself in which they appear, as our literary and cultural heritage, and not as a currently valid and obligatory list of specific demands of God."

I -- we -- don't "dismiss" anything. That would be YOUR interpretation of what the words in bold above mean. We STUDY it, because Scripture is not, to us, merely a collection of superstitious fables with no value or meaning at all. Again, that is YOUR understanding of it, which proves, again, that when you speak of the Hebrew Bible, you really, literally, do not know what you are talking about.

Now read the rest of my post, and see if you can actually get beyond your insistence on Biblical literalism and supernaturalism, and at least attempt to understand what I've been trying to tell you for lo, these many months. And note, again, that I agreed with the great majority of what you said before you mentioned Judaism.

Hey, I know! Why don't you actually read something about modern Judaism other than the New Testament?

Tell me this; If you were speaking of any OTHER group, and an actual member of that group disagreed with you on its nature as fiercely as I do, would you still insist that you knew everything you needed to know about that group and refuse to even consider changing your ideas about it?

It's tragic, really. You're an intelligent guy, and I like you and your approach; but on this one subject, you have an enormous blind spot and adamantly refuse to even consider the possibility that you might just be WRONG on the subject of my religion. There is so much about it that you would agree with and even admire, if only you would open yourself to actually LEARNING something about it. I don't say you would convert; of course you wouldn't. Few do, or should, which is why we initially discourage conversion rather than proselytize. But you might come to respect the Jewish religion, and acknowledge that it is qualitatively different from the other "Abrahamic religions," as many of the other atheists here, mostly longtime members, have come to do.

It might just come down to this: Like the overwhelming majority of Christians, you are OBSESSED with the Bible.

We aren't.

Yea, verily, ONE MORE TIME:

The beliefs and practices of the Jewish religion cannot be discerned through an unaided, superficial reading of the Hebrew Bible.

[Danmark]

I know of a young woman who approached an aged rabbi with the words, "Rabbi, I know all about Judaism and I want to convert."

The rabbi, facetiously of course -- he was smiling -- slammed both hands on his desk and declared, "How DARE you say that you 'know all about Judaism"! I have devoted my life to learning about Judaism for more than eighty years, and I have only begun!"

Good story.
There is a Zen tradition, "Beginner's Mind; Expert's Mind." There are benefits to each approach. The beginner sees more possibilities, the expert few. The real expert still has beginner's mind.

[Danmark]

....There is so much about it that you would agree with and even admire, if only you would open yourself to actually LEARNING something about it. I don't say you would convert; of course you wouldn't. Few do, or should, which is why we initially discourage conversion rather than proselytize. But you might come to respect the Jewish religion, and acknowledge that it is qualitatively different from the other "Abrahamic religions," as many of the other atheists here, mostly longtime members, have come to do.

It might just come down to this: Like the overwhelming majority of Christians, you are OBSESSED with the Bible.

We aren't.

Yea, verily, ONE MORE TIME:

The beliefs and practices of the Jewish religion cannot be discerned through an unaided, superficial reading of the Hebrew Bible.

I like this approach, very much. I hope to learn from it. But I cannot blame non Christians for their negative reaction to the Bible, when so many Christians insist on their literal, absolute, and inflexible interpretation of it.

Can it not be fairly said that all the Abrahamic religions are represented at their worst by the rigid fundamentalist approach? The typical Christian education on scripture emphasizes this literalist approach and ties it in to the views of Jesus on the Pharisees and tends to cloak all of Judaism in that dogmatic, literalist, legalistic view. The irony is that so many Christians then turn around and act and preach more like Pharisees than the Pharisees themselves.

I assume that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have adherents that run the gamut from extreme fundamentalism to [help me here, I'm not sure of the right word] a more liberal approach. Thomas Merton comes to mind as a Christian example.

[Divine Insight]

Hey, I know! Why don't you actually read something about modern Judaism other than the New Testament?

Actually I wouldn't even bother.

Here's my take on this Charles:

If the "Modern Jews" are that much in denial of the way these ancient texts are written and speak about God, then all I can say is that "Modern Judaism" have done nothing short but reject the claims of these ancient writings.

That's the only thing I can say about that.

Moreover, the way you speak of "Modern Judaism" I can only conclude that Judaism itself has evolved over the centuries to become nothing more than agnosticism or atheism in terms of the Biblical God.

According to you the Jews aren't anymore convinced that there is any God associated with their religion than I am.

Why should we even call "Modern Judaism" a religion if what you say is true?

According to you the Jews don't even believe in has anything to do with any God.

I mean, I won't argue with you over what "Modern Jews" might actually believe or think.

But if you're going to argue that "Modern Judaism" is basically nothing more than agnosticism and doubts about their religion I'd have to say that it's not a very convincing religion.

Why should anyone else consider "Modern Judaism" as being a religion worthy of consideration when the "Modern Jews" themselves don't even believe it is the word of any God?

All you are telling me is that "Modern Judaism" is nothing other than agnosticism.

In fact, you even seem to be suggesting that it's more likely NOT the word of any God.

[Divine Insight]

I assume that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have adherents that run the gamut from extreme fundamentalism to [help me here, I'm not sure of the right word] a more liberal approach. Thomas Merton comes to mind as a Christian example.

Here's a legal question for you Dan,

In the USA religious organizations are eligible for tax exemption.

Obviously the hardcore fundamentalists are eligible for religious tax exemption because they clearly believe in a very well defined God, and thus a well-defined "religion".

But when we start seeing the more liberal approach to religion, just how far can that go and still qualify as being "religion that should be exempt from taxes"?

Would a group of agnostics qualify as a religious organization that should be tax exempt?

From the way Charles describes "Modern Judaism" that appears to be all it is. Just a group of modern agnostics.

And if agnosticism should qualify as "religion" then shouldn't atheism also qualify as "religion"? Or at least anti-theism should qualify as a religion since we're now heading back to the area of having quite strong beliefs about God (i.e. a strong belief that no God exists).

In fact, when we stop and think about it, why should people who believe God exists be tax exempt whilst people who believe God doesn't exist are taxed?

Sounds like extreme prejudice to me.

[Danmark]

I assume that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have adherents that run the gamut from extreme fundamentalism to [help me here, I'm not sure of the right word] a more liberal approach. Thomas Merton comes to mind as a Christian example.

Here's a legal question for you Dan,

In the USA religious organizations are eligible for tax exemption.

Obviously the hardcore fundamentalists are eligible for religious tax exemption because they clearly believe in a very well defined God, and thus a well-defined "religion".

But when we start seeing the more liberal approach to religion, just how far can that go and still qualify as being "religion that should be exempt from taxes"?

Would a group of agnostics qualify as a religious organization that should be tax exempt?

From the way Charles describes "Modern Judaism" that appears to be all it is. Just a group of modern agnostics.

And if agnosticism should qualify as "religion" then shouldn't atheism also qualify as "religion"? Or at least anti-theism should qualify as a religion since we're now heading back to the area of having quite strong beliefs about God (i.e. a strong belief that no God exists).

In fact, when we stop and think about it, why should people who believe God exists be tax exempt whilst people who believe God doesn't exist are taxed?

Sounds like extreme prejudice to me.

There have been several topics started here on this issue. Mine is here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 94&start=0

The IRS gives a lot of info here:
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-025-003.html#d0e167

My area of quasi expertise is criminal defense, so I don't have a ready view, but the organization does not have to be religious to qualify. It must be organized and operated for an exempt purpose:
Like - Click this link to Add this page to your bookmarks Share - Click this link to Share this page through email or social media Print - Click this link to Print this page

Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

And now to the key concept or test. The key cases come from claims of military exemption:

7.25.3.6.5 (02-23-1999)
Religious Belief Defined

The term "religious" as used in IRC 501(c)(3) is not subject to precise definition. The leading interpretation of the term was made by the Supreme Court in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), in which the Court interpreted the phrase "religious training and belief" as used in the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C. section 456 (j), in determining an individuals eligibility for exemption from military service on religious grounds. The Court formulated the following definition: "A sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the statutory definition."

The Court elaborated upon the Seeger definition in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 33 (1970), stating that "f an individual deeply and sincerely holds beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in source and content but that nevertheless impose upon him a duty of conscience to refrain from participating in any war at any time, those beliefs certainly occupy in the life of that individual a place parallel to that filled by... God in the lives of traditionally religious persons." Thus, religious beliefs include many beliefs (for example, Taoism, Buddhism, and Secular Humanism) that do not posit the existence of a Supreme Being in the conventional sense.

Therefore, my opinion is: We're in! The Seeger case:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... /case.html

did not involve a specific claim of exemption for an "atheist," so that was not addressed. But it would be a fairly simple matter to craft a religion that did not exclude non theists and in fact made an ethical system without resort to a supreme being. So, from an agnostic Jew or Christian, or one who simply says "I refuse to define God in traditional theistic terms" and even specifically declares as blasphemous the attempt to do so, should qualify. Whether it is considered contradictory or not, the phrase in green is what I subscribe to.

Isn't that a statement that you and Charles and I can all agree upon?

[cnorman18]

Hey, I know! Why don't you actually read something about modern Judaism other than the New Testament?

Actually I wouldn't even bother.

Here's my take on this Charles:

If the "Modern Jews" are that much in denial of the way these ancient texts are written and speak about God, then all I can say is that "Modern Judaism" have done nothing short but reject the claims of these ancient writings.

Who said anything about being "in denial"? Who said anything about "rejecting" anything, as if there's only "unquestionably accept and follow" or "reject and deny"? We see and read and study these writings precisely as they are. We just don't give them the kind of authority you seem to think we should.

How you'd justify that insistence, without assuming that authority a priori in order to do so, I can't guess. You have never done anything else....

That's the only thing I can say about that.

And it betrays a rigid, up/down, black/white kind of approach that I'd bet you wouldn't apply to ANY other subject, not even (as you've repeatedly demonstrated) the existence of God.

Moreover, the way you speak of "Modern Judaism" I can only conclude that Judaism itself has evolved over the centuries to become nothing more than agnosticism or atheism in terms of the Biblical God.

According to you the Jews aren't anymore convinced that there is any God associated with their religion than I am.

Why should we even call "Modern Judaism" a religion if what you say is true?

According to you the Jews don't even believe in has anything to do with any God.

I mean, I won't argue with you over what "Modern Jews" might actually believe or think.

That's a good thing, because all of the above merely demonstrates that you aren't listening. Not at all. Once again, you demonstrate the stereotype; "Religion" is all about belief in the "existence of God," and nothing else matters.

Those are enormous oversimplifications (see below), and words patently stuffed in my mouth, perhaps things you WISH I had said, but DID NOT. Nothing more.

Really, DI. This is ENORMOUSLY frustrating. I tell you things in all sincerity and an honest effort to EDUCATE you about my religion -- but you seem to look at them only long enough to see if I'm jumping through the hoops that you have decided are necessary to be taken seriously; said hoops being that up/down, black/white, rigid totally-accept or totally-reject dichotomy you've set up and apply to NOTHING ELSE other than the Bible, at least that I have ever seen.

But if you're going to argue that "Modern Judaism" is basically nothing more than agnosticism and doubts about their religion I'd have to say that it's not a very convincing religion.

And I'd have to say, yet again, that your insistence on your false dichotomy and of trying to cram my thoughts into the very limited and ill-fitting pigeonholes that you have formulated demonstrates your adamantine refusal to reconsider any idea or thought that you have already passed judgment upon, or to LEARN anything about it.

Why should anyone else consider "Modern Judaism" as being a religion worthy of consideration when the "Modern Jews" themselves don't even believe it is the word of any God?

All you are telling me is that "Modern Judaism" is nothing other than agnosticism.

"Nothing other than agnosticism"? Really? If that isn't a gigantic oversimplification to the point of blatant, self-serving DISTORTION, I'd like to know how it could be described.

As many times as I've said it, you still don't seem to have heard me: Religion isn't all about "belief in God." That very simple concept STILL hasn't made it onto your radar screen. You're STUCK in your total obsession with the Bible, and there you are STUCK in "totally accept or totally reject" mode.

And I ask once again: in WHAT OTHER AREA of human learning or understanding would you apply these standards? To what other book? To what other mode or area of belief? I can't think of a single one.

You are OBSESSED with the idea that the Bible MUST BE THE WORD OF GOD, or else is MEANINGLESS DRIVEL. That is an IRRATIONAL approach, right out front, that you would apply to NO OTHER BOOK.

In fact, you even seem to be suggesting that it's more likely NOT the word of any God.

WHAT? WHAT? Did you actually just WRITE that?

That's actually a very good example of your blind spot. I've said exactly that, straight out and explicitly, often enough that it's a bit of a howler to say that I "seem to be suggesting" it.

I "seem to be suggesting" that the LITERATURE of the Jewish people is "more likely NOT the word of any God"? That amazing remark makes me wonder if you've ever heard anything I've said here. That was Square One of my remarks on the Bible, and you don't seem to have even gotten THERE yet.

At this point, I don't think I could do better than to repeat the words with which you began this post: "Why don't you actually read something about modern Judaism other than the New Testament?"

"Actually I wouldn't even bother" is NOT a reasonable response to that suggestion.

Would you talk to a well-read student in ANY field with this attitude? "You're just WRONG, and even though I have never actually STUDIED it, I don't have to learn ANYTHING about your field of study to maintain that!"

I, personally, don't call that "critical thought" or even "rational." I call it clinging to stereotype, prejudice, and MYTH, and willfully ignoring and dismissing any opinion or FACT that doesn't support your wholly vituperative and condemnatory attitude.

I sometimes wonder if you even actually READ my posts, as opposed to merely skimming them for things to twist and sneer at and disagree with. Note, once again, how often I AGREE with you. The significance of that fact doesn't seem to have penetrated your hardened resistance to LEARNING anything about the religion you so blithely pontificate about.

It's very clear indeed that you aren't listening, you don't want to listen, and you have no intention of even considering any of the ideas I've put forward here, ever. You prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and cling to your personal, unsupported, and patently false conceptions of what Judaism should be and, in your bizarre and utterly unfounded understanding, actually IS.

One more time: WHAT OTHER FIELD would you claim to know all about and to pronounce judgment upon, while simultaneously admitting that you have not the least interest in LEARNING anything about it?

What?

[Danmark]

From the way Charles describes "Modern Judaism" that appears to be all it is. Just a group of modern agnostics.

I want to address this assertion separately. I don't like "that appears to be all it is. Just a group of modern agnostics."

Rather I see your faith and Charles as very similar. You are not just 'modern agnostics.' Your beliefs are based in traditions as well as personal experience with those traditions. As I recall yours has a foundation in one or more of the Buddhist traditions and Charles' is based on the Jewish tradition. To me, the profound words in the Bible, "I AM" are very Buddhist like, in that they declare "I am beyond naming, beyond defining. In this sense I consider much of the Christian belief system idolatrous, blasphemous, and to make claims that explicitly oppose scriptural references to not swear by anything, including what is in heaven.

Changing the name of God from Baal to Yahweh or Jehovah or 'the Buddha' just doesn't cut it in my book. Why are virtually all religions so quick to craft a golden calf?

[cnorman18]

On the subject of taxation, my own position is that churches, synagogues, etc., should be taxed as any other corporate or nonprofit is taxed, with the possible compromise of exempting from the property tax any building, or part of a building, that is actually used for religious services. But as for this --

But it would be a fairly simple matter to craft a religion that did not exclude non theists and in fact made an ethical system without resort to a supreme being. So, from an agnostic Jew or Christian, or one who simply says "I refuse to define God in traditional theistic terms" and even specifically declares as blasphemous the attempt to do so, should qualify. Whether it is considered contradictory or not, the phrase in green is what I subscribe to.

Isn't that a statement that you and Charles and I can all agree upon?

It works for me. In fact, such options already exist within Judaism. In the Reconstructionist branch of the Jewish religion, belief in God is explicitly optional; they regard Judaism as a civilization, an heritage and a culture, not as a set of "spiritual" beliefs -- and the Humanistic branch is explicitly atheistic.

I feel compelled to point out, though, that in actual practice, very many Jews in the other branches, including the Orthodox -- perhaps as many as 15% -- are de facto atheists, and, from my own experience, MOST Jews would happily sign off on "I refuse to define God in traditional theistic terms," though perhaps not on the "blasphemous" part. It doesn't take much reading in the field of Jewish studies to establish that.