[Split]What is 'religious' - Split from: The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Protocol53]

The term "religious" has been used a lot in this thread without being properly defined., even though being "religious" means a million different things to a million different people.

Some religious people believe Jesus was the Christ. Some religious people don't believe Jesus was the Christ. Some religious people feel that all Westerners should be killed.

Even among so-called "Christian" religions, there is a wide variety of beliefs and values. Some Christians believe birth control is inappropriate. Some Christians believe you must handle poisonous serpents to serve god. Some Christians disagree with both of those values.

I don’t think it’s logical to classify all “religious” people into one collective group, and then debate the merits of their beliefs as such, because in that collective group you’ll have many dissenting opinions and beliefs. Shouldn't each belief be examined on its own merit, rather than dismissing all of it because it may happen to fall into the "religious belief" category?

[cnorman18]

I've been saying for some time here that not all religions are the same, but there seems to be a rather large contingent that regards ALL religions as equally mindless and no different from believing in Santa Claus or leprechauns.

Of course, you will not often see authentic religious belief addressed here anyway. You will see it condemned, ridiculed, caricatured, patronized and lampooned, but actually considered and discussed--uhh, not so much.

[triadboy]

I've been saying for some time here that not all religions are the same, but there seems to be a rather large contingent that regards ALL religions as equally mindless and no different from believing in Santa Claus or leprechauns.

If - as religions do - a claim is made which purports to know what happens after we die - then this can easily be dismissed as fantasy. (As well as Santa Claus, leprechauns, etc)

When the 'evidence' is contained in an ancient holy book written by ignorant people - it's almost comical.

[fishbob]

I don’t think it’s logical to classify all “religious” people into one collective group, and then debate the merits of their beliefs as such, because in that collective group you’ll have many dissenting opinions and beliefs. Shouldn't each belief be examined on its own merit, rather than dismissing all of it because it may happen to fall into the "religious belief" category?

Religions appear to have one common factor - "belief". Belief lumps religious people into one collective group.

Belief is a bothersome concept. It appears to mean something along the lines of 'certainty in a concept or position without evidence, or certainty in spite of contrary evidence'. I don't see the merit in discussing the differences between various non-reality based ideas.

[frankvan]

To the degree that all religions are based on a belief in some sort of supernatural being or god, rather than on evidence, I see no reason for discussing the relative merits of the minutiae contained in the variations. If any particular 'faith' contains bits of common sense it does not redeem the superstitious or illogical nature of the whole. Some individuals are, admittedly, less obnoxious than others.

[cnorman18]

...Like I said....

[fishbob]

I've been saying for some time here that not all religions are the same . . . . .

And several people pointed out that your assertion is incorrect in one very major aspect.

[nosho]

I don’t think it’s logical to classify all “religious” people into one collective group ...

You're right, of course.

But you can't stop some folks from oversimplifying things for whatever personal reason they might have. Vague words like "religious" and "belief" can become empty labels people apply to create artificial classifications that allow them to avoid the more difficult task of making a real effort to understand others. That's their problem, not yours.

[quixotecoyote]

I've been saying for some time here that not all religions are the same, but there seems to be a rather large contingent that regards ALL religions as equally mindless and no different from believing in Santa Claus or leprechauns.

You're eloquent, but you've yet to show why this is wrong. The things separating religion from philosophy are the supernatural elements, the Santas and the leprechauns.

Of course, you will not often see authentic religious belief addressed here anyway. You will see it condemned, ridiculed, caricatured, patronized and lampooned, but actually considered and discussed--uhh, not so much.'Authentic' religious belief? Are you the arbiter of the true religion now?

[cnorman18]

You're eloquent, but you've yet to show why this is wrong. The things separating religion from philosophy are the supernatural elements, the Santas and the leprechauns.

I disagree; I think the truth of my statement is self-evident. Does the fact that all religions share a belief in the supernatural--i.e., that they have ONE thing in common--mean that they are all identical in every respect?

"All motorcycles are not the same."

"Of course they're all the same; they all have two wheels."

Yes, all religions believe in a god or gods. Does that mean the differences between and among religions is not a legitimate topic for discussion? Whether or not God exists, religions certainly do, and acknowledging that some are less toxic than others might not be a total waste of time. Really, I don't quite understand the view that the bare existence of God is the only subject worth discussing here.

'Authentic' religious belief? Are you the arbiter of the true religion now?

I was referring to the difference between belief in an actual religion, which actually exists, as opposed to a hypothetical "religion" based on leprechauns, which does not and is merely a rhetorical device. The fact that no distinction between the two is allowed around here is precisely the problem I was referring to.

Is the overt hostility really necessary?

[frankvan]

Although the category is "Religion and Philosophy" it does seem inappropriate to expect to generate a discussion of the hundreds of different so-called religions and their relative merits. I'll concede that the religions such as secular humanism and/or Buddhism or other non-theistic religions would be less likely to provoke "overt hostility" among skeptics like myself. My experience with forums that discuss the pros and cons of the various religions is that they quickly become wellsprings of pious gobbledegook.:rolleyes:

[Yiab]

If - as some religions do - a claim is made which purports to know what happens after we die...

The word "some" was added by me. It could very reasonably be argued that "some" should be replaced by "many" or "most", but certainly not "all".

Religions appear to have one common factor - "belief". Belief lumps religious people into one collective group.

Once again, my counterexample is Judaism. Belief, faith, et cetera is unnecessary to be a religious Jew (of most sorts), all that is needed is obedience to tradition and ritual. Since obedience to tradition and ritual is something present in the majority of secular society as well (see birthdays, anniversaries, the work week, etc), indeed it is something which seems to be part of our nature, I can hardly accept that this can separate religious Judaism from secular society.

Additionally, Confucianism in many forms does not require one to actually believe that one's dead ancestors are floating around watching over things, it is sufficient to follow the right ritual and tradition.
In general, China has a history of treating religion in a much more practical light than we've seen in the last couple thousand years in Europe (practical in the sense that they believe things because they believe their methodology was sound, never relying on a direct appeal to faith). While this approach to religion does rely on belief, it does not rely on "faith" in a way comparable to Christianity or Islam.

I disagree; I think the truth of my statement is self-evident. Does the fact that all religions share a belief in the supernatural--i.e., that they have ONE thing in common--mean that they are all identical in every respect?

Ignoring what I said above, if we assume that all religions do share a belief in the supernatural then that does allow them to be dealt with as a group in that respect.
To address your motorcycle analogy:
"everything with only two wheels is unstable."
"but all motorcycles are different!"
"but they all still have two wheels, so they are all still unstable."

Yes, all religions believe in a god or gods.

No, they don't. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and to some extent Animist belief systems do not believe in any god or gods. This is not to mention some of the more philosophically-oriented modern religions like Satanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism).

Does that mean the differences between and among religions is not a legitimate topic for discussion?

It certainly is worth discussing, but that does not mean that every thread involving "religion in general" should be derailed into a discussion of the nuanced differenced between particular religious traditions.
In my opinion, people writing posts should just remember that what they are saying may not apply to all religions and people reading posts should just remember that what they are reading may not either.

I was referring to the difference between belief in an actual religion, which actually exists, as opposed to a hypothetical "religion" based on leprechauns, which does not and is merely a rhetorical device. The fact that no distinction between the two is allowed around here is precisely the problem I was referring to.

The lack of distinction between the two is because "criticism of religion" here often takes the form of criticism of certain kinds of beliefs and doctrines promoted by many religious groups, rather than criticism of the institutions, social structures or historical entities also referred to by that word.
When speaking specifically about the viability or verisimilitude of beliefs one does not need to consider whether or not the beliefs are actually held by anyone, so making analogies to leprechauns or invisible pink unicorns is reasonable.

Unfortunately, in a sense you are correct. Attacking the belief in Russel's teapot is a straw man. The problem is that it's also an accurate analogy - God is a straw man, too.

[cnorman18]

Once again, my counterexample is Judaism. Belief, faith, et cetera is unnecessary to be a religious Jew (of most sorts), all that is needed is obedience to tradition and ritual. Since obedience to tradition and ritual is something present in the majority of secular society as well (see birthdays, anniversaries, the work week, etc), indeed it is something which seems to be part of our nature, I can hardly accept that this can separate religious Judaism from secular society.

I would add to that that very many Jews, even those who DO believe in God, either do not believe in or are agnostic about the idea of life after death.

Ignoring what I said above, if we assume that all religions do share a belief in the supernatural then that does allow them to be dealt with as a group in that respect.
To address your motorcycle analogy:
"everything with only two wheels is unstable."
"but all motorcycles are different!"
"but they all still have two wheels, so they are all still unstable."

Granted; of course, it still remains true that they are not all the same, which is what I said in the first place.

No, they don't. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and to some extent Animist belief systems do not believe in any god or gods. This is not to mention some of the more philosophically-oriented modern religions like Satanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism).

You are correct, and I should have knowh better than to say that.

It certainly is worth discussing, but that does not mean that every thread involving "religion in general" should be derailed into a discussion of the nuanced differenced between particular religious traditions.

Who said anything about "every thread"?

In my opinion, people writing posts should just remember that what they are saying may not apply to all religions and people reading posts should just remember that what they are reading may not either.

That would work for me. Whenever I have risen to object that a given criticism does not apply to my own faith, though, I have been shouted down in pretty short order without much consideration given to the possibility that I might be right.

The lack of distinction between the two is because "criticism of religion" here often takes the form of criticism of certain kinds of beliefs and doctrines promoted by many religious groups, rather than criticism of the institutions, social structures or historical entities also referred to by that word.

That's true, and nothing wrong with it at all.

One of my difficulties, though, is that when the latter (institutions, social structures, etc.) are negative, they are blamed on the former (beliefs and doctrines); but when they are positive, they deemed unrelated. If one wishes to divorce discussion of the two as separate questions, a little consistency might be advisable.

When speaking specifically about the viability or verisimilitude of beliefs one does not need to consider whether or not the beliefs are actually held by anyone...

That seems an extraordinary statement, and I can think of no other area where anyone could possibly think it might reasonably be applied. Would the fact that a scientific or literary theory was believed by NO ONE AT ALL really be irrelevant to its viability?

...so making analogies to leprechauns or invisible pink unicorns is reasonable."

I'll stand by my assessment. I think the analogy usually has more to do with intentional insult and ridicule than with any interest in rational or logical discussion. It's hard to believe that one is interested in actual, adult discussion when the terms "ridiculous" and "childish" are so clearly and consistently implied.

A similar approach would be if I were to routinely relate every variety or nuanced belief of atheism to unrestrained, predatory sexual perversion and Communism, thus implying "immoral" and "evil". Would that not be just a trifle objectionable, and perhaps cloud the debate a bit?

Unfortunately, in a sense you are correct. Attacking the belief in Russel's teapot is a straw man. The problem is that it's also an accurate analogy - God is a straw man, too.

Only if one assumes a priori that there is no God. That seems obvious enough. There's nothing wrong with taking that position, as many do here, but then it would seem to me to be a matter of intellectual honesty to admit that one is engaged, not in debate, but in polemic.

[Protocol53]

I think indeed we MUST consider the differences in religious beliefs. Even more so, I think we must consider the thought process itself (or lack of thought process) that led one to the current belief they hold – religious or otherwise.

If indeed “skepticism” is a thought process, and one believes that a religious person simply can’t be a skeptic, then the argument MUST be based on the thought process within the religious person that led them to their conclusions. Does every person who has a religious thought in their head go through the same thought process to reach their conclusion?

[cnorman18]

I think indeed we MUST consider the differences in religious beliefs. Even more so, I think we must consider the thought process itself (or lack of thought process) that led one to the current belief they hold – religious or otherwise.

If indeed “skepticism” is a thought process, and one believes that a religious person simply can’t be a skeptic, then the argument MUST be based on the thought process within the religious person that led them to their conclusions. Does every person who has a religious thought in their head go through the same thought process to reach their conclusion?

Beats me. I'm responsible for what goes on in MY head; I'll be damned if I'll pass judgment on what happens in anyone else's particular case.

I'll tell you this, though: I think a very great many people, maybe most, don't really do much thinking on their own at all. I think they read, or listen, and like the way an argument sounds or feels, or agree with its conclusions or even premises--and they adopt it as their own, then resist confronting any thought that really challenges it.

I once heard a professor remark (of student radicals back in the 60s, of whom I was one), "These people don't act on what they think, but what they read; and most of them haven't read very much, and those who have, read only things they already agree with." I think that applies to religion, politics, lifestyle, and how you cook your eggs.

And I've seen that among people who are religious, irreligious, anti-religious, and those who have never thought about it.

If anyone here wants to say that that attitude is extremely common among religious folk, they'll get no argument here; but if they want to say it's universal among them, or entirely absent among atheists--well, that's quite a different kettle of fish.

[frankvan]

I don't think it's so much a case of atheists being justified in their rejection of all gods because they read more, are better educated or more logical than every firm believer in the world. I'm convinced that some minority of the faithful have studied, questioned , struggled with doubts and become devout followers of one faith or other. Many of my Jewish friends are both atheists and faithful Jews without apparent conflict. I think that given their history, I would probably feel the same: defiant rather than dogmatic.

[Glen.Nogami]

If anyone here wants to say that that attitude is extremely common among religious folk, they'll get no argument here; but if they want to say it's universal among them, or entirely absent among atheists--well, that's quite a different kettle of fish.

No, no, no! Only two groups of people allowed in the world. :D

[cnorman18]

No, no, no! Only two groups of people allowed in the world. :D

LOL! And...

Point taken.

I don't think it's so much a case of atheists being justified in their rejection of all gods because they read more, are better educated or more logical than every firm believer in the world. I'm convinced that some minority of the faithful have studied, questioned , struggled with doubts and become devout followers of one faith or other. Many of my Jewish friends are both atheists and faithful Jews without apparent conflict. I think that given their history, I would probably feel the same: defiant rather than dogmatic.

I thank you for that.

[fredcarr]

These people don't act on what they think, but what they read; and most of them haven't read very much, and those who have, read only things they already agree with."

I'm confused by something here. How does one only read what he/she has already agree with? If you haven't read a work yet then how do you know you are going to agree with all it says?

Fred

[Protocol53]

Are you the arbiter of the true religion now?


If all religion is "Santa and leprechauns" this question seems oddly out of place. If you ask the question sincerely, then in turn, all religion can't be "Santa and leprechauns".

[articulett]

Confirmation bias. Once you have accepted a premise as true, you seem to only absorb and notice the information that confirms that belief and negate evidence to the contrary. This is why there are so many faiths-- so many that people are willing to die for even-- but, if any one is true, then the majority is wrong. They can't all be right. So the vast majority is wrong despite peoples' deep convictions that they are wrong-- or they are all wrong.

If they are making a claim regarding consciousness without a body (souls, engrams, gods, demons, ghosts, succubi, invisible bigfoots, etc.) they are making a claim about something that humans have been known to imagine for years. We know for absolute certain that people make up this stuff that some religions are definitely made up. Despite eons of such beliefs however, there is NO measurable evidence for any kind of consciousness of any sort outside a living body. And that is information science would use and hone if it could. Look at all we've found out about other "invisible" things without any divine help-- electromagnetism, mental illness, schizophrenia, hypnogocic dreams, DNA, other galaxies, higher math, prehistoric animals, atoms, space dust, microbes, space dust.

Humans are great at fooling themselves and others... but they invented science and figured out the ways people fool themselves and the ways to avoid doing so. We know a lot about confirmation bias...how people are manipulated... how people come to really strongly believe absolutely false things... we know why people believed the earth is flat and why it looks like the sun rises though it really doesn't...

But as long as people think that faith is a good way to know something and/or that there are "higher truths" that lie outside any means to measure or detect them-- then we will have other people who lay claim to such knowledge and convince other trusting humans that they are right. They may even be convinced that they are real prophets or gods or whatever-- Charles Manson is... but he's schizophrenic... lots of schizophrenics have similar delusions. Humans have a need or desire to see themselves as special, chosen, and "in on some secrets".

Nobody reads and studies every faith before believing one... they go with the one they were raised with or stumbled upon or the one that had the right trick for convincing them... and then they prop up that faith by interpreting data in the environment through the lens of what they already believe. If you believe that feminism causes disasters then you see 9-11 or Hurricane Katrina as evidence of this and never learn the facts behind the story.

[articulett]

If all religion is "Santa and leprechauns" this question seems oddly out of place. If you ask the question sincerely, then in turn, all religion can't be "Santa and leprechauns".

All woo thinks they have the true woo.

No woo has any more proof in favor of their woo than any other.

When beliefs are stated as fact they are subject to scrutiny by skeptics.

If one says, "god wants us to x" then they must prove "god" or else it's just a belief... on par with "Zeus wants us to x".

Religions tend to state beliefs as though they were facts. All such claims are open for scrutiny. If people on this forum don't want their beliefs examined, then they probably shouldn't state them as facts... they are opinions as good as the evidence they are based upon...which, in the case of religions, is usually not much.

[articulett]

I would say that most skeptics treat religions the way most believers treat religions they don't believe in-- the ones they "know" are mythological, made up, or "cults". By the way, all religions start out as cults to the other religious practitioners at the time of their "birth".

[triadboy]

The word "some" was added by me. It could very reasonably be argued that "some" should be replaced by "many" or "most", but certainly not "all".


I can't think of a religion which doesn't claim to have insight into the 'afterlife'. Do you know one?

[cnorman18]

I can't think of a religion which doesn't claim to have insight into the 'afterlife'. Do you know one?

Uh, yes.

Judaism is not certain that there is anything at all after death. It isn't mentioned in the Torah, and seems to have played no part in the early formation of our religion.

Even today, many Jews do not believe in a life after death--and few of those who do will tell you anything is guaranteed.

Maybe more important for your question, NO Jew will tell you what the next life is like, even if he believes in one. There are indications in the Book that it's a rather dull and dreary place, if it's there at all. We just don't know.

Belief in an afterlife, for Jews, is made difficult by the fact that we don't believe in a separate soul or spirit that is independent of the body. A human is all one creature, in Judaism; soul, spirit, body, whatever--all are the same. When the body dies, life is over.

Those Jews who do believe in an afterlife tend to speculate about a possible return to life at the end of time, as opposed to "going to Heaven" at the time of death--and they also tend to think it's not much worth spending much time or thought on. If it happens, that would be nice. If not--well, as noted, there were no promises.

Our focus is on THIS life. That, we know we've got. You're familiar with the expression, "a bird in the hand"?

[Yiab]

One of my difficulties, though, is that when the latter (institutions, social structures, etc.) are negative, they are blamed on the former (beliefs and doctrines); but when they are positive, they deemed unrelated. If one wishes to divorce discussion of the two as separate questions, a little consistency might be advisable.

While there certainly are people who attribute things as you have stated (and I can make no claims to know the percentages), I would like to point out that Sam Harris is a very widely respected example of someone who does not.

That seems an extraordinary statement, and I can think of no other area where anyone could possibly think it might reasonably be applied. Would the fact that a scientific or literary theory was believed by NO ONE AT ALL really be irrelevant to its viability?

Yes, absolutely. Truth cannot be decided even in part by the democratic process - just because nobody believes it doesn't mean it's false, unreasonable or unworkable.
If you were to read the minds of every human being in existence between the years of 500 BC and 500 AD, I would bet that not a single one of them would believe in quantum theory. That does not change the fact, however, that quantum theory is, by all tests to date, reasonable, sensible, viable and true.

I would also like to cut short what seems to be the obvious correction to your statement in light of what I just said. If I take your statement to mean "no one at all who ever lived or ever will live really believes", I must simply point out that we cannot speculate in any way what people will believe (if there still are people) 1 million years from now. Change in the species could result in Russel's teapot being the most popular and scientifically verified explanation for the presence of toxic clouds in the sky and leprechauns could be generally accepted as the reason the earth shakes underfoot every few years.

I'll stand by my assessment. I think the analogy usually has more to do with intentional insult and ridicule than with any interest in rational or logical discussion. It's hard to believe that one is interested in actual, adult discussion when the terms "ridiculous" and "childish" are so clearly and consistently implied.

I doubt most people use it primarily as an insult. Many do use it as ridicule, yes, but once again that is a valid rhetorical use of reductio ad absurdum.
Nobody will care if bad assumptions yield results of "some really big number is both prime and composite", but they might actually pay attention if you point out that "your assumptions mean that the sun should be sitting on top of the empire state building roasting the planet. Since it's not, your assumptions must be wrong." Using the absurd to demonstrate absurdity is, in my view, perfectly reasonable (if not very formal).

A similar approach would be if I were to routinely relate every variety or nuanced belief of atheism to unrestrained, predatory sexual perversion and Communism, thus implying "immoral" and "evil". Would that not be just a trifle objectionable, and perhaps cloud the debate a bit?

No, a similar approach would be if you routinely related every variety or nuanced belief of atheism to a unrepentant disbelief in the existence of chairs. Note, please, that this comparison is apt if you believe that god's existence is obvious, but woefully misguided if you are not so certain.

Only if one assumes a priori that there is no God. That seems obvious enough. There's nothing wrong with taking that position, as many do here, but then it would seem to me to be a matter of intellectual honesty to admit that one is engaged, not in debate, but in polemic.

Actually, in saying that "god is a straw man", I am not claiming that his non-existence is obvious or trivial, I am referring to the fact that every definition of "god" I have ever heard, from believers and non-believers alike is built exactly the way one would build a metaphorical straw man - to accomplish one's rhetorical ends and satisfy one's desire to retain one's existing beliefs.
People arguing for the non-existence of god construct straw men like "old man in the sky watching you all the time" and "china teapot orbiting the sun", clearly straw men. They make these straw men in order to challenge believers to differentiate their god from a straw man.
People arguing for the existence of god construct straw men like "god is love" and "you can see god by looking anywhere around you". Even the most theologically complex definitions I have heard of god basically boil down to "I don't want to answer your question." They are as vague as possible in order to appeal to as wide an audience as possible and to avoid as much criticism as they can.

I guess you could say that calling the pro-god vaguery a "straw man" is an inaccurate use of the term since they are trying to construct something difficult to attack, but I would say that they are doing so by giving their god as little substance and definition as possible - in a sense reducing him to straw - so I feel justified using the term.

I can't think of a religion which doesn't claim to have insight into the 'afterlife'. Do you know one?

Judaism - most versions don't believe in an afterlife at all. The traditional belief is in earthly, bodily resurrection when the messiah comes, but there is no mention of some otherworldly existence while your body lies dead in the ground.
Then, of course, there are the more philosophically oriented modern religions I referred to earlier like Satanism.

[articulett]

No, not all religions are the same. Many are much less virulent and more peaceful than the others. But religions ARE the way people come to belief that faith should be respected-- and that faith is a means of knowledge-- and that people of faith are "more moral" because of said faith. It doesn't matter to me whether religions are good or bad so much as whether they are true. Most claim to have access to higher truths. There is no evidence that there are such things as "higher truths". I think that when you here skeptics criticizing religion, you are hearing people criticize faith as a means of knowledge. Skeptics tend to be very aware of how people fool themselves-- many have been believers--and they've come to a point in their life when they'd rather not know something than to believe something that isn't true. The faithful often criticize other faiths or mock them or declare them silly-- but they never seem to use the same criteria in regards to their own faith... they want their faith respected because to them it's true. But if it really was true, why would it matter if someone mocked it or not? When creationists mock evolution it doesn't change the facts. When the bible seemed to presume the earth was flat and the center of the universe, it didn't change the facts. People care when faith is mocked because faith is hard to prop up when it's being questioned. And that makes the faithful defensive. But it's the same for the Scientologists on this forum as it is for the Christians and Mormons and other believers.
Why should one brand of woo be less prone to questioning than another? If somebody wants their faith respected, then perhaps they shouldn't state their beliefs and opinions as facts on a skeptics forum. In science we find out the truth by questioning and probing and looking for known human irrationalities-- we do testing, double blind studies and examine the evidence. If your faith can't handle that, then a skeptics forum is not the place to express it. Or avoid the threads where faith based notions are being dissected.

We have a lot of people here who are learning to let go of faith based notions, and they have a right to find support here and discuss their perceptions without having to worry about walking on eggshells or skewing sacred cows or discussing the fact that they realize the emperor was naked all along.

[cnorman18]

While there certainly are people who attribute things as you have stated (and I can make no claims to know the percentages), I would like to point out that Sam Harris is a very widely respected example of someone who does not.

I didn't say that everybody did it. Would you agree that it is objectionable when it is done?

Yes, absolutely. Truth cannot be decided even in part by the democratic process - just because nobody believes it doesn't mean it's false, unreasonable or unworkable.
If you were to read the minds of every human being in existence between the years of 500 BC and 500 AD, I would bet that not a single one of them would believe in quantum theory. That does not change the fact, however, that quantum theory is, by all tests to date, reasonable, sensible, viable and true.

I would also like to cut short what seems to be the obvious correction to your statement in light of what I just said. If I take your statement to mean "no one at all who ever lived or ever will live really believes", I must simply point out that we cannot speculate in any way what people will believe (if there still are people) 1 million years from now. Change in the species could result in Russel's teapot being the most popular and scientifically verified explanation for the presence of toxic clouds in the sky and leprechauns could be generally accepted as the reason the earth shakes underfoot every few years.

By that standard, it's impossible to believe or disbelieve anything at all.

I doubt most people use it primarily as an insult. Many do use it as ridicule, yes, but once again that is a valid rhetorical use of reductio ad absurdum.
Nobody will care if bad assumptions yield results of "some really big number is both prime and composite", but they might actually pay attention if you point out that "your assumptions mean that the sun should be sitting on top of the empire state building roasting the planet. Since it's not, your assumptions must be wrong." Using the absurd to demonstrate absurdity is, in my view, perfectly reasonable (if not very formal).

Point taken. I'll admit to bring a bit defensive around here.

No, a similar approach would be if you routinely related every variety or nuanced belief of atheism to a unrepentant disbelief in the existence of chairs. Note, please, that this comparison is apt if you believe that god's existence is obvious, but woefully misguided if you are not so certain.

I think the point of my hypothetical comparison would be an unrepentant disbelief in the existence of morals, which is wholly apt. I suppose I could have made it clearer, but in any case, would you not find that offensive and distracting?

Actually, in saying that "god is a straw man", I am not claiming that his non-existence is obvious or trivial, I am referring to the fact that every definition of "god" I have ever heard, from believers and non-believers alike is built exactly the way one would build a metaphorical straw man - to accomplish one's rhetorical ends and satisfy one's desire to retain one's existing beliefs.
People arguing for the non-existence of god construct straw men like "old man in the sky watching you all the time" and "china teapot orbiting the sun", clearly straw men. They make these straw men in order to challenge believers to differentiate their god from a straw man.
People arguing for the existence of god construct straw men like "god is love" and "you can see god by looking anywhere around you". Even the most theologically complex definitions I have heard of god basically boil down to "I don't want to answer your question." They are as vague as possible in order to appeal to as wide an audience as possible and to avoid as much criticism as they can.

I guess you could say that calling the pro-god vaguery a "straw man" is an inaccurate use of the term since they are trying to construct something difficult to attack, but I would say that they are doing so by giving their god as little substance and definition as possible - in a sense reducing him to straw - so I feel justified using the term.

All of the above contains the double assumption that religious people construct their conceptions of God for rhetorical purposes.

I can't speak for everyone, but I didn't "construct" my conception of God at all. I received it whole from a very old tradition.

Second, the only, or even the main, concern of religion is not defending itself from attack. Most religious people do not arrive at their "positions" through a process of rigorous logical argument, and few of them are terribly concerned about defending them from the same once they get there.

Third, I would think it obvious that if religions were really aiming for the widest possible appeal, they would include a few less rules and regulations. In the case of my own religion, as you note below, they probably ought to have included Heaven in the package, too.

I often see a kind of hidden assumption here that religious people secretly know their beliefs are false, and are busily engaged in an effort to "construct" their false beliefs in a way that makes them easy to defend from efforts to expose their falsehood.

That's very weird.

Among those who began the "construction" of my religion a few thousand years ago and those who have continued its "construction"
down to the present day, I have detected no such concerns.

I have been deeply involved in two very different religions now, and one thing that they have in common (besides an actual, as opposed to a "constructed", belief in God) is that the arguments of atheists aren't on their radar screens at all. People know that there are formal arguments against the existence of God, but nobody much cares. For most religious people, that ship has already sailed.

Judaism - most versions don't believe in an afterlife at all. The traditional belief is in earthly, bodily resurrection when the messiah comes, but there is no mention of some otherworldly existence while your body lies dead in the ground.

Yeah, we missed out on a real selling point there. Moses should have thought of the 72 virgins thing, and maybe a new Cadillac.

Then, of course, there are the more philosophically oriented modern religions I referred to earlier like Satanism.

I've always had the impression that "Satanism" had more to do with theater than with religious belief--that it was more about lampooning and ticking off Christians than about any real belief in or commitment to Satan. I could be wrong; I haven't spent a lot of time looking into it.

[cnorman18]

No, not all religions are the same. Many are much less virulent and more peaceful than the others. But religions ARE the way people come to belief that faith should be respected-- and that faith is a means of knowledge-- and that people of faith are "more moral" because of said faith. It doesn't matter to me whether religions are good or bad so much as whether they are true. Most claim to have access to higher truths. There is no evidence that there are such things as "higher truths". I think that when you here skeptics criticizing religion, you are hearing people criticize faith as a means of knowledge. Skeptics tend to be very aware of how people fool themselves-- many have been believers--and they've come to a point in their life when they'd rather not know something than to believe something that isn't true. The faithful often criticize other faiths or mock them or declare them silly-- but they never seem to use the same criteria in regards to their own faith... they want their faith respected because to them it's true. But if it really was true, why would it matter if someone mocked it or not? When creationists mock evolution it doesn't change the facts. When the bible seemed to presume the earth was flat and the center of the universe, it didn't change the facts. People care when faith is mocked because faith is hard to prop up when it's being questioned. And that makes the faithful defensive. But it's the same for the Scientologists on this forum as it is for the Christians and Mormons and other believers.
Why should one brand of woo be less prone to questioning than another? If somebody wants their faith respected, then perhaps they shouldn't state their beliefs and opinions as facts on a skeptics forum. In science we find out the truth by questioning and probing and looking for known human irrationalities-- we do testing, double blind studies and examine the evidence. If your faith can't handle that, then a skeptics forum is not the place to express it. Or avoid the threads where faith based notions are being dissected.

We have a lot of people here who are learning to let go of faith based notions, and they have a right to find support here and discuss their perceptions without having to worry about walking on eggshells or skewing sacred cows or discussing the fact that they realize the emperor was naked all along.

I see your point, and I shall try to be a bit less sensitive and defensive in the future.

Let me ask this: if I see "ALL religions" condemned for something that does not include my own--a convenient example would be claims about promises of Heaven when you die, which Judaism does not make--do I not have the freedom to point out that there are exceptions to that blanket condemnation? Or would that be asking that people "walk on eggshells"?

For virtually all criticisms of religion, I would have no objection to "some", "many", or even "most" (or, for that matter, "virtually all") religions being included; for one thing, I myself would often echo such criticisms, and for another, even when I would not, they are usually based on accurate observations.

But, in many cases, "ALL" does seem a bit harsh. In particular, I have seen religion in general condemned for the phenomenon of religious persecution, which is reasonable, of course--except that that condemnation specifically included Jews, who have been the most frequent victims of religious persecution, as opposed to its perpetrators.

In cases like that one, should I simply keep my mouth shut to protect the sensibilities and freedom of expression of your nascent atheists?

Or may I give a thought to the protection of my own?

[fredcarr]

Belief in an afterlife, for Jews, is made difficult by the fact that we don't believe in a separate soul or spirit that is independent of the body. A human is all one creature, in Judaism; soul, spirit, body, whatever--all are the same. When the body dies, life is over.

An interesting concept that I hadn't known. Not entirely dissimilar to the LDS religion. Some members don't distinguish their bodies as being separate from their spiritual identities.

Fred

[Dancing David]

I can't think of a religion which doesn't claim to have insight into the 'afterlife'. Do you know one?

There is considerable debate in buddhism as to the meaning of 'rebirth'.

Some believe in reincarnation, many buddhists do not. the dogma of buddhism varies as well from school to school.

[Dancing David]

No, not all religions are the same. Many are much less virulent and more peaceful than the others. But religions ARE the way people come to belief that faith should be respected-- and that faith is a means of knowledge-- and that people of faith are "more moral" because of said faith.

Some of these claims do not apply to buddhism. there are faith based schools of buddhism, the Amida for example. but there are many that do not require faith as a prerequisite.

It doesn't matter to me whether religions are good or bad so much as whether they are true. Most claim to have access to higher truths. There is no evidence that there are such things as "higher truths".

Hooray! :)

I think that when you here skeptics criticizing religion, you are hearing people criticize faith as a means of knowledge.

that is the rock in the jello.

If people who claim faith as knowledge would try to ponder and critique the basis of that knowledge, i would have little be sceptical of.

[Yiab]

I didn't say that everybody did it. Would you agree that it is objectionable when it is done?

I certainly would agree that it's objectionable when it's done, I'm often among the first to point out counterexamples to incorrect universal characterizations of "religion". I brought up Sam Harris not to simply show a counterexample (I know you didn't claim everyone did it), but to point out that one of the atheists in the public eye at present is performing exactly opposite to your statement.

By that standard, it's impossible to believe or disbelieve anything at all.

No, it's just difficult - when considering whether or not something is true you should not include whether or not anybody actually believes it.
Since belief is a social phenomenon, of course, people will use popularity of a given belief in the (usually subconscious) process of deciding whether or not to believe something, but that does not influence its truth.

I think the point of my hypothetical comparison would be an unrepentant disbelief in the existence of morals, which is wholly apt. I suppose I could have made it clearer, but in any case, would you not find that offensive and distracting?

I do find it distracting, but not offensive (I'm incredibly difficult to offend) when believers do that (and yes, they actually do), but let me see if I've got your proposed analogy correct:
In the mind of a non-believer, god is to leprechauns
as
in the mind of a believer, no-god is to no-morals

All of the above contains the double assumption that religious people construct their conceptions of God for rhetorical purposes.

I can't speak for everyone, but I didn't "construct" my conception of God at all. I received it whole from a very old tradition.

That doesn't change the fact that definitions of god used in conversation are overwhelmingly straw men, whereas in the minds of believers, I think "god" is almost always so vague as to be totally undefined and meaningless (and this, I think, is why people have so much difficulty finding a reasonable definition of the term).

In any case, you could sway me on this topic by doing one thing: state a single internally consistent definition of "god" which relates in any way to the popular vague conception and does not simply consist of properties said "god" is supposed to have.

I often see a kind of hidden assumption here that religious people secretly know their beliefs are false, and are busily engaged in an effort to "construct" their false beliefs in a way that makes them easy to defend from efforts to expose their falsehood.

I am not attempting to imply that. I am trying to say that most religious people haven't thought through the logical implications of their belief far enough to realize that they are internally inconsistent.
While I only mentioned this in terms of religious belief before, I believe that most people do this with almost every abstract situation.
In terms of conversation, religious people are sometimes presented with the logical implications of their definitions, which is why they create definitions for those conversations designed to insulate their beliefs from this kind of attack. I'm not saying that this is done consciously or that they have a particular inconsistency in mind that they are attempting to avoid, just that people naturally don't like to be called "wrong".

Among those who began the "construction" of my religion a few thousand years ago and those who have continued its "construction"
down to the present day, I have detected no such concerns.

I gather from a few of your other statements that you are Jewish. If this is the case, I would like to point out that the Jewish concept of god has changed significantly through recorded history, as it has in most religions. In a major sense, Judaism has changed from henotheism (believing that their god is one among many) to monotheism.

I've always had the impression that "Satanism" had more to do with theater than with religious belief--that it was more about lampooning and ticking off Christians than about any real belief in or commitment to Satan. I could be wrong; I haven't spent a lot of time looking into it.

It does have more to do with theatre than with religious belief, but it's more to do with a philosophy of life than with theatre. I'd suggest you spend some time reading around www.churchofsatan.com (http://www.churchofsatan.com), or take a look at The Satanic Bible if you want to learn more.
Satanism does have a belief in an individualistic paradigm of "magic", but that is secondary and I have heard (from a satanist friend of mine) that this is only included to exploit people who actually do believe in magic anyway.

[nosho]

All woo thinks they have the true woo.

No woo has any more proof in favor of their woo than any other.

I know there have been other threads on this topic, but I have never understood the need for the label "woo." What does it mean exactly? It comes across as name-calling. Why would thoughtful, intelligent people try to divide the world up so neatly into two types of people, "we" and "woo?" The world is not that simple.

[cnorman18]

I know there have been other threads on this topic, but I have never understood the need for the label "woo." What does it mean exactly? It comes across as name-calling. Why would thoughtful, intelligent people try to divide the world up so neatly into two types of people, "we" and "woo?" The world is not that simple.

Being new here, I had wondered about that too, but it became pretty clear in context that it's shorthand for something like "irrational or unprovable religious belief." I'm OK with it in the interest of using fewer keystrokes alone. It might be a bit pejorative, but in this forum one should hardly expect "the sacred tenets of your holy religion." Besides, that's a lot of keystrokes too.

It also beats a more common expression found outside the forum, which is usually abbreviated "BS".

If there's a more accurate definition, somebody please correct me.

[articulett]

Woo is short for "woo woo"-- it's beliefs and claims made as though they are facts, "skeptics have bad vibes", "bad things will happen because the sun is in Jupiter", "God wants us to believe in him", "Jesus died for you"-- claims made as though they are facts... but they are just gobbledy gook... that implies facts not in evidence... And woo alway refers to believers of such. It's hard to have rational conversations with people who believe things "on faith" and speak as though it's fact and then take offense when those claims are prodded or probed or mocked. It does seem that you cannot criticize religion in general without people hearing you say "all religion"-- because everyone believes their religion or belief system provides some higher truth. Or maybe most do. I don't know that much about Buddhism, and for many it seems to be more of a philosophy than faith, and I know not all religions are the same.

But believers feel that because they are talking about religion, they should get some special respect for their claims... and skeptics generally don't feel that claims are respect worthy just because they make people feel good. If they are stated as opinions, that is one thing-- but they usually are not... moreover, most believers are very free in their criticism of others' beliefs or even in lumping non-believers into the same category as though you could define a group of people by what they don't believe in rather than the ideals that unite them.

To me, skepticisms means that no claims are off limits. If people don't want their beliefs examined for validity they shouldn't express them here as though they were factual. Skeptics want to know what is true. We already know that everybody thinks that their beliefs are true and that others who believe like them are better and more moral people, etc. But we want the facts. And we want to help others think like that-- to encourage that kind of thinking, because we think it makes for a more rational cooperative world. We cannot discuss faith based claims rationally. You can not have logical conversations with people who are answering to "higher laws" and invisible immeasurable gods-- who think faith is the key to salvation.

And the weird thing is-- believers have very similar attitudes and ways of discussing "woo" that they find ridiculous... they just tend not to see how they protect their own from such scrutiny. Let's face it, people say and believe and preach a lot of crazy things... it's too easy to be wrong... most people are way over confident... so it makes sense to use science and evidence and facts and the known ways people are fooled (as illustrated again and again by Randi) to figure out what really is worth believing in... what really is true and useful knowledge. And of course that will hurt the feelings of those who are used to having their pet delusions kept free from scrutiny.

But I never wanted to be part of the game of pretend keeping the delusion alive for people who need it. I just want to know what is true. I don't want to defer to notions that I find harmful or wrongheaded... I just want to know what is true.

[articulett]

With woo beliefs, people think that faith and feelings trump facts and evidence--and so you cannot have a logical conversation on the topic, because they've developed this notion that belief is more important than facts when it comes to their woo. They'd rather believe they have the truth than to find out that they are wrong. And the conversation tends to feel like they are trying to teach you how to do this great new rain dance and you are trying to find out why they think dancing influences weather.

Woo tends to make people feel like they have special knowledge they must "share" with others while making them impervious to their own lack of understanding. And then they call skeptics rude for not being grateful for their insights while dismissing those who would really take the time to teach them some very useful information because they think they know everything there is to know on a topic.

Religious woo, tell you what god wants (or allah or xenu) when a skeptic first needs proof that there is a god or a soul or that we should care what this invisible entity wants before we even begin to imagine that someone might actually have access to this special knowledge. Psychic woo do the same thing-- Slyvia Browne assumes souls are real and dead people talk to her. Astrologists assume planetary alignment influences human affairs. Woos make presumptions about facts that skeptics don't share and then think that if we can't prove them false, that means that there is an equal probability that they are true. And when we try to show them the fallacy of that thinking, they aren't grateful for the knowledge-- they have a "kill the messenger" reaction similar to Randi and his MDC.

[cnorman18]

I certainly would agree that it's objectionable when it's done, I'm often among the first to point out counterexamples to incorrect universal characterizations of "religion". I brought up Sam Harris not to simply show a counterexample (I know you didn't claim everyone did it), but to point out that one of the atheists in the public eye at present is performing exactly opposite to your statement.

OK, thanks. I'll have to Google him and find out more.


No, it's just difficult - when considering whether or not something is true you should not include whether or not anybody actually believes it.
Since belief is a social phenomenon, of course, people will use popularity of a given belief in the (usually subconscious) process of deciding whether or not to believe something, but that does not influence its truth.

Point taken. You're right.

I do find it distracting, but not offensive (I'm incredibly difficult to offend) when believers do that (and yes, they actually do), but let me see if I've got your proposed analogy correct:
In the mind of a non-believer, god is to leprechauns
as
in the mind of a believer, no-god is to no-morals

Sounds about right. Where many (but not all) non-believers associate belief in God with childish fantasy, many (but not all) believers associate atheism with an absence or negation of moral standards.

IMHO, both associations mischaracterize their objects. In most cases, that is a matter of misunderstanding and unfamiliarity, but it can happen in a deliberate effort to insult, ridicule, or provoke.

Whatever. I conceded your major point earlier, anyway. As a believer, I'm just going to have to get used to hanging out with leprechauns around here. Good thing I'm Irish on my mother's side...

That doesn't change the fact that definitions of god used in conversation are overwhelmingly straw men, whereas in the minds of believers, I think "god" is almost always so vague as to be totally undefined and meaningless (and this, I think, is why people have so much difficulty finding a reasonable definition of the term).

I suppose I see your point. Since God, as a concept, is usually defined negatively--NOT visible, NOT corporeal, NOT of this Universe, and so on--it makes the concept a little hard to get a handle on. That doesn't trouble believers, because we don't worry about definitions much--when we hear each other say, "God," we pretty much know what we're talking about. About the only time the subject comes up is in conversations like this one--and frankly, that's not a terribly high priority.

Another problem with conversations like this one is that, within the religious community, God is not a concept but a Being. The difference has often seemed to be something nonbelievers have a bit of trouble getting their heads around, since shortly after I bring it up the conversation moves pretty quickly to the irrationality/impossibility/childishness of believing in such a Being, and I find myself once more among the leprechauns.

In any case, you could sway me on this topic by doing one thing: state a single internally consistent definition of "god" which relates in any way to the popular vague conception and does not simply consist of properties said "god" is supposed to have.

I'm not sure I can help you with that, since I'm unclear on what a definition without properties would include, but perhaps we can start where I left off above: God is a Being, with consciousness, rational thought, free will, volition, creativity, likes and dislikes, and even emotions. How's that?

I don't say that those qualities are exclusive to God; indeed, they are what Jews mean when they say humans were made "in God's image." On the other hand, they are essential to His nature. Anyone thinking of God as a hypothetical Force or a static Concept isn't getting the drift.

If you want me to talk about what makes God, er, God--it would be hard to do that without getting into His "properties," etc.

I am not attempting to imply that. I am trying to say that most religious people haven't thought through the logical implications of their belief far enough to realize that they are internally inconsistent.
While I only mentioned this in terms of religious belief before, I believe that most people do this with almost every abstract situation.
In terms of conversation, religious people are sometimes presented with the logical implications of their definitions, which is why they create definitions for those conversations designed to insulate their beliefs from this kind of attack. I'm not saying that this is done consciously or that they have a particular inconsistency in mind that they are attempting to avoid, just that people naturally don't like to be called "wrong".

OK, no argument there. Most people barely think at all. If they did, half the shows on TV would have no audience.

I gather from a few of your other statements that you are Jewish. If this is the case, I would like to point out that the Jewish concept of god has changed significantly through recorded history, as it has in most religions. In a major sense, Judaism has changed from henotheism (believing that their god is one among many) to monotheism.

I am, and that's quite true. And not only in that respect; which is why I referred to my religion as being under continuous construction, so to speak. It seems to me to be a strength of Judaism and not a weakness.

It does have more to do with theatre than with religious belief, but it's more to do with a philosophy of life than with theatre. I'd suggest you spend some time reading around www.churchofsatan.com (http://www.churchofsatan.com), or take a look at The Satanic Bible if you want to learn more.
Satanism does have a belief in an individualistic paradigm of "magic", but that is secondary and I have heard (from a satanist friend of mine) that this is only included to exploit people who actually do believe in magic anyway.

Sounds like a lovely bunch. I'll take your word for it.

I've mentioned on another thread that I have quit smoking, and since my peculiar job gives me mostly free time though virtually no time "off", engaging in conversations here is helping me beat the habit. This is day 4, and so far, so good. Thanks for helping out...

Peace.

Charles

[articulett]

Good luck on quitting smoking-- that's great-- I hope it works out. Are you irritable? Tired?

Most non-believers have believed in gods and/or souls at some time. We are not unfamiliar with what they are supposed to be. We just think they are illusions... the way you might find Scientology engrams (Fredcarr can tell you what those are) or the "bad vibes" that skeptics give off that make people fail the million dollar challenge. Do you believe in a devil? You certainly know there are people who claim to be experimented upon by aliens-- do you believe them? Do you believe that they believe their stor? All the claims that people make about such things can't or don't mean anything to non-believers because they don't exist. They don't exist in the exact same way that Zeus doesn't exist to you... or rain gods or gods that demand animal sacrifices or demons tempting humans with dinosaur bones or lust or whatever.

We can't respect such a belief or discuss it or talk about it in a way that makes believers comfortable, because beliefs seem to require respectful distance to stay alive. Everyone just talks as if it's true. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes, right? Religions teach you to defend attacks on faith as attacks on you personally... that it's arrogant to question god (or xenu or allah). I'm sure you've noticed that when you critique others' faith or dismiss their "opinions stated as facts".

Yes, liberal churches that change with the times are much better than those who stay in the past-- but that just doesn't say much for their god. What about this text your faith is built on... if it was inspired by a god, why is it so brutal? What sort of god needs his words reinterpreted over the years? Why wasn't it right the first time? Sure, cafeteria style spirituality beats anything fundamentalist... but it still doesn't make it true. And the price you pay for not having your faith questioned, is that you lose the right to question others' faiths.

Astrology is relatively harmless and can make people feel all sorts of cool feelings... but that doesn't make it true. And when you don't believe in such things it's hard to have conversations with people who do without being accused of being rude.

I don't think anyone on this forum is faith shopping. Some are here to preach... but most people seem to be here to discuss what is and isn't true... what evidence there is for various claims...how people fool themselves... why people believe in stuff for which there is no measurable evidence... what the advantage of faith is, if any. I suspect most people here have had it with faith as a means of knowledge.
And I know for myself, I get annoyed at not being able to talk about religion in general without someone demonizing me because not all religion is equally bad.

When I say religion is divisive... I don't mean all religions are equally divisive-- only that religion, in general, is divisive. It doesn't mean that I don't know or care about the exceptions. It just means that they are tangential to my point. If I say that greyhound racing isn't very good for the dogs-- that doesn't mean that I don't think some greyhounds that race don't have great lives, right?

I think a lot of what people consider rudeness, is people not given them the respect they've come to expect for faith. Faith without evidence is useless on a skeptics forum. Not respect worthy. The truth doesn't need apologists for it. It can be probed and prodded and scoffed at and still just keep being the truth. If your god exists, then our belief or disbelief in it doesn't change it, right? And yet, believers have this way of being right beside non-believers in all the things they don't believe in... but when it comes to their own beliefs, they assert that non believers are being rude when the non believers are behaving the same way that believers behave towards beliefs that they don't share.

When you critique others beliefs (which you have), you have to know that you are opening up your own for scrutiny as well. And if your goal is to know what is true--then that shouldn't be a problem, right? If your god is an illusion--would you want to know? And if not--then there are definitely some comments you may wish to avoid making and some threads you probably shouldn't visit. You will feel that we are rude... and non-believers will feel they are being forced to respect a belief they find silly or harmful or wrong.

Until or unless a faith based claim distinguishes itself from a woo claim (examples above), I think it's fair to treat it as a woo based claim. Why should one kind of woo get special deference over another? I think you won't have a problem if you state it as a belief. It's just when people state beliefs as though they were statements of fact, they should expect skeptics to do what skeptics do.

[cnorman18]

Good luck on quitting smoking-- that's great-- I hope it works out. Are you irritable? Tired?

Not especially. I've never really had a problem with the addiction part; it's the habit part that gets me. Sometimes I still just want to step outside and have a fricken s-s-SMOKE...

Sorry. Let me get a mint...

Most non-believers have believed in gods and/or souls at some time. We are not unfamiliar with what they are supposed to be. We just think they are illusions...

I can understand that. From the inside, even. My perspective here is pretty different; I used to be a very committed Christian, even going through a brief fundie period 30+ years ago--and then I bailed. Now I'm a Jew, but I've come to realize something a little strange; for me, the issue of God's existence was and is almost a side issue, both in why I left Christianity and why I became a Jew. I think I'm hanging out around here in an effort to resolve some of those things. More on that presently...

...the way you might find Scientology engrams (Fredcarr can tell you what those are)

Yeah, I know about engrams. That L. Ron was one helluva tap dancer, wasn't he?

or the "bad vibes" that skeptics give off that make people fail the million dollar challenge.

Yeah, right. "Your resistance is disturbing the spirits... (and that high-speed infrared camera is really screwing up my shtick!)"

Do you believe in a devil?

No.

Except...

Well, I know he's a fellow Jew and all, but I can't think of another reason why Adam Sandler's movies keep making money. He must have sold his soul.

You certainly know there are people who claim to be experimented upon by aliens-- do you believe them? Do you believe that they believe their story?

I don't think that that's actually happened to anyone. I think some of the "victims" are sincere, but have been scammed themselves by advocates who use hypnotism and the like to plant fake memories (even though some of them may be sincere too), and I think some of them are just straight-up con artists. One indicator might be how much money they've made from their stories.

All the claims that people make about such things can't or don't mean anything to non-believers because they don't exist. They don't exist in the exact same way that Zeus doesn't exist to you... or rain gods or gods that demand animal sacrifices or demons tempting humans with dinosaur bones or lust or whatever.

I'll buy that. I have one minor quibble, but it's not even worth going into now. We'll get to it later, maybe.

We can't respect such a belief or discuss it or talk about it in a way that makes believers comfortable, because beliefs seem to require respectful distance to stay alive. Everyone just talks as if it's true.

I can accept that maybe I should choose my words carefully around here, but--how do you talk about something that you actually do believe in without asserting that it's true?

I, for one, am certainly not offended by your assertions that my beliefs are false; that's what you believe, so what else would you say? It would be silly for me to expect you to say, "I don't think there's a God," or "There might not be a God," or some such. I would expect you to say, "There is no God," because that's what you think. If there are people who find that offensive--well, tough. They simply have no right to, and as you say, if they can't stand that kind of forthrightness, this is the wrong place for them.

But if all that is true, why should I not be able to state my belief as fact, too? Why should I have to say, "I think there's a God"? Given that I won't be offended if you disagree, why isn't a straight-up "There is a God," or whatever, an acceptable way to express MY beliefs?

It's like the Emperor's New Clothes, right? Religions teach you to defend attacks on faith as attacks on you personally... that it's arrogant to question god (or xenu or allah).

Some do. Mine teaches that it's okay to attack God yourself--and to expect that few people that you meet outside the community will share your beliefs, understand them, or even be particularly interested.

I'm sure you've noticed that when you critique others' faith or dismiss their "opinions stated as facts".

Of course. But to be fair, I've just as often seen the kind of
pitying condescension--no offense meant--that many here have for ignorant and illogical believers (that's not a slam--most of them are). "You poor benighted soul, you just can't see the truth of Jesus because you've been so blinded by Satan," or whatever.

Yes, liberal churches that change with the times are much better than those who stay in the past-- but that just doesn't say much for their god. What about this text your faith is built on... if it was inspired by a god, why is it so brutal? What sort of god needs his words reinterpreted over the years? Why wasn't it right the first time?

OK, I'll try to explain that, but I don't think it's going to help much. Before I start, here's why not:

I don't think you're going to believe (a) that I actually believe what I'm going to tell you. I think you're going to assume that I'm trying to find a way to explain away something that looks like an obvious problem; and, (b), that what I'm about to say has always been an integral part of the Jewish religion from the very beginning. Nevertheless, both are true--that I believe this and that it's always been part of the faith, that is. Whether or not these beliefs themselves are actually true is another matter, of course.

Please don't get bent if I phrase my beliefs as matters of fact. Doing otherwise gets very clumsy very quickly.

Okay, here we go: "What about this text your faith is built on... if it was inspired by a god, why is it so brutal?"

Because, even if it was inspired by God, it was written by men. It's a product of its time. The principles that underlie the teachings that we base on it are timeless and as up-to-date as tomorrow, but the text itself must necessarily have been written at some particular time. The time over which that text was written and redacted was a particularly brutal one (though it's hard to think of a time in human history that wasn't, including this one), and so that brutality is reflected in the text.

"What sort of god needs his words reinterpreted over the years?"

A real one. I know, I know, but that's how I understand it. If that offends you--well, just as I said about the believers that are offended by your nonbelief: tough. You did ask.

Here's why I say that: We believe that our religion is NOT just a set of beliefs and a code of ethics; it's a relationship with a living Being that, like any relationship, has changed and grown over time. Whether that's because God chose to reveal Himself gradually, or because we ourselves have grown and developed as a people and a civilization, or both--that is what has happened.

Please remember, too, that Judaism very explicitly believes and teaches that neither God nor the Torah is any longer our Authority. The Torah itself says that we are to consult the wise men of our time to determine what the Law is; our religion was designed from the beginning to grow and change, not as a static and unchanging body of belief or ethics. We also believe that God intended it to be so.

If that doesn't fit someone's conventional definition or expectations of what a religion ought to be, well--tough. We're kind of used to people telling us what we have to believe and then dumping on us for not believing as they think we should. There was a lot of that, and still is, about this Jesus guy that people think we should believe in.

"Why wasn't it right the first time?"

Because the initial message was intended for the people of that time, and for them it WAS right. (Remember, it was expected that that message would grow and change with the relationship.) You couldn't tell people in the 15th century BCE to abolish slavery; that would have been economically, culturally, and socially impossible. What you CAN do is tell them, for the first time, that slaves have rights; if a slave is injured, he goes free. If a slave is killed, the charge is murder, not damage to property. And slaves must be freed after seven years. Those ideas were the foundation that did, eventually, lead to the abolition of slavery in the Western world. Similarly, you could not tell people 3,500 years ago that men and women were equal; you COULD tell them that women were people and not property, that wives had rights, and that daughters as well as sons had the right to inheritance. For the record, Hammurabi didn't get any of this right.

Like I said--you did ask.

Sure, cafeteria style spirituality beats anything fundamentalist... but it still doesn't make it true.

No, it doesn't. We don't think our ethics (always most important) or beliefs are true because "God said so"; we believe it because we've hammered them out ourselves over a thousand generations or so of intense debate and argument. And that's not "cafeteria style" by any stretch of the imagination.

And the price you pay for not having your faith questioned, is that you lose the right to question others' faiths.

Why should we care if anyone questions our faith? We question our own. And as for questioning the faiths of others--well, we've never been much interested in that.

Maybe it's becoming clear; we don't think "beliefs" are particularly important in the first place. Can you are why it's perfectly possible to be a faithful Jew, dedicated to the ethic and the tradition of argument about the place of humans in the Universe and in relation to each other, and NOT believe in God? Why many Jews, like me, are dedicated to the above and have a rather vague idea about the nature of God--and don't think that matters very much?

Astrology is relatively harmless and can make people feel all sorts of cool feelings... but that doesn't make it true. And when you don't believe in such things it's hard to have conversations with people who do without being accused of being rude.

Well, that's their problem. As I said, if you're having a conversation with a Jew, you're more likely to be talking about ethics than about the nature or existence of God. On those matters, we're not likely to get offended either. I know Jews who are more apt to get bent over your questioning their belief in astrology than in their religion. Or their dedication to liberal politics. If you question their religion, they're more likely to just shrug and change the subject.

I don't think anyone on this forum is faith shopping.

Funny place to do it.

Some are here to preach...

Tough room.

but most people seem to be here to discuss what is and isn't true... what evidence there is for various claims...how people fool themselves... why people believe in stuff for which there is no measurable evidence... what the advantage of faith is, if any. I suspect most people here have had it with faith as a means of knowledge.

All that applies to me, believe it or not.

And I know for myself, I get annoyed at not being able to talk about religion in general without someone demonizing me because not all religion is equally bad.

Okay, wait a minute. I can only speak for myself--I don't know who else has addressed these issues with you--but I certainly haven't "demonized" anyone. I think one of my very first threads, entitled "Submitted for your consideration," made it very clear that I share the same criticisms of many religious practices that you and other skeptics have expressed. There ARE a lot of bigots, fools, con artists, control freaks, perverts, and other miscreants who operate under the cover of religion; some of them are even Jewish. Religion HAS been the source of much trouble and misery in the world. Most believers in most religions, including my own,
DON'T think or reflect very deeply and CAN'T logically prove or support what they believe (IMO, such proof is impossible anyway, but the point is they haven't generally even THOUGHT about it). I don't think more than a minority of believers in any religion, again including my own, are really all that familiar with the most basic tenets of the faith they claim to follow.

Criticism of religion, and of religious people, is generally quite justified and, IMO, quite correct. Please notice, though, that NONE of what I have just said relates to whether or not any tenet of any religion is actually true, or whether or not there is, in fact, a God.

All that said: I don't understand why it is objectionable for me to rise to say "Wait a minute--that doesn't apply to Jews," when that is simply the truth. I don't even see why that would be wrong if the speaker had said, "MOST religions", and it seems to me to be an imperative when the word "ALL" is used.

When I say religion is divisive... I don't mean all religions are equally divisive-- only that religion, in general, is divisive. It doesn't mean that I don't know or care about the exceptions. It just means that they are tangential to my point....

I'll buy that. It's not important to you. You're not the only one here, though, and it's important to me. You don't have to respond or even acknowledge it when I say, "Wait a minute; that doesn't apply to Jews." Ignore it and go on if you like; I've said my piece, and if your point is otherwise valid, it won't matter. But the last time I checked, an unwarranted generalization was just as much a logical error as post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and if skeptics pride themselves on their use of rigorous logic, that error ought to be avoided just as carefully.

I think a lot of what people consider rudeness, is people not given them the respect they've come to expect for faith.

Rudeness should be ignored. Ridicule is another matter--though, as I've said, I'm getting used to the idea of hanging out with unicorns. What I get exercised about is inaccuracy and falsehood. One should not attribute beliefs to ANY religion that it does not in fact hold--e.g., that God is above morality, as was the subject of a recent thread.

Faith without evidence is useless on a skeptics forum. Not respect worthy. The truth doesn't need apologists for it. It can be probed and prodded and scoffed at and still just keep being the truth. If your god exists, then our belief or disbelief in it doesn't change it, right? And yet, believers have this way of being right beside non-believers in all the things they don't believe in... but when it comes to their own beliefs, they assert that non believers are being rude when the non believers are behaving the same way that believers behave towards beliefs that they don't share.

That last was pretty convoluted, but I see your point. I'll even concede that that is true even of some Jews. Probably even myself. When I did that, I was wrong.

When you critique others beliefs (which you have), you have to know that you are opening up your own for scrutiny as well. And if your goal is to know what is true--then that shouldn't be a problem, right?

Right as can be. I'm not here to be proven wrong about believing in God, but I AM here to find out what I really do believe and what I can and ought to dump as false and/or unnecessary.

If your god is an illusion--would you want to know? And if not--then there are definitely some comments you may wish to avoid making and some threads you probably shouldn't visit.

Believe me, there are threads I have already avoided and comments I decided not to make. I have even apologized more times than once for saying things I shouldn't have said, and conceded a number of points I've argued that I've discovered to be wrong.

If my God is an illusion, I don't think I'll discover that here, though.

You will feel that we are rude... and non-believers will feel they are being forced to respect a belief they find silly or harmful or wrong. Until or unless a faith based claim distinguishes itself from a woo claim (examples above), I think it's fair to treat it as a woo based claim. Why should one kind of woo get special deference over another?

It shouldn't. But it shouldn't be blamed for practices it doesn't follow or beliefs it doesn't hold, either. That's not special deference. That's just accuracy and fairness.

I think you won't have a problem if you state it as a belief. It's just when people state beliefs as though they were statements of fact, they should expect skeptics to do what skeptics do.

As I pointed out earlier, you state your beliefs as fact. That's the way people talk. If you're asking ME to walk on eggs so as not to upset those who disagree with me, how is that different from my asking you to do the same--which, be it noted, I don't?

There is a God.

I believe that there is a God.

If someone can't see that "I believe that..." is implicit in the first statement, and that these are, in any meaningful way, identical remarks--well, I'd say they're going to have a hard time on this forum.

This has taken about three hours to write on my Crackberry. I have only thought about smoking twice.

We obviously disagree on some things, even about process--but let me say right out front that I deeply respect you and your beliefs, and hold you personally in my highest esteem. You are as articulate and thoughtful as anyone with whom I have ever corresponded, and I've been posting on one forum or another for many years now.

Thank you.

Peace.

Charles

[articulett]

It sounds like we agree overall. You seem to be a pretty secular Jew. I think we have a lot or at least a few Jewish people here, thought I don't know the degree of their faith. Jewishness is very often a cultural thing more than it is a a religious thing... at least for a lot of people. I'm not offended or bugged by anyone's beliefs. I like to know why people believe what they do... but I find that a lot of times, they don't even know what they believe. To me, it's all kind of sexist and primitive and "tribal". I don't get anything out of it... in the same way I don't get anything out of Opera, I guess.

But there are a lot of people who appear to get something out of religion or religious types experiences... I just felt manipulated and angst filled about the whole thing. I couldn't figure out how you were supposed to figure out what was true when so many people believed so many different things so sincerely-- plus I knew for certain that some of these people were mentally ill and some of these religions were made up... I just couldn't figure out how to know if I was in one of those religions or not. Men always seemed so sure of their religion--even as they followed different infallible leaders and everyone was going to hell in somebody's religion or other.

Even the part about "good guys" and "bad guys" and heaven and hell didn't make sense. Nobody was all "anything", were they? And didn't the "bad guys" think they were the good guys? Doesn't everyone? How can faith and feelings be a good way to know anything when there was no agreement and none of the stories really made much sense when you looked at them.

I could never fathom why people chose to go back to church once their family no longer made them. I try to be respectful or at least silent about religion and opinions in my regular life... but I do vent on my forum. Mostly at those who come to preach... because I figure they must know what they are in for.... and I just find it arrogant that some people come here to preach... but they don't engage in dialogue... they don't think they have something to learn. They cast a kind of judgment on skeptics as a group.

Plus, I think it exorcises old demons and angst of faiths and fears past. I'm sure it doesn't feel good to have people be dismissive of one's faith... but the people who seem to think I should care that they think I'm rude... never even seem to think that I might have an opinion about their rudeness. Non believer are called arrogant all the time--when we aren't the people laying claims to special knowledge. It's believers who are claiming "higher truths"-- and not only to know that there is a god... but they all seem to know what he wants (and they don't agree with each other.). I just don't find "belief" a quality worthy of special respect. In fact, I think it can be stupefying.

But when I'm being snotty about religion--it's generally geared towards the folks you will soon recognize... they put most of us on ignore anyhow... because their goal is to preach. I know we have Buddhists and deists here too... I've never heard them proselytize or say inane anti-science things. As you hang around, you will see... and I think you'll understand a bit of the scoffing we do. Many believers are just people who have trusted the authority figures in their lives... they are victims in a way... and some of them might think their way out of the dogmas that enslave them. I'm ever glad I did. I am happier as a non-believer. I'm happy that I don't have to "try" to believe and wonder if I'm believing the right thing in the right way to please the right invisible guy and showing enough gratitude and feeling it sincerely enough, etc.

I was not cut out for religion; and I'm glad there's a place where I can fit in as a non-believer. I hope it's easier for others who were like me.

[cnorman18]

It sounds like we agree overall.

Yeah, we seem to be pretty much on the same page, even if we've reached different conclusions. See below.

You seem to be a pretty secular Jew.

I don't know if I can agree with that. Depends on what you mean by "secular," I guess. I don't often go to services, but I do kinda-sorta keep kosher, study Torah, fast on Yom Kippur, and like that. I believe in God, but--well, see below, again.

I think we have a lot or at least a few Jewish people here, thought I don't know the degree of their faith. Jewishness is very often a cultural thing more than it is a a religious thing... at least for a lot of people.

There are a lot of ways to be Jewish. Religiously, culturally, through historical concerns, philosophically--even by being an aggressive advocate for Israel. In my case, it's strangely intellectual.

I like the way Judaism understands the nature of human beings (no "Original Sin, for starters; nobody is born evil), the way the world works ("Listen to Science; God gave us brains to USE"), and the way everything--ethics, religious doctrines, and whatever--has to make SENSE, for the time we actually live in. Not only are we allowed to change our understanding of God and the world, and the details (not the principles) of our ethical standards--we are positively commanded to do so. We never get to sit back, relax, and say, "Okay, now we have all the answers," and forget how to think. We have to keep figuring everything out in every generation--though not from scratch. We have to consider what came before, and change what's needed.

I like that. I know most people think religion is supposed to hand you a nice, neat little list of rules and regs so you can kiss your brain goodbye and everything's easy now, but Jews think life, even religious life, takes a little more work than that.

I also like the way Jews are supposed to leave everyone else (and each other) the hell ALONE about what they believe or don't.

I'm not offended or bugged by anyone's beliefs.

Really? I know I am! Take that Jehovah's Witness woman who croaked because she refused a blood transfusion--that's incredibly stupid, but it's offensive because it's being incredibly stupid in the name of God.

I'm offended when people presume to tell me who is and is not going to Heaven or Hell. What, God left them in charge? I always want to say, "Let's see your badge," and that sucker had better be glowing with a heavenly light.

Jews have this Hebrew phrase, khillul ha-Shem, which means roughly "shaming the Name," as in the Name of God. We most often use it when an obviously religious Jew, with skullcap, tassels, and all, is exposed as doing something egregiously wrong--being a slumlord, a pedophile, or a crooked businessman, like that. Stinking drunk in public or being a leering lecher will do. Makes us all--and by extension, God--look bad.

I don't use that phrase for it--they're not Jews--but for me, that same principle applies when I see some "religious person" shoveling BS of one kind or another. Because of crap like that, people will assume that ALL religious thought and commitment is crap.

I can see why you wouldn't be offended if you don't think there's anything or Anybody to be shamed--but I do, and it bugs me that anyone might think that I have anything whatever in common with Fred Phelps, or that he speaks for God in any regard.

I like to know why people believe what they do... but I find that a lot of times, they don't even know what they believe.

Too right. Shortly before I finished my conversion--it takes about three years--i heard two Jewish women talking in the lounge at my school. "What makes meat kosher, anyway?" asked one. "The rabbi has to bless it," said the other. I had to bite my tongue to keep from saying, "No, that's not Judaism; that would be Voodoo." (For meat to be kosher, the animal must be slaughtered painlessly in a specific way and the meat completely drained of blood. No "blessing" is involved.) I was astonished that neither of these women, both born Jewish, had a clue about this.

To me, it's all kind of sexist and primitive and "tribal". I don't get anything out of it... in the same way I don't get anything out of Opera, I guess. But there are a lot of people who appear to get something out of religion or religious types experiences...

I don't get opera either.

Especially "Madame Butterfly". The story of an American sailor and a Japanese girl, set in Japan and sung in... Italian.... Huh??

I think you're right on people getting things out of religion; and I think it kind of depends on what you were surrounded by in childhood, or maybe just your inclination. If you like solemn rituals and lots of symbolic pomp (speaking of Christians now), you're probably old-school Catholic, Anglican, or even Lutheran. If you like emotional displays and tears and ecstatic "altered states," you're probably Pentecostal or "charismatic" anything else. If you like to feel "saved", you're a Baptist.
If you just like the music, maybe a Methodist. And I guess that's OK. Some people like opera, too. It's just when you start picking what OTHER people need to put in their heads that you get my attention.

(BTW, I'll bet if you were raised Christian, there are still some Christmas carols that you secretly like... I'm partial to "O Holy Night." Used to sing it as a solo in services. I was pretty good, too.)

I just felt manipulated and angst filled about the whole thing. I couldn't figure out how you were supposed to figure out what was true when so many people believed so many different things so sincerely-- plus I knew for certain that some of these people were mentally ill and some of these religions were made up... I just couldn't figure out how to know if I was in one of those religions or not. Men always seemed so sure of their religion--even as they followed different infallible leaders and everyone was going to hell in somebody's religion or other.

I think Mark Twain once had a character define "faith" as "believin' what you know ain't so." There's a strong streak of that in Christianity; "faith" as an act of the will. That's nonsense, and it leads to silliness like the "Trying Faith" thread--you know, pretend to believe something for a while to see if it "works" (and I'd like to know how you'd know if it did). For my money, you believe something or you don't; and thinking "maybe" qualifies as "you don't." Pretending you do, or trying to make yourself think that you do, is just homemade schizophrenia. Can't be good for you.

I guess there must be people around who can have somebody just tell them something and they can just totally believe it. I was like that till I was maybe five, with my parents, but I got over it. Apparently you did too. Looks like there are some who haven't, and still need somebody to tell them what the truth is. Not just about religion, either.

Even the part about "good guys" and "bad guys" and heaven and hell didn't make sense. Nobody was all "anything", were they? And didn't the "bad guys" think they were the good guys? Doesn't everyone?

That's another thing about Judaism that I like. We kind of take that whole area and say, "We don't know, and neither do you, so drop it."

....I try to be respectful or at least silent about religion and opinions in my regular life... but I do vent on my forum. Mostly at those who come to preach... because I figure they must know what they are in for.... and I just find it arrogant that some people come here to preach... but they don't engage in dialogue... they don't think they have something to learn. They cast a kind of judgment on skeptics as a group.

Religious people don't have a corner on the self-righteousness market, but they're pretty close. Go get 'em, I say (and that includes me when I get on my highest horse). Nothing is more fun that watching a snooty stuffed shirt fall down a manhole. Plus, I do seem to have retained the ability to laugh at myself.

Anyway; as has been said before, people who think they have all the answers are very irritating to those of us who actually DO...

Plus, I think it exorcises old demons and angst of faiths and fears past. I'm sure it doesn't feel good to have people be dismissive of one's faith... but the people who seem to think I should care that they think I'm rude... never even seem to think that I might have an opinion about their rudeness. Non believer are called arrogant all the time--when we aren't the people laying claims to special knowledge. It's believers who are claiming "higher truths"-- and not only to know that there is a god... but they all seem to know what he wants (and they don't agree with each other.). I just don't find "belief" a quality worthy of special respect. In fact, I think it can be stupefying. But when I'm being snotty about religion--it's generally geared towards the folks you will soon recognize... they put most of us on ignore anyhow... because their goal is to preach.

Yeah. We've met.

I know we have Buddhists and deists here too... I've never heard them proselytize or say inane anti-science things. As you hang around, you will see... and I think you'll understand a bit of the scoffing we do. Many believers are just people who have trusted the authority figures in their lives... they are victims in a way... and some of them might think their way out of the dogmas that enslave them.

Yeah, it's hard to know when they stop being victims and start being perpetrators. Maybe never.

I think a step away from false and negative religion is always a positive step, whether one believes that there is a real God or a "good religion" or not.

When confronted with an inhumane, ridiculous or clearly immoral religion, the proper attitude for a human with integrity has always been, "If that is what your God stands for, I'd rather go to Hell than worship him." Reminds me of an old Jewish proverb that might be related: "It's better to suffer in Hell with a wise man than to frolic in Paradise with a fool."

I'm ever glad I did. I am happier as a non-believer. I'm happy that I don't have to "try" to believe and wonder if I'm believing the right thing in the right way to please the right invisible guy and showing enough gratitude and feeling it sincerely enough, etc. I was not cut out for religion; and I'm glad there's a place where I can fit in as a non-believer. I hope it's easier for others who were like me.

Following the truth is never wrong; leading people away from falsehood is never wrong; finding peace is never wrong; and comforting the afflicted, no matter how they've been hurt, is never wrong. You may not know it or believe it, but IMHO, you ARE "believing the right thing in the right way to please the right invisible guy."

That's because, also IMHO, God isn't too concerned with what we "believe", anyway. That struck me as odd even as a child; how can somebody "believe" something and be "saved" thereby? Belief is only in your head. Who cares? You can't know what's in someone else's head or heart, and it doesn't much matter anyway. What you DO is what matters, to God and everyone else.

James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok had it right: "Don't watch his eyes. Watch his hands."

Peace.

Charles

[Yiab]

IMHO, both associations mischaracterize their objects. In most cases, that is a matter of misunderstanding and unfamiliarity, but it can happen in a deliberate effort to insult, ridicule, or provoke.

I agree to this to a large degree, yes. Since I tend to ascribe good intentions to people unless I have reason to think otherwise, I usually look at it as a misunderstanding rather than a deliberate insult and so I am not offended by it. (Of course, even if I did look at it as a deliberate insult I wouldn't be offended, but I can see how others would).

I suppose I see your point. Since God, as a concept, is usually defined negatively--NOT visible, NOT corporeal, NOT of this Universe, and so on--it makes the concept a little hard to get a handle on. That doesn't trouble believers, because we don't worry about definitions much--when we hear each other say, "God," we pretty much know what we're talking about. About the only time the subject comes up is in conversations like this one--and frankly, that's not a terribly high priority.

Yes, this is certainly true. I know very well that most believers think they share the idea of "god", but I have serious doubts that they actually are thinking about the same thing when they use the term, and since I've never heard a good description or definition communicated, I have to conclude that most believers just assume they are referring to the same thing.

Another problem with conversations like this one is that, within the religious community, God is not a concept but a Being.

No, within the religious community the concept of god is instantiated in reality.
For example, I have a concept of myself, that doesn't mean I'm not also a being. Similarly, I have a concept of a unicorn, but that is clearly not a being. In order to think about anything, real, imagined or otherwise, we must have a concept of the thing about which we are to think. Typically, such concepts are extremely vague when we first concieve of them, then become more and more specific over time - definitions often come late in the process, but unfortunately definitions are usually necessary when attempting to communicate a concept to someone who does not already possess it.
For example, when Constantine adopted Christianity, he was likely thinking of "Jesus" as one god among many - his concept of "god" was a polytheistic one (having been raised Roman) and so, not having a definition precise enough to communicate, the Christians of the day assumed that Constantine believed the same way they did, despite their concepts of "god" being very different.

The difference has often seemed to be something nonbelievers have a bit of trouble getting their heads around, since shortly after I bring it up the conversation moves pretty quickly to the irrationality/impossibility/childishness of believing in such a Being, and I find myself once more among the leprechauns.

I have seen this happen in most cases, yes. This is one of the things that makes it very difficult for me to actually have a deep, philosophically-minded conversation with a believer with the aim being to hash out an acceptable, reasonably precise definition of the term "god". (That is, the fact that many atheists behave this way means that many believers expect atheists to behave this way and so many believers are unwilling to speak about their faith in detail to unbelievers unless they are preaching).

I'm not sure I can help you with that, since I'm unclear on what a definition without properties would include, but perhaps we can start where I left off above: God is a Being, with consciousness, rational thought, free will, volition, creativity, likes and dislikes, and even emotions. How's that?

I don't say that those qualities are exclusive to God; indeed, they are what Jews mean when they say humans were made "in God's image." On the other hand, they are essential to His nature. Anyone thinking of God as a hypothetical Force or a static Concept isn't getting the drift.

If you want me to talk about what makes God, er, God--it would be hard to do that without getting into His "properties," etc.

Speaking about properties of god is certainly something which has to come into a definition, but it works best, I find, if it's not the whole definition.
For example, many Christians will define god as "omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent."
I have no difficulty understanding what "omniscient" and "omnipotent" mean - in the context of a being with consciousness and free will, "omniscient" means that any question of the form "does god know A?" is answered "yes" and "omnipotent" means that any question of the form "can god do A?" is also answered "yes".
"omnibenevolent" is where this falls apart; not just because it doesn't have a simple question-answer definition like the other two, but because "benevolence" is only something we can understand within a mind similar to our own, hence the word can only be meaningfully applied to a mind similar to our own. On the other hand, any mind which knows everything must be so incomprehensibly different than our own that speaking about its desires, moods or emotions is completely meaningless.
For that reasoning, the only definitions of "god" I've heard which make any sense are the ones which are completely and totally impersonal - where god is not anything like a person.

Now admittedly, it is much more difficult to find a contradiction between the Jewish idea of god and the state of reality than between the Christian idea of god and the state of reality, but that does not negate the total semantic irrelevance of almost everything said about god when using the Jewish idea.

Sounds like a lovely bunch. I'll take your word for it.

I doubt anybody has ever said that satanists are nice people, considering the worst sin in satanism is "stupidity".

I don't know if I can agree with that. Depends on what you mean by "secular," I guess. I don't often go to services, but I do kinda-sorta keep kosher, study Torah, fast on Yom Kippur, and like that. I believe in God, but--well, see below, again.

I find it interesting that you do all of these things and have no problem writing "God" in full - many Jews I know always write "G-d" even in English to reflect the fact that you are not supposed to use the name of god.

There are a lot of ways to be Jewish. Religiously, culturally, through historical concerns, philosophically--even by being an aggressive advocate for Israel.

You forgot ethnically - that's the sense in which I'm a Jew.

I like the way Judaism understands ... the way the world works ("Listen to Science; God gave us brains to USE")[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is certainly a plus for Judaism.
There is revelation and there is reason, both must be used together to know reality, and since all is from god, revelation and reason cannot disagree.

I also like the way Jews are supposed to leave everyone else (and each other) the hell ALONE about what they believe or don't.

That (along with other things you mentioned) is primarily a modern addition to Judaism. If we go back to the Torah, it is pretty clear that we should keep slaves, conquer nearby nations and police each other's behaviour.
Of course, Judaism has no problem with changing itself over time (at least, it hasn't had a problem with that for the last couple thousand years).

I can see why you wouldn't be offended if you don't think there's anything or Anybody to be shamed--but I do, and it bugs me that anyone might think that I have anything whatever in common with Fred Phelps, or that he speaks for God in any regard.

I find it somewhat annoying when people try to distance themselves from hated figures by claiming they have nothing whatsoever in common, because this is always blatantly false.
What have I god in common with Hitler? We're both made primarily of water, we are each between 0.1 and 11 feet in height and between 1 and 1100 pounds in weight - and that's not even starting to go into some of the other things the entire human species has in common.
In the case of someone like Fred Phelps, there are more notable things he shares in common with almost everyone on this board, myself included - he believes that people should not be treated differently based on the colour of their skin, he believes that women and men are equals, etc. (I got this information from a documentary on Fred Phelps and his flock called "Hatemongers" which also mentioned that he used to be a well-known civil rights lawyer).

Too right. Shortly before I finished my conversion--it takes about three years--i heard two Jewish women talking in the lounge at my school. "What makes meat kosher, anyway?" asked one. "The rabbi has to bless it," said the other. I had to bite my tongue to keep from saying, "No, that's not Judaism; that would be Voodoo." (For meat to be kosher, the animal must be slaughtered painlessly in a specific way and the meat completely drained of blood. No "blessing" is involved.) I was astonished that neither of these women, both born Jewish, had a clue about this.

From a practical perspective, they are almost correct.
From the consumer's perspective, something is certified kosher if a Rabbi has overseen the processes involved in its creation and has certified that everything is done according to kashrut (I don't know whether or not it has to be a Rabbi, but I know it usually is). In the post-industrial age we don't have to know most of the laws of kashrut in order to follow it, so many just don't know the ones involving the slaughtering and preparing of livestock.
Additionally, I vaguely recall hearing somewhere that kosher meat cannot be killed under anaesthesia, which confuses me somewhat with your mention of a painless death. Did I hear (or remember) wrong about this?

For my money, you believe something or you don't; and thinking "maybe" qualifies as "you don't." Pretending you do, or trying to make yourself think that you do, is just homemade schizophrenia. Can't be good for you.

Good ol' doublethink. Gotta love it.

Plus, I do seem to have retained the ability to laugh at myself.

And that, in my opinion, is one of the most important abilities to have no matter who you are or what you believe.

Following the truth is never wrong; leading people away from falsehood is never wrong; finding peace is never wrong; and comforting the afflicted, no matter how they've been hurt, is never wrong. You may not know it or believe it, but IMHO, you ARE "believing the right thing in the right way to please the right invisible guy."

I have a little quibble about that last statement. I can accept that everyone who behaves in the way you've specified is "believing the right thing in the right way", but when you add in "to please the right invisible guy" you are making a statement about their conscious motivation and that is not always true.
I suggest you amend it to "believing the right thing in the right way and pleasing the right invisible guy."

[cnorman18]

I agree to this to a large degree, yes. Since I tend to ascribe good intentions to people unless I have reason to think otherwise, I usually look at it as a misunderstanding rather than a deliberate insult and so I am not offended by it.

I've gotten over that, I think. I was pretty defensive when I first came here, but I know now that nobody wishes me ill. (They may think me an IDIOT, but that's OK. I might BE one.) I'm getting used to hangin' with the hobbits.)

Yes, this is certainly true. I know very well that most believers think they share the idea of "god", but I have serious doubts that they actually are thinking about the same thing when they use the term, and since I've never heard a good description or definition communicated, I have to conclude that most believers just assume they are referring to the same thing.

Probably true. Within the same religious community, though, they're probably pretty close. When I hear some fundamentalist Christians talk about God, I wonder if we're even talking about the same universe.

No, within the religious community the concept of god is instantiated in reality. For example, I have a concept of myself, that doesn't mean I'm not also a being. Similarly, I have a concept of a unicorn, but that is clearly not a being. In order to think about anything, real, imagined or otherwise, we must have a concept of the thing about which we are to think....

I see your point. Well said.

I have seen this happen in most cases, yes. This is one of the things that makes it very difficult for me to actually have a deep, philosophically-minded conversation with a believer with the aim being to hash out an acceptable, reasonably precise definition of the term "god". (That is, the fact that many atheists behave this way means that many believers expect atheists to behave this way and so many believers are unwilling to speak about their faith in detail to unbelievers unless they are preaching).

Again, I see your point, and you're quite right. Hard to talk to someone who is trying to set up defenses.

Speaking about properties of god is certainly something which has to come into a definition, but it works best, I find, if it's not the whole definition. For example, many Christians will define god as "omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent."
I have no difficulty understanding what "omniscient" and "omnipotent" mean - in the context of a being with consciousness and free will, "omniscient" means that any question of the form "does god know A?" is answered "yes" and "omnipotent" means that any question of the form "can god do A?" is also answered "yes".

I would say that "omniscient" means "knows everything that can be known" and "omnipotent" means "can do anything that can be done." There's a peculiar debate on another thread about a number that is both prime and composite, or some such. Even God can't make sense out of nonsense.

"omnibenevolent" is where this falls apart...

I don't think Jews believe that. The other two are among Maimonides's 13 Principles, but that one isn't. Good thing, since what you said about it is true.

On the other hand, any mind which knows everything must be so incomprehensibly different than our own that speaking about its desires, moods or emotions is completely meaningless.

I don't know if I agree with you there. Difficult to understand, maybe, and on a different plane, certainly, but to say that speaking of "its" (I would say His) personality is "meaningless," I think, is a bit of a jump.

For that reasoning, the only definitions of "god" I've heard which make any sense are the ones which are completely and totally impersonal - where god is not anything like a person.

That's rather what I meant when I spoke about the limitations of thinking about God as a "concept". One must have a conception of God, certainly; but if that conception leaves out the personal aspect of God, it is necessarily incomplete. I do not say we can understand the personality of God, but acknowledging that He has one, and that we occasionally see glimpses of it, seems to me to be pretty important to grasping the "concept."

Now admittedly, it is much more difficult to find a contradiction between the Jewish idea of god and the state of reality than between the Christian idea of god and the state of reality, but that does not negate the total semantic irrelevance of almost everything said about god when using the Jewish idea.

"Semantic irrelevance"? Sounds like you're saying that it's impossible to talk about God at all. I obviously don't agree. It's not necessary to totally understand something to talk about it. Georg Cantor taught us how to talk about transfinite numbers, even though I doubt very much that anyone really understands them.

Besides, Jews believe that, to whatever arguable extent, God has revealed Himself to us, and that makes it possible to talk about Him. Necessary, in fact. In fact, imperative. I suppose if one doesn't even accept the possibility that that might be true, one can't understand how talk about God can refer to anything with meaning; but that's not a problem for those who do believe it. Whether they are wrong or right, the conceptual framework is certainly there.

I doubt anybody has ever said that satanists are nice people, considering the worst sin in satanism is "stupidity".

I don't know if it's a sin, but it seems to carry the death penalty often enough. You're familiar with the Darwin Awards?

I find it interesting that you do all of these things and have no problem writing "God" in full - many Jews I know always write "G-d" even in English to reflect the fact that you are not supposed to use the name of god.

Yeah, I've seen that. Peace to those who do it, but it seems a little precious to me. "God" is not His proper Name, and in any case, the prohibition is against speaking the Name, not writing it.

It's true that if the Name is written, in Hebrew, one is not permitted to casually discard it. One wonders: If the Name appeared onscreen, would it be permissible to delete the file? Hmmmm....

You forgot ethnically - that's the sense in which I'm a Jew.

I don't recognize the concept of a Jewish "race". Since Judaism has always accepted converts, like me, if there were ever such a thing, it's lost all meaning by now. If you're talking about the whole family/tribe/heritage thing, I would call that a "cultural" identification. Like many things in Judaism, it's eminently arguable--and we do argue, don't we?

"I like the way Judaism understands ... the way the world works ("Listen to Science; God gave us brains to USE")"

Yes, this is certainly a plus for Judaism. There is revelation and there is reason, both must be used together to know reality, and since all is from god, revelation and reason cannot disagree.

I understood that as a small child. That, and much else.

There is a legend that sometimes a Jewish child is born into a gentile family. I can't say I believe that to be true, but in very many ways I seem to fit the paradigm.

That (along with other things you mentioned) is primarily a modern addition to Judaism. If we go back to the Torah, it is pretty clear that we should keep slaves, conquer nearby nations and police each other's behaviour.
Of course, Judaism has no problem with changing itself over time (at least, it hasn't had a problem with that for the last couple thousand years).

One of its strengths, I should think. Even if one goes back 3,000 years, we were ahead of every culture that surrounded us, ethically speaking--notably in the laws about the treatment of slaves. Other nations had few, or none.


I find it somewhat annoying when people try to distance themselves from hated figures by claiming they have nothing whatsoever in common, because this is always blatantly false.
What have I god in common with Hitler? We're both made primarily of water, we are each between 0.1 and 11 feet in height and between 1 and 1100 pounds in weight - and that's not even starting to go into some of the other things the entire human species has in common.
In the case of someone like Fred Phelps, there are more notable things he shares in common with almost everyone on this board, myself included - he believes that people should not be treated differently based on the colour of their skin, he believes that women and men are equals, etc. (I got this information from a documentary on Fred Phelps and his flock called "Hatemongers" which also mentioned that he used to be a well-known civil rights lawyer).

Okay, I get you; he breathes air, too, and probably likes puppies and small children. I would hope that you knew what I meant; that others might hold him up as an example of the evils of religious belief. Since some do exactly that, though I'll admit to the hyperbole, the sentiment stands.

From a practical perspective, they are almost correct. From the consumer's perspective, something is certified kosher if a Rabbi has overseen the processes involved in its creation and has certified that everything is done according to kashrut (I don't know whether or not it has to be a Rabbi, but I know it usually is). In the post-industrial age we don't have to know most of the laws of kashrut in order to follow it, so many just don't know the ones involving the slaughtering and preparing of livestock.

I see your point, but in the context of the rest of that conversation, my initial impression was confirmed; there was no reference to anything about slaughter or preparation. The woman apparently believed that a rabbi could bless a McDonald's hamburger and render it kosher. Perhaps I'm being harsh--I know that if one is born Jewish, one is not required to learn these things as a convert is, and that a very Reform Jew may not much care about the facts of kashrut; but I still call it ignorant.

Additionally, I vaguely recall hearing somewhere that kosher meat cannot be killed under anaesthesia, which confuses me somewhat with your mention of a painless death. Did I hear (or remember) wrong about this?

No, I think you're right. Painlessness is not the only concern; the animal must bleed out, which is why kosher slaughter is done with a razor-sharp knife to the throat and not a bullet to the brain. The heart must keep beating till the carcass is drained of blood. Since anaesthetics interfere with circulation (besides introducing foreign chemicals into the animal's body), they are forbidden.

And that, in my opinion, is one of the most important abilities to have no matter who you are or what you believe.

For me, one of the most ominous signs of fanaticism is the death of the sense of humor.

I have a little quibble about that last statement. I can accept that everyone who behaves in the way you've specified is "believing the right thing in the right way", but when you add in "to please the right invisible guy" you are making a statement about their conscious motivation and that is not always true. I suggest you amend it to "believing the right thing in the right way and pleasing the right invisible guy."

Well, that IS a quibble, but a correct one. I didn't intend to imply a willful effort to please God. Heavens, we can't have that...

Enjoying the conversation very much. Thanks!

Peace.

Charles

[Yiab]

I've gotten over that, I think. I was pretty defensive when I first came here, but I know now that nobody wishes me ill. (They may think me an IDIOT, but that's OK. I might BE one.) I'm getting used to hangin' with the hobbits.)

Yeah, this is pretty much my response to people who quote that particular phrase from the bible (something like "he who claims there is no god is either a liar or a fool") to try and say there are no atheists - I say "I may be a fool, but I am no liar."

I would say that "omniscient" means "knows everything that can be known" and "omnipotent" means "can do anything that can be done." There's a peculiar debate on another thread about a number that is both prime and composite, or some such. Even God can't make sense out of nonsense.

There's the difficulty - that's what "omniscient" and "omnipotent" are supposed to mean, yes, but in a practical setting (i.e. a semantically positivist setting), the only meaningful way I can think of to assign meaning to them is as patterns of answering particular questions.

I don't think Jews believe that. The other two are among Maimonides's 13 Principles, but that one isn't. Good thing, since what you said about it is true.

This true, as far as I know - Judaism does not claim that god is "all-loving" or anything like that. I consider this one of its strengths and it's part of the reason for my statement that it's a lot more difficult to find a contradiction with the Jewish concept of god than with the Christian.

I don't know if I agree with you there. Difficult to understand, maybe, and on a different plane, certainly, but to say that speaking of "its" (I would say His) personality is "meaningless," I think, is a bit of a jump.

I say it is meaningless in the same way that I say talking about the personality of a rock is meaningless - we might be able to find some reasonable way to expand the definition of "personality" to apply to a rock, but it would be so esoteric as to be pointless since a rock's structure is so different from our own that the concepts we have developed to deal with each other don't apply to it naturally.

"Semantic irrelevance"? Sounds like you're saying that it's impossible to talk about God at all. I obviously don't agree. It's not necessary to totally understand something to talk about it.

I do believe it's impossible to meaningfully talk about god, yes. I'm not saying we have to have total understanding to meaningfully talk about something, but we must have some idea of what our words mean in order for our words to be meaningfully spoken.

Georg Cantor taught us how to talk about transfinite numbers, even though I doubt very much that anyone really understands them.

I understand them pretty well, so do most of the mathematicians I know.

It's true that if the Name is written, in Hebrew, one is not permitted to casually discard it. One wonders: If the Name appeared onscreen, would it be permissible to delete the file? Hmmmm....

I would guess that this would go along with the treatment of the name written in the ground - if god's name were written in Hebrew on the ground, would you be permitted to erase it? If you spelled out god's name in burning oil and lit it on fire, would you permitted to let it go out?
For the purposes of working on the sabbath, computers are considered making fire, so we could probably think of data on a computer in the same way.
In any case, it's something interesting you could ask your local Rabbi.

I don't recognize the concept of a Jewish "race". Since Judaism has always accepted converts, like me, if there were ever such a thing, it's lost all meaning by now. If you're talking about the whole family/tribe/heritage thing, I would call that a "cultural" identification.

The difficulty with rejecting the concept of a Jewish race is that a child born of a Jewish mother is considered Jewish automatically.
Judaism has accepted converts for quite a while, certainly, but not always.
I would say that the idea of a Jewish "race" is in the process of losing meaning, like most "races" in my opinion, but it's still there for now.

Like many things in Judaism, it's eminently arguable--and we do argue, don't we?

Definitely. Argument is fun :)

I would hope that you knew what I meant; that others might hold him up as an example of the evils of religious belief.

I do certainly understand what you meant, and I agree that he should be held up as the extreme of religious belief rather than the norm. Basically my entire little rant there was about my dislike for extremely imprecise language.

Perhaps I'm being harsh--I know that if one is born Jewish, one is not required to learn these things as a convert is, and that a very Reform Jew may not much care about the facts of kashrut; but I still call it ignorant.

It is ignorant and also pretty normal - most people I know for whom English is their native tongue speak it astoundingly poorly when compared with people who have gained fluency in it later in life.

[cnorman18]

Yeah, this is pretty much my response to people who quote that particular phrase from the bible (something like "he who claims there is no god is either a liar or a fool") to try and say there are no atheists - I say "I may be a fool, but I am no liar."

It's "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." I don't remember if it's in Psalms or Proverbs.

There's the difficulty - that's what "omniscient" and "omnipotent" are supposed to mean, yes, but in a practical setting (i.e. a semantically positivist setting), the only meaningful way I can think of to assign meaning to them is as patterns of answering particular questions.

I've always felt the root of the problem was the inadequacy of language itself. No word can adequately capture any thing, even a tree or a rock. The reality is always more than words can express. How much more so with a human being? How much more than that with God?

This true, as far as I know - Judaism does not claim that god is "all-loving" or anything like that. I consider this one of its strengths and it's part of the reason for my statement that it's a lot more difficult to find a contradiction with the Jewish concept of god than with the Christian.

Yeah, I think a lot of Christians really do have the "big bearded grandfather in the sky" thing going. Jews have always been a little warier of God than that.

I say it is meaningless in the same way that I say talking about the personality of a rock is meaningless - we might be able to find some reasonable way to expand the definition of "personality" to apply to a rock, but it would be so esoteric as to be pointless since a rock's structure is so different from our own that the concepts we have developed to deal with each other don't apply to it naturally.

In absolute terms, you're right, of course. Maybe that's why Jews have always been pretty comfortable with metaphor and anthropomorphism, as long as we remember they're just tools for thinking about the unimaginable. We talk about "God's ear" and the like, and the Torah itself talks about God speaking to Moses "face to face, as a man does with his friend"--when of course we know that God has no ear and no face. Doesn't matter.

I do believe it's impossible to meaningfully talk about god, yes. I'm not saying we have to have total understanding to meaningfully talk about something, but we must have some idea of what our words mean in order for our words to be meaningfully spoken.

Like I said somewhere; it would be impossible to know anything of God at all, except that He has revealed Himself to us. He knows our limitations and cuts us some slack there.

This may be the one place where theists and atheists find it most difficult to talk. Atheists must, obviously, assume that they have to do all the work. Theists believe that we have help, and that it's a two-way relationship.

Maybe you don't believe it, and maybe you're even right; but it does make it possible for us to think and talk about God. We think that He started the conversation.

I would guess that this would go along with the treatment of the name written in the ground - if god's name were written in Hebrew on the ground, would you be permitted to erase it? If you spelled out god's name in burning oil and lit it on fire, would you permitted to let it go out?
For the purposes of working on the sabbath, computers are considered making fire, so we could probably think of data on a computer in the same way.
In any case, it's something interesting you could ask your local Rabbi.

I think his answer would probably start with, "What on Earth--"

The difficulty with rejecting the concept of a Jewish race is that a child born of a Jewish mother is considered Jewish automatically.
Judaism has accepted converts for quite a while, certainly, but not always.
I would say that the idea of a Jewish "race" is in the process of losing meaning, like most "races" in my opinion, but it's still there for now.

Jews have accepted converts since Moses's day. Jethro, Tzipporah's father, is sometimes called the first convert.

I'm not the only one who rejects the idea. There's this:

http://judaism.about.com/od/abcsofjudaism/a/beingjewish.htm

"Being Jewish is not a race because Jews do not share one common ancestry or biological distinction. People of many different races have become Jewish people over the years."

Definitely. Argument is fun :)


Only one thing better...

I do certainly understand what you meant, and I agree that he should be held up as the extreme of religious belief rather than the norm. Basically my entire little rant there was about my dislike for extremely imprecise language...
It is ignorant and also pretty normal - most people I know for whom English is their native tongue speak it astoundingly poorly when compared with people who have gained fluency in it later in life.

Tell me about it. Most of my cousins are from west Texas, and they barely speak recognizable English at all. The only time I've ever heard that accent done accurately was a mild version done by Robert Duvall in Lonesome Dove.

Enjoyed this immensely. Have a great weekend.

Peace.

Charles

[articulett]

If Jewishness is not a race... then what Hitler did was not an "ethnic cleansing" but a "moral purging" of people whom he felt believed the wrong thing. I've often thought that the term ethnic cleansing was used to hide the religious motivations for what he did and how religion was used to gain the allegiance of his supporters.

Race is a human construct, of course-- it has no bearing in our genomes and the characteristics that we use to distinguish races are all very recent developments in humanity (various hues of skin color etc.)

[cnorman18]

If Jewishness is not a race... then what Hitler did was not an "ethnic cleansing" but a "moral purging" of people whom he felt believed the wrong thing. I've often thought that the term ethnic cleansing was used to hide the religious motivations for what he did and how religion was used to gain the allegiance of his supporters.

Race is a human construct, of course-- it has no bearing in our genomes and the characteristics that we use to distinguish races are all very recent developments in humanity (various hues of skin color etc.)

Jews are not a "race," but it seems pretty clear that Hitler believed they were.

In previous episodes of Jewish persecution in Europe, e.g., the Inquisition and the Crusades, Jews could avoid problems by converting to Christianity. Former Jews were left alone, and not infrequently celebrated as heroes.

To Hitler, though, conversion didn't matter. Families who had been Christian for generations, but had Jewish antecedents, were swept up in the Shoah along with everyone else. His writings make his belief in Jewish racial inferiority clear, too.

Hitler may or may not have been a Christian--I've seen more than one intense debate on that subject around here--and he certainly used Christian rhetoric to appeal to the masses in his speeches; but it is beyond doubt that he believed in "Aryan" racial superiority, and that that was his primary motivation for his mass murder machine. If he had been motivated by religious concerns, he'd have left converted Jews alone.

Drop by an antisemitic website and you'll see that there are still plenty of people who believe that Jews are a race. The fact that we aren't doesn't matter.

I would think that, of all places, it would be clear to everyone on this forum that there are people who will sincerely believe and dedicate their lives to ideas that have nothing to do with reality--and that there are lots of spurious ideas besides religion. Hitler and the rest of the Nazi High Command were such people, dedicated to one such idea.

[Bri]

The difficulty with rejecting the concept of a Jewish race is that a child born of a Jewish mother is considered Jewish automatically.

Yes, except that it doesn't matter what race the mother is. For example, there is a group of Ethiopian Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Jews) who are quite different biologically than European Jews. From Wikipedia:

There are those who believe that Judaism in Ethiopia undoubtedly goes back into very ancient times. In an Ethiopian book titled "Kebra Nagast", or "Book of the Glory of Kings," there are several references to Biblical verses about Solomon and Sheba. The Hebrew Bible also has various references. (Tanakh [1 Kings 10:1-13 and 2 Chronicles 9:1-12]). Precisely what its early history was, however, remains obscure.

Here is another Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions) about Judaism's ethnic divisions.

-Bri

[cnorman18]

Yes, except that it doesn't matter what race the mother is. For example, there is a group of Ethiopian Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Jews) who are quite different biologically than European Jews. From Wikipedia:

Here is another Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions) about Judaism's ethnic divisions.

-Bri

Thanks for the link, Bri! That was fascinating!