Here is a thought experiment for the likes of JP:
We know that you believe that the Torah was written by God.
Theoretically speaking, what evidence could you think of, that would prove to you, that the Torah, AS WE KNOW IT, was conceived of and written by men?
I ask myself the same question in reverse-- what would prove to me unequivocally that the Torah, as is, was written by God?
Proofs for me would be the at least one of the following:
1. God explicitly revealing himself nowadays, unequivocally, and telling us that he wrote it.
2. That nature would somehow transform itself, so that the "supernatural" miracles described in the Torah would be seen nowadays.
3. That we would be provided unequivocal evidence of life after death, soul, or whatever.
4. As an alternative to #3--that nature changed such that justice is preserved in this world.
(Notice that all of these things are conditions described by some commentators as Messianic times)
I purposely omit arguments from the documentary hypothesis, since theoretically a God would write the book however he wants-anachronisms and all. This thought experiment deals with the text as is.
What do you say, JP? What would convince you? Remember: the more spectacular the claim, the stronger the evidence must be.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
I'm on a break
JP's postings have been getting kind of repetitive and boring. I am finding it tedious to attempt to rebut the same things over and over.
Meanwhile I'll occasionally check in on his blog to see if he comes up with anything original or interesting. If so, I'll respond here.
Thanks for following my blog.
Meanwhile I'll occasionally check in on his blog to see if he comes up with anything original or interesting. If so, I'll respond here.
Thanks for following my blog.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
JP's Anti-Zionist Rhetoric
The Heredi communities, in the US and Israel, are not monolithic. Some are less Zionist than others. For example, Israel's Sefardi heredi community is very zionistic and tends to be politically nationalistic. On the other hand, some Ashkenazi communities are not so enthusiastic about the State of Israel, to say the least. Some Hasidic sects, such as toldot aharon or neturei karta, and violently anti-zionist.
JP's self-righteous but wrong-headed approach to Israel is often heard by members of the ashkenazi ultra-orthodox community. As is well known, most of the ultra-orthodox world, as well as the reform movement, was opposed to the creation of a Jewish state, but for different reasons. The reform movement was busy assimilating and saw no point in promoting the zionist project which would separate Jews from the gentiles of the world. The orthodox were opposed for ideological and practical reasons.
JP, as we know, is in the business of making unprovable predictions and using them as evidence in his arguments. We read things like, "If atheists prevail, humans will self-destruct". Or, "skeptics and atheists will burn in hell", etc.
Now he makes a prediction about Israel.
"Without the support of the US in ignoring the UN, I don't think it has much chance."
People said that 60 years ago, and Israel is infinitely stronger militarily, economically and diplomatically than it was then. Current events are a blip on the screen. The Arabs have gotten stronger only with their terrorist weapons (ie rockets) and their oil wealth that can't militarily defeat a country.
Regarding Iran, even if they get a nuclear weapon, Israel can destroy them many times over, and therefore it is likely that they won't use it. (just as Saddam didn't use WMDs on Israel).
To be sure, the next war in Israel might be nasty, with civilians taking a big hit. But that doesn't defeat a country.
In the 21st century, assymetric guerilla warfare in urban areas is the norm, and defeats and victories are moral and psychological. This is what Israel and the West are dealing with now. No more pitched tank battles and aerial dogfights. Now its house to house combat, and rockets on civilians. Israeli is coping better with this threat than any other country.
Many people have predicted that a holocaust in America is only a matter of time. (I don't believe this prediction nor JP's). So I've given up on predictions, and I don't listen do anybody else's either.
JP's self-righteous but wrong-headed approach to Israel is often heard by members of the ashkenazi ultra-orthodox community. As is well known, most of the ultra-orthodox world, as well as the reform movement, was opposed to the creation of a Jewish state, but for different reasons. The reform movement was busy assimilating and saw no point in promoting the zionist project which would separate Jews from the gentiles of the world. The orthodox were opposed for ideological and practical reasons.
JP, as we know, is in the business of making unprovable predictions and using them as evidence in his arguments. We read things like, "If atheists prevail, humans will self-destruct". Or, "skeptics and atheists will burn in hell", etc.
Now he makes a prediction about Israel.
"Without the support of the US in ignoring the UN, I don't think it has much chance."
People said that 60 years ago, and Israel is infinitely stronger militarily, economically and diplomatically than it was then. Current events are a blip on the screen. The Arabs have gotten stronger only with their terrorist weapons (ie rockets) and their oil wealth that can't militarily defeat a country.
Regarding Iran, even if they get a nuclear weapon, Israel can destroy them many times over, and therefore it is likely that they won't use it. (just as Saddam didn't use WMDs on Israel).
To be sure, the next war in Israel might be nasty, with civilians taking a big hit. But that doesn't defeat a country.
In the 21st century, assymetric guerilla warfare in urban areas is the norm, and defeats and victories are moral and psychological. This is what Israel and the West are dealing with now. No more pitched tank battles and aerial dogfights. Now its house to house combat, and rockets on civilians. Israeli is coping better with this threat than any other country.
Many people have predicted that a holocaust in America is only a matter of time. (I don't believe this prediction nor JP's). So I've given up on predictions, and I don't listen do anybody else's either.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
More JP Idiocies
With breathtaking ignorance and idiocy, JP has declared the death of science.
The fallacy of his argument is that he picks and chooses what he considers to be progress, while ignoring all of the other inconvenient facts. This is typical of all of his arguments.
Sure, life expectancy increase has slowed. And with limited resources, scientists and governments have to prioritize. With remote technology there's no need to send a man to Mars, since we can learn more from robots. He totally ignores the change in human lifestyle as a result of communications and travel, which has increased man's mobility and wealth many fold since the 60s.
In the medical field many things are treatable now that were hopeless in the 60s, including certain cancers, deafness, blindness, paralysis, amputations etc. Doesn't he think that LASIK surgery is revolutionary? What about cochlear implants? The Internet?
Because information has exploded, it is less concentrated in the hands a few scientists than in the past. So while you have Nobel prize winners and leaders in many fields, it becomes difficult to identify intellectual giants like Einstein and Darwin.
JP, along with his fundamentalist friends, are truly afraid that science may make religion irrelevant one day.
The fallacy of his argument is that he picks and chooses what he considers to be progress, while ignoring all of the other inconvenient facts. This is typical of all of his arguments.
Sure, life expectancy increase has slowed. And with limited resources, scientists and governments have to prioritize. With remote technology there's no need to send a man to Mars, since we can learn more from robots. He totally ignores the change in human lifestyle as a result of communications and travel, which has increased man's mobility and wealth many fold since the 60s.
In the medical field many things are treatable now that were hopeless in the 60s, including certain cancers, deafness, blindness, paralysis, amputations etc. Doesn't he think that LASIK surgery is revolutionary? What about cochlear implants? The Internet?
Because information has exploded, it is less concentrated in the hands a few scientists than in the past. So while you have Nobel prize winners and leaders in many fields, it becomes difficult to identify intellectual giants like Einstein and Darwin.
JP, along with his fundamentalist friends, are truly afraid that science may make religion irrelevant one day.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Stein's Dirty Tricks
One of Jacob Stein's favorite techniques is quoting out of context. In this post JP misrepresents Charles Darwin as promoting a philosophy of racial supremacy and discrimination. If one simply follows the link in his post and reads a few lines before and after the quotation, it becomes obvious that JP is lying. In many of his post posts and comments he intentionally confuses between a descriptive, scientific theory of natural selection and a political philosophy of racism and "survival of the fittest".
What is even more ludicrous is that this claim comes from a man who believes in and defends the biblical "ethic" of wiping out of Amalek and the seven nations in Canaan.
Stein is a straw man too good to be true...I still wonder if he is a closet atheist and his blog is just a gag.
Let's give Stein a little of his own medicine and include a juicy quote from his post:
Stein says that, "we should probably start investing in companies producing hydrogen cyanide and crematoria."
There it is! Stein thinks we should have another holocaust. Yea! Boy, some Torah morality!
I know it's out of context, its just demonstrates what a dishonest and brainwashed person Stein really is. Stein's little bag of dirty tricks include ad hominem attacks, overgeneralizations, straw man arguments and outright lying. One would assume that in a real, moderated debate in which he was forced to defend his religious beliefs, he would be disqualified or suffer humiliating defeat. I recall some time back a fellow named Avi used to comment on his blog, and offered to debate JP but to no avail.
What is even more ludicrous is that this claim comes from a man who believes in and defends the biblical "ethic" of wiping out of Amalek and the seven nations in Canaan.
Stein is a straw man too good to be true...I still wonder if he is a closet atheist and his blog is just a gag.
Let's give Stein a little of his own medicine and include a juicy quote from his post:
Stein says that, "we should probably start investing in companies producing hydrogen cyanide and crematoria."
There it is! Stein thinks we should have another holocaust. Yea! Boy, some Torah morality!
I know it's out of context, its just demonstrates what a dishonest and brainwashed person Stein really is. Stein's little bag of dirty tricks include ad hominem attacks, overgeneralizations, straw man arguments and outright lying. One would assume that in a real, moderated debate in which he was forced to defend his religious beliefs, he would be disqualified or suffer humiliating defeat. I recall some time back a fellow named Avi used to comment on his blog, and offered to debate JP but to no avail.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Is Atheism Just Another Religion?
A very common claim by theists like JP is to say that atheism is just like a religious belief, in the sense that it is no more rational or logical than classic religious beliefs. In doing so he attempts to put atheism, along with "darwinism" and evolutionary biology on the same plane as other authority-based claims. This is disingenuous and hollow, and here is why:
At a meta-cognitive level people's ways of looking at the world are influenced by many factors, including psychological and environmental factors. In this sense, any of a person's beliefs, preferences, and knowledge could be said to be subjective and be based on "belief". This causes confusion between the term "belief" in its psychological meaning, and the word "belief" in its more formal meaning-- an element in a set of predetermined assumptions and rules associated with organized faith.
For example, I can believe that Jesus Christ was our messiah and savior. I can "believe" this in the sense that I see this as true--the "psychological" form of belief. This assertion is one of many in the Christian faith, so we can see it as a religious belief as well. I can also NOT believe that JC is my savior. In this case I "believe" that JC being my savior is not true, but we would not say that my non-belief is "faith" or "belief" in the dogmatic or religious sense. Just as I don't believe in Thor or Zeuss, I can also not belief in the fundamentalist Hebrew God, and yet it would be incorrect to say that I have a "faith" in my nonacceptance of these assumptions.
Some might claim that atheism is relatively recent in history and is therefore a deviation from the default assumptions, and therefore it is atheism that should be considered "faith based" and has the burden of proof. But this argument is fallacious for several reasons. Many historical beliefs about the physical world, including the fields of astronomy, physics, medicine and chemistry were the "default" until they were disproven. Additionally, "non-atheism" includes a very large collection of incompatible faiths and traditions. Therefore, lumping all "theists" beliefs together, then claiming that any skeptic who rejects any one or all of those beliefs as being a "believer" in a novel "belief" called "atheism" is dishonest and a misuse of the word. And as demonstrated by the flying spaghetti monster, the celestial teapot, or Christian claims about Jesus, the burden of proof rest squarely with the likes of Jacob Stein and his cohorts to prove their claims. It does not rest with me to reject it.
So if I don't accept Jesus as my savior, and reject Thor as a God, I would be a skeptic. All Jews are skeptics, from the point of view of Christians and Muslims. So why if I reject ALL religious claims, not just some of them, am I a "believer" in "atheism"? It is like JP is saying, "take your pick, but you have to choose at least ONE faith based claim, and that always makes more sense than the 'atheist' belief".
Another common distortion that JP uses is that atheists also have their "authorities", making them no different than religionists. He ridicules Darwin, Dawkins, and others as being atheist authorities. The truth is that they became authorities because their ideas have survived the test of time and scrutiny of peer review in the academic world. Besides, atheists don't blindly accept a scientific idea just because an expert says so, unless his ideas survive this scrutiny. As far as talmudic rabbinic authorities, their assertions have been rejected by the vast majority of Jews and non-Jews alike, so these people are "authorities" only to a tiny self-selected minority of humanity. We can acknowledge that there is also controversy and disagreement in the scientific community, but this is part of the process of inferential reasoning. We posit theories to explain what we see, and we test to see if the theory holds up. If it doesn't, it is rejected.
The fact that Orthodox Jews, along with various other minority groups in the world, continue to cling to their faith is a sociological phenomenon, which says nothing about the truth or falsehood of their claims.
The rejection of these or other religious claims, due to more plausible scientific explanations for what we see, could hardly be called a "faith" any more than the germ theory of disease or quantum physics. To rehash:
1. Atheism is not authority based like religion.
2. Atheism is not a belief like religion, since rejection is not a belief.
3. Atheism is a reasoned alternative to the hundreds of different and contradictory theist theories in explaining the world and life, and in fact explains our observations much better.
4. The burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.
At a meta-cognitive level people's ways of looking at the world are influenced by many factors, including psychological and environmental factors. In this sense, any of a person's beliefs, preferences, and knowledge could be said to be subjective and be based on "belief". This causes confusion between the term "belief" in its psychological meaning, and the word "belief" in its more formal meaning-- an element in a set of predetermined assumptions and rules associated with organized faith.
For example, I can believe that Jesus Christ was our messiah and savior. I can "believe" this in the sense that I see this as true--the "psychological" form of belief. This assertion is one of many in the Christian faith, so we can see it as a religious belief as well. I can also NOT believe that JC is my savior. In this case I "believe" that JC being my savior is not true, but we would not say that my non-belief is "faith" or "belief" in the dogmatic or religious sense. Just as I don't believe in Thor or Zeuss, I can also not belief in the fundamentalist Hebrew God, and yet it would be incorrect to say that I have a "faith" in my nonacceptance of these assumptions.
Some might claim that atheism is relatively recent in history and is therefore a deviation from the default assumptions, and therefore it is atheism that should be considered "faith based" and has the burden of proof. But this argument is fallacious for several reasons. Many historical beliefs about the physical world, including the fields of astronomy, physics, medicine and chemistry were the "default" until they were disproven. Additionally, "non-atheism" includes a very large collection of incompatible faiths and traditions. Therefore, lumping all "theists" beliefs together, then claiming that any skeptic who rejects any one or all of those beliefs as being a "believer" in a novel "belief" called "atheism" is dishonest and a misuse of the word. And as demonstrated by the flying spaghetti monster, the celestial teapot, or Christian claims about Jesus, the burden of proof rest squarely with the likes of Jacob Stein and his cohorts to prove their claims. It does not rest with me to reject it.
So if I don't accept Jesus as my savior, and reject Thor as a God, I would be a skeptic. All Jews are skeptics, from the point of view of Christians and Muslims. So why if I reject ALL religious claims, not just some of them, am I a "believer" in "atheism"? It is like JP is saying, "take your pick, but you have to choose at least ONE faith based claim, and that always makes more sense than the 'atheist' belief".
Another common distortion that JP uses is that atheists also have their "authorities", making them no different than religionists. He ridicules Darwin, Dawkins, and others as being atheist authorities. The truth is that they became authorities because their ideas have survived the test of time and scrutiny of peer review in the academic world. Besides, atheists don't blindly accept a scientific idea just because an expert says so, unless his ideas survive this scrutiny. As far as talmudic rabbinic authorities, their assertions have been rejected by the vast majority of Jews and non-Jews alike, so these people are "authorities" only to a tiny self-selected minority of humanity. We can acknowledge that there is also controversy and disagreement in the scientific community, but this is part of the process of inferential reasoning. We posit theories to explain what we see, and we test to see if the theory holds up. If it doesn't, it is rejected.
The fact that Orthodox Jews, along with various other minority groups in the world, continue to cling to their faith is a sociological phenomenon, which says nothing about the truth or falsehood of their claims.
The rejection of these or other religious claims, due to more plausible scientific explanations for what we see, could hardly be called a "faith" any more than the germ theory of disease or quantum physics. To rehash:
1. Atheism is not authority based like religion.
2. Atheism is not a belief like religion, since rejection is not a belief.
3. Atheism is a reasoned alternative to the hundreds of different and contradictory theist theories in explaining the world and life, and in fact explains our observations much better.
4. The burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
JP's Phallacies-- a Rehash
No, it's not a spelling mistake. Its just a joke about JP's obsession with sex.
I'm going to briefly recount JP's false arguments "proving" god and the divine origin of Torah, along with a 1-line rebuttal.
Claim: There is no morality without God or the Torah.
Rebuttal: People make laws to make livable societies, while individual guilt, conscience, and empathy are part of human nature (except for psychopaths), and give an evolutionary advantage in helping perpetuate our genes.
Claim: The watchmaker analogy proves that there was a Creator.
Rebuttal: The watch is not analogous to biological material, which we observe to grow, replicate and change itself without "intelligent" intervention.
Claim: The mass revelation claims made in the Torah could not have been fabricated.
Rebuttal: Yes they can, as can be all claims made by other religions.
Claim: The feeling of free will and self-awareness proves that we have an immortal soul.
Rebuttal: That we have those feelings says nothing about what causes those feelings.
Claim: Atheism produces immorality and degeneracy.
Rebuttal: As a proportion of the population, violence in the world is decreasing, as the world is becoming more secular. (Proof: average lifespan has increased despite wars)
Claim: The Torah contains unique wisdom that could only have been written by God
Rebuttal: The Torah contains plenty of mistakes (factual errors, contradictions and anachronisms) as well as customs and stories copied from neighboring peoples.
Claim: The Torah and Judaism don't change.
Rebuttal: The Talmud and subsequent rabbinic interpretation completely changed Judaism, nullifying some laws and adding new ones.
Claim: The oral law is from God and was given to Moses
Rebuttal: The Bible itself contradicts this in many places. The Talmud at times completely twists the words of the Torah.
Claim: Justice is administered through the afterlife and hell.
Rebuttal: Absolutely no evidence for this other than rabbinical statements in post biblical times.
Claim: Skeptics most prove their skepticism, i.e. that God doesn't exist or didn't write the Torah
Rebuttal: The flying spaghetti monster and celestial teapot arguments demonstrate that the burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic.
Claim: Evolution is an unproven theory promulagated by atheist crackpots.
Rebuttal: The overwheming scientific evidence (direct observation+inductive reasoning) shows that it is correct, and it is held to be true by the vast majority of biologists and has stood the test of scientific scrutiny. (Had it not withstood this scrutiny it would have been dropped long ago like blood-letting or exorcism).
Having said all of this it may still be rational for a person to believe in God and OJ, as long as he recognizes that it is a leap of faith for which there is no proof. I wouldn't call all of the religious people on earth "irrational", unless their faith brings them to do destructive actions to themselves or others.
I'm going to briefly recount JP's false arguments "proving" god and the divine origin of Torah, along with a 1-line rebuttal.
Claim: There is no morality without God or the Torah.
Rebuttal: People make laws to make livable societies, while individual guilt, conscience, and empathy are part of human nature (except for psychopaths), and give an evolutionary advantage in helping perpetuate our genes.
Claim: The watchmaker analogy proves that there was a Creator.
Rebuttal: The watch is not analogous to biological material, which we observe to grow, replicate and change itself without "intelligent" intervention.
Claim: The mass revelation claims made in the Torah could not have been fabricated.
Rebuttal: Yes they can, as can be all claims made by other religions.
Claim: The feeling of free will and self-awareness proves that we have an immortal soul.
Rebuttal: That we have those feelings says nothing about what causes those feelings.
Claim: Atheism produces immorality and degeneracy.
Rebuttal: As a proportion of the population, violence in the world is decreasing, as the world is becoming more secular. (Proof: average lifespan has increased despite wars)
Claim: The Torah contains unique wisdom that could only have been written by God
Rebuttal: The Torah contains plenty of mistakes (factual errors, contradictions and anachronisms) as well as customs and stories copied from neighboring peoples.
Claim: The Torah and Judaism don't change.
Rebuttal: The Talmud and subsequent rabbinic interpretation completely changed Judaism, nullifying some laws and adding new ones.
Claim: The oral law is from God and was given to Moses
Rebuttal: The Bible itself contradicts this in many places. The Talmud at times completely twists the words of the Torah.
Claim: Justice is administered through the afterlife and hell.
Rebuttal: Absolutely no evidence for this other than rabbinical statements in post biblical times.
Claim: Skeptics most prove their skepticism, i.e. that God doesn't exist or didn't write the Torah
Rebuttal: The flying spaghetti monster and celestial teapot arguments demonstrate that the burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic.
Claim: Evolution is an unproven theory promulagated by atheist crackpots.
Rebuttal: The overwheming scientific evidence (direct observation+inductive reasoning) shows that it is correct, and it is held to be true by the vast majority of biologists and has stood the test of scientific scrutiny. (Had it not withstood this scrutiny it would have been dropped long ago like blood-letting or exorcism).
Having said all of this it may still be rational for a person to believe in God and OJ, as long as he recognizes that it is a leap of faith for which there is no proof. I wouldn't call all of the religious people on earth "irrational", unless their faith brings them to do destructive actions to themselves or others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
