Sunday, June 17, 2012

A Celebration of Life



                I was at a sholom zochor last night and after a few beers, I found myself in middle of an intense argument about whether all goyim (non-Jews) hate all Jews? I could not believe that this man actually felt that all of them MUST hate us, from where would such a sense of fear and isolation come? Aside from feeling bad for him, it left me thinking. When I left there after forty-five minutes or so, I went on my weekly Friday night walk to the beach. The scene was breathtaking, not a cloud in the sky, no moon, and all the stars were out in their full majesty. As I looked out onto the endless vast dark ocean, I truly understood what it means to feel insignificant. I am tiny compared to this ocean and compared to a star the even this great ocean is not even a puddle. It is barely a mark on a speck of dust, and in true cosmic sizes, the star itself is no more than the smallest spark. Yet here I am. Alive. Taking it all in. I do not know a lot about reality but the little I do blows me away. I am left wondering, how amazing is this experience we call life? How much more so is what we refer to as the “human” experience?
From a big bang 14 or so billion years ago, an entire universe was born spewing forth a plasma of a subatomic mess. No atoms could have formed in these initial moments, it was too chaotic, and the closest thing resembling stability that I know of at this time was quark-gluon plasma. From this, the first atoms arose and the uniform plasma became individualized. At first, there was a very limited variety of atoms that were formed but it was enough for the first fireworks; the first stars. They were giant nuclear collectives, individual atoms working together putting on the greatest show in the universe for no one’s eyes at all. This is the true nature of nature; absolutely amazing, and yet she does not care who is watching or who will like it. Nature is as she is, that’s it. These atoms working together became something they could never accomplish themselves; they became the heavy elements. Only in the center of stars where gravity was at its strongest, could two atomic nuclei overcome their mutual dislike for each other and join to become something bigger and better, a heavier element.
The heaviest of elements however are only created in the intense pressures of the death throes of a collapsing star. After a series of collapses and explosions that is the death of a star, all the material that was in the star is blown around to be used again. As the matter cloud falls in on itself because of gravity it reignites but not all the dust makes it into the star. Some of it just stays swirling around and sometimes creates smaller lumps of matter. Sometimes this satellite has enough mass to ignite and create a binary star system and sometimes none of satellites have enough mass to ignite. A variety of satellites can form, and although most of them would not be able to support life as we know it, perhaps they are capable of supporting other forms of life, perhaps better suited to their environments.
Around one particular star, which we call “the” sun quite a few satellites were formed. Some were giant balls of gas, truly majestic in size; and some were small lumps of rock, not much in terms of size. One of these small rocks had a chemical composition and a favorable weather system that allowed liquid water and life as we know it. Within a relatively short time, the first life forms arose on that little rock, and began to multiply.
The conditions on that rock stayed in such a way that allowed the life to continue, and whenever it did change, the life was able to change with it. After doing so for many generations, the first signs of real change in the life began appearing. The life began to get more complex allowing for better chances at getting more food, and better chances of surviving longer. Although the changes were plentiful, only those best fitting the environment survived. As the life became more complex it began to evolve things like a nervous system with a main control center, it evolved all kinds of organs and limbs, each life form competing for the reward of survival. At one point, the greatest life form on this rock was a creature called the dinosaurs; they were giant lizards that lorded over all other life forms. These beasts came in many forms some ate plants some ate other animals some even ate other dinosaurs. However, they all died out when environmental situations became hostile to their existence and nothing remains of their powerful reign other than a few fossils.
After they died out the best creature adapted for survival was a group called the mammals. Being the dominant life forms on this small rock, they evolved into all sorts of species. Eventually there arose a sort of mammals we now call apes, these mammals had great brains, superior bodies, and started learning how to use their surroundings in a way previously unseen. They began making tools to help them to simple tasks; their form of communication was unsurpassed, with the exception of the dolphins perhaps. They kept on improving and evolving better brains until they could not only learn how to get food better, they could even predict the habits of their prey and each other, their language surpassed all other life forms, and they had tools for everything. They had this capability called imagination, which means they can understand things in an abstract way even if the thing were not there.
They could create things that had no survival purpose, and they could afford to as well, they were that good at survival. They created things for enjoyment, such as music, art, stories, and poetry. They started trying to understand everything, for they realized that the better you understood something, the better off you were in using that thing, or sometimes if it was a potentially dangerous thing, prepare for it. However, they were still limited, their method of understanding was still in its infancy and they arrived at many half-truths, and many false conclusions. When in their search to understand everything many times, they would reach something that they did not know. It was very uncomfortable to leave it as an unknown and so they guessed, many times incorrectly.
These limitations notwithstanding, they still were the best life form this rock. They discovered a way to keep record of their thoughts and knowledge on rock, then later paper that could in a sense “freeze” their words for a long time, to be accessed by anyone. They began to use tools in every imaginable way until they were able to have tools that could think for them. They built systems of understanding such as math and philosophy. They were also the first creature to realize that they were going to die, this made many of them feel that life was futile, so many of them postulated that they would live forever beyond their bodies. They also thought that the only way to understand many happenings was to assume conscious intentional governors of nature, with human wants and desires who could be reasoned with and be pleased. Unfortunately since they were only guesses different people made drastically different guesses.
They were nomads, spread around to many different parts of the world, and traveled in groups. In their obsession with their way of seeing the world, and their fear of the unknown they would demonize the “others”. ”Others” were those whose guesses about reality differed from their own. In their fear of the “others”, they began to fear each other, denouncing each other as being one of the “others”. This fear caused isolation, paranoia, distrust, and life again became the fear for survival.
Finally, after thousands of years of living like this there came two revolutions around a thousand years apart. The first was the Greek enlightenment, the second the European enlightenment. These led to better methods of understanding our world, better methods of understanding each other, the idea of respecting all people, the first real steps toward the elimination of superstition and baseless fear.
As a human being myself, I am thrilled to be living in this time in our history. I can appreciate the simple beauty of being alive, I do not fear superstitious nonsense, I can understand my universe, I can understand other humans, I do not expect them to be perfect, I understand that they evolved from other, simpler primates and sometimes act irrational. This is ok.
People are semi-evolved primates, that’s it. Bear this in mind next time you are confused about how people act. As semi evolved primates, we can do what we want and create our lives however we want. We were once amoebas, we can go anywhere from here. We can hold any opinion we want, however we should keep in mind that it is just an opinion. If we are extremely careful, we can sometimes know things almost for a fact, but it takes a great amount of gentle care and precision to know truth.
In between our opinions and the truth lies our worldview. This worldview of ours encompasses our entire humanity, world, and universe. We each have one, it is unique and individual. By remaining open and gentle with each other we can sometimes glimpse a parallel universe, entirely strange and ridiculous, yet hauntingly familiar. Sometimes we can get lost amidst all these ridiculous and entertaining universes, it does one well to bear in mind that we should also have a universe of our own, as beautiful and ridiculous as the next. In the arts, I sometimes glimpse the minds of other people and simultaneously am comforted in our similarities and amazed at our differences.
I see most people as simply wanting to live in peace, without fear, with love and happiness. Most people simply want their little corner of a world for themselves, do not want to bother people and do not want to be bothered. Most of us want to share the good we have with other people. Most of us are lovers of life, artists of our own lives, and artists of our own worldview. We are all born curious and some of us retain that throughout our lives. We love to share, love to be at peace with one another. Yes, fear and pain can distort this in people and make them hateful instead of loving, hoarding instead of giving, but given the chance, most of those people would rather go back to the good life. Life can get tough and we can grow cynical, yet I keep seeing people accomplish such greatness that I cannot help feeling optimistic. If history has taught us anything it is that, we can rise above our shortcomings.
I am a proud human being. Proud of what we have accomplished notwithstanding our shortcomings, if anything it is our shortcomings as people that make me the most proud of what we have still managed to accomplish. We have done so much with so little that I cannot wait to see where we will go from here. I see us rising above our childish superstition, above our senseless fear of each other. I hope we can appreciate the uniqueness of earth and learn to cherish and treasure her, instead of squandering the beautiful planet we have. I am a proud human being.

41 comments:

  1. "These led to better methods of understanding our world, better methods of understanding each other, the idea of respecting all people, the first real steps toward the elimination of superstition and baseless fear."

    Homicide seems to be quite popular in the post-Enlightenment period.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

    "I see most people as simply wanting to live in peace, without fear, with love and happiness."

    An anthropologist might disagree.

    http://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/

    Law enforcement officials also might have a more jaded view. There were approximately 490,000 intentional homicides in 2004.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    "I am a proud human being."

    Why more proud than being a worm or rock?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I feel as if you havent even read what i wrote

    I havent said that we have eliminated homicide i said that we have made the first steps toward understanding and respecting other people for who they are

    Although i said that "I see most people as simply wanting to live in peace, without fear, with love and happiness." i acknowledged that this is not always the case and that "fear and pain can distort this in people and make them hateful instead of loving, hoarding instead of giving, but given the chance, most of those people would rather go back to the good life. Life can get tough and we can grow cynical"

    I also explained why i am a proud human being it is because "...of what we have accomplished notwithstanding our shortcomings, if anything it is our shortcomings as people that make me the most proud of what we have still managed to accomplish. We have done so much with so little..."

    please take the time to read what i write and see if i address your questions

    and although you cite the amount of homicide in 2004 please note that the less a country believes in a god the LOWER the crime rate here is a link to the study

    http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  4. "i said that we have made the first steps toward understanding and respecting other people for who they are"

    The Communists murdered close to 100 million.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism#Estimated_number_of_victims

    World War II killed between 50 to 70 million more.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_dead

    I'm not sure I'm feeling the respect and understanding.

    "I see most people as simply wanting to live in peace, without fear, with love and happiness."

    However whenever law enforcement is absent, things seem to get very bad very quickly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Security.2C_looting_and_war_damage

    To have a peaceful society we need both fear of God and law enforcement as I explain.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/10/god-save-king-why-we-need-both.html

    "i am a proud human being it is because "...of what we have accomplished"

    According to atheism, we have accomplished nothing. If there is no God and evolution created us, then obviously we have no soul. If we have no soul, then we have no free will. We are merely zombie like robots who imagine what we have free will.

    http://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Conscious-Will-Bradford-Books/dp/0262731622/

    "the less a country believes in a god the LOWER the crime rate here is a link to the study"

    This is just an example of cherry picking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

    How for example does Utah (fairly devout) compare to North Korea (militant atheist) in terms of murder rates, including man made famine, concentration camps, etc.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea

    The fact is that the largest concentrations of atheists are found in Russia and China.

    http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Nonreligious

    I invite you to move to one or the other. I would certainly prefer to live in the largest orthodox Jewish communities possible. However both China and Russia seem to have their rougher edges.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia

    ReplyDelete
  5. “The Communists murdered close to 100 million.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism#Estimated_number_of_victims

    World War II killed between 50 to 70 million more.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_dead”

    These are all good reasons why people should be skeptical. Had they been true skeptics they should never have fallen for either regimes propaganda, had they not fallen for it, they could have overthrown the government, instead like sheep, they allowed themselves to be led astray.

    “To have a peaceful society we need both fear of God and law enforcement as I explain.”

    I do not pretend to know much about politics so I cannot really comment.

    “According to atheism, we have accomplished nothing. If there is no God and evolution created us, then obviously we have no soul. If we have no soul, then we have no free will. We are merely zombie like robots who imagine what we have free will.”

    What does one have to do with the other, I can take pride in who we are and what we are capable of, whether there is a god or not. Again, you misunderstand atheism; you cannot say that “According to atheism” it is not a position on anything other than the lack of proof of god’s existence. Furthermore a soul is not a prerequisite for pride, I’m sure you can understand that I can be proud of what my dog can do even though even you must admit my dog has no soul.

    “This is just an example of cherry picking”

    This is not. If anything what you do when you say that “How for example does Utah (fairly devout) compare to North Korea (militant atheist) in terms of murder rates, including man made famine, concentration camps, etc.” you are choosing to places with almost nothing in common and want to compare them. As opposed to the study that I referenced which tried to compare many different countries that were as similar as possible in all ways but the belief in god/gods or lack thereof and nonetheless found that crime rate dropped along with a belief in a god.

    “I invite you to move to one or the other. I would certainly prefer to live in the largest orthodox Jewish communities possible. However both China and Russia seem to have their rougher edges”

    Try living in a country that actively denounces enlightenment beliefs such as Saudi Arabia, or Syria.

    http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/syria
    http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154472.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. "These are all good reasons why people should be skeptical."

    Which is exactly why I think for myself and don't mindlessly parrot Richard Dawkins as atheists do.

    "I can take pride in who we are and what we are capable of"

    If you have no choice in the matter and are merely doing what you're brain chemistry has programmed you to do why should be proud of anything? Should the sun be proud of how big and shiny it is? Likewise you should never be ashamed of anything. You have no moral responsibility for your behavior.

    "you are choosing to places with almost nothing in common and want to compare them"

    The United States and Japan are not so similar either.

    The US has a higher crime rate than Western Europe because we have a large black and Hispanic population. Utah and Finland have about the same crime. Ethnically similar, although Utah has far more church goers.

    What would really be interesting to know, however I have not been able to find this data, is: What percentage of convicted felons in the United States were active monotheists at the time of their felony and what percentage of the general population are active monotheists? By "active monotheists" I mean someone who attends services in a church, synagogue or mosque at least once a week.

    I would guess, but it's just a guess, felons: 2%, general population 20%. My brother, who is a cop, say he's not arresting a lot of regular church goers.

    "Try living in a country that actively denounces enlightenment beliefs"

    I'm not a fan of Islam; I'm Jewish. And I loved living in Bnei Brak, Israel. I'd go back in a minute if could afford to.

    ReplyDelete
  7. “if you have no choice in the matter and are merely doing what you're brain chemistry has programmed you to do why should be proud of anything? Should the sun be proud of how big and shiny it is? Likewise you should never be ashamed of anything. You have no moral responsibility for your behavior.”

    Then perhaps I cant help feeling proud… :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Then you don't really believe you're own stated beliefs.

    I don't blame you; they are so absurd no one does.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Then you don't really believe you're own stated beliefs"

    of course i do, i was attempting to make a joke, i promise to never do it again.

    in all seriousness though, i have never stated that we do not have free will. i do not know if we do as there seems to be no concrete evidence one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, according to atheism, of course you don't. Although Dawkins prefers to PRETEND that it's true.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200901/can-atheist-believe-in-free-will

    As I said, even atheists aren't insane enough to really believe their own stated beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Again, you are treating atheism as if it is a doctrine with core beliefs and sacred texts, it is not. Atheism is not a statement about psychology, it is compatible with any and all ideas in all fields of science, philosophy, politics, and just about everything else. The only idea that is incompatible with atheism is the idea that god has been proven.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your link says atheism is the belief that there is no god. If so then there is no free will, however even the most hardened atheist like Dawkins realizes that such an idea is ludicrous, so he weirdly says we should pretend that there is free will. So much for atheists being rational.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Your link says atheism is the belief that there is no god. If so then there is no free will"

    this is a non seguitur

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

    furthermore i am starting to believe that you are not debating me at all. you are railing against richard dawkins, and you just happen to be doing it on my blog. you seem to be discussing his ideas more than mine.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No, it's part and parcel of atheism. Without God how could there be free will? Obviously, spontaneous natural processes such as evolution could not create a soul. Without a soul, you're just a bag of chemicals. Does a bag of chemicals have free will?

    Regarding you're beliefs, you can believe whatever you choose, however if you choose to believe that you have a soul and free will then you can no longer honestly call yourself an atheist, any more than if you choose to believe in ghosts and fairies. You're part of a different religion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is such a load of nonsense I am quite honestly at loss as to how to respond.

    “No, it's part and parcel of atheism.”

    You repeating it does not make it so.

    “Does a bag of chemicals have free will?”

    This is a scientific question, and as such, I will wait for scientific evidence one way or another before I claim to know the answer. You on the other hand seem to know the answer even though the debate is raging in the scientific community with very little conclusive evidence (if any) for either side.

    “Regarding you're beliefs, you can believe whatever you choose, however if you choose to believe that you have a soul and free will then you can no longer honestly call yourself an atheist, any more than if you choose to believe in ghosts and fairies. You're part of a different religion.”

    I do not believe I have a soul; quite honestly, no one has ever defined a “soul” well enough that I should even have an opinion on the matter. As far as free will, I said before I will wait until the conclusive evidence arrives and until then I will simply admit that I do not know. How you go from there to therefore I cannot be an atheist I am simply at a loss. One has nothing to do with the other, if there were evidence for free will and I accepted the evidence as conclusive, then how would that be equivalent to believing in ghosts and fairies?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "the debate is raging in the scientific community with very little conclusive evidence (if any) for either side"

    I don't believe that there is any debate among prominent atheists.

    "if there were evidence for free will and I accepted the evidence as conclusive, then how would that be equivalent to believing in ghosts and fairies?"

    Because you're believing in something supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
  18. By the way, I heartily agree that the idea that we have no free will and it's all merely an illusion is absolutely insane, and another strong proof that atheism is nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  19. “I don't believe that there is any debate among prominent atheists.”

    This is not an atheistic debate, unless the atheists in question also happen to be experts in the field of psychology. That is akin to saying that there is no debate amongst psychologists over loop quantum gravity. Atheism is not a statement about psychology.

    “Because you're believing in something supernatural.”

    By the fact that there would be scientific evidence for it, that would make it natural.

    “I heartily agree that the idea that we have no free will and it's all merely an illusion is absolutely insane ”

    I did not say that it is insane, I said there is there is as of yet no conclusive evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The essence of your beliefs seem to be:

    You don't believe in any god or gods, however you cannot define exactly what the word "god" means. However whatever it means exactly, there is no evidence that they exist.

    If evidence of god or gods would be discovered, you would ignore it anyway because there is surely some as yet unknown reason why that evidence is really inconclusive.

    Evolution has no connection to atheism. An atheist may easily believe that life did not evolve and it was not created. It just appeared somehow.

    Atheists can believe in free will. Although of course there are no gods and therefore no god given soul, and we are simply bags full of chemicals swirling around, however these bags of chemicals may be doing things which are not caused by any prior natural causes, but rather they are doing these things just because they want to.

    I really can only offer my condolences and wish you a complete mental and emotional recovery.

    ReplyDelete
  21. “You don't believe in any god or gods, however you cannot define exactly what the word "god" means. However whatever it means exactly, there is no evidence that they exist.”

    As a matter of fact one of the many reasons why I am skeptical of the idea of god is that I rarely find two people who define god the same way. For this reason whenever someone tries to convince me that there is a god, one of the first things I ask is that he/she define their view of god. So far, I have seen no conclusive evidence for any form of god, and therefore as time goes on I find myself more and more skeptical of any and all gods.

    “If evidence of god or gods would be discovered, you would ignore it anyway because there is surely some as yet unknown reason why that evidence is really inconclusive.”

    If there were to be conclusive evidence I would be the first to admit it, and even though I am skeptical, I would have to admit that god is the best working theory and would assume it to be so. I have yet to see such evidence.

    “Evolution has no connection to atheism. An atheist may easily believe that life did not evolve and it was not created. It just appeared somehow”

    I am happy that you finally realize this  . I do not know that evolution happened, however, it seems to me (I admittedly to not know that much about biology) to be the best working theory. I am not closed to the idea that a better theory may one day be found however, it would have to explain all that evolution has explained and more before I would accept that as the best working theory. I do not think anyone (with the exception of creationists) thinks that life “just appeared somehow”, if a theory will replace evolution it would have to do a better job than evolution, not a worse job.

    “Atheists can believe in free will. Although of course there are no gods and therefore no god given soul, and we are simply bags full of chemicals swirling around, however these bags of chemicals may be doing things which are not caused by any prior natural causes, but rather they are doing these things just because they want to.”

    Free will has nothing to with a god, however as you pointed out there are some good questions about its ramifications. This is true even if you are a theist, for the doctrine of free will must conflict with the concept of an all-knowing god, if you are not a theist then one must deal with the question you raised. Neither of these arguments amounts to proof though, and I will wait until decisive evidence has been found one way or another, before I claim to know the answer to this question.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "So far, I have seen no conclusive evidence for any form of god,"

    Of course there is.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html

    And I'll keep repeating that until you refute it.

    "I have yet to see such evidence."

    You don't want to even read the massive evidence I present, let alone seriously consider it. This is part of the addiction process called "denial". Any and all evidence is simply ignored by the addict.

    http://alcoholism.about.com/od/dyna/a/uc_sgt.htm

    "I do not know that evolution happened,"

    The only other option is "God did it" which is what everyone believed before evolution and those people who do not believe in evolution still believe.

    "however as you pointed out there are some good questions about its ramifications"

    No one knowledgeable about the subject has questions.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/04/0915161107.full.pdf+html

    What we seem to be discovering so far is that any evidence against atheism can be ignored by you by claiming "I don't necessarily believe in that". Any evidence for Judaism can be ignored because "Even if I don't have an explanation, I'm sure there is one". So your denial of Torah is based on unfalsifiable dogma, not logic.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What would you say about someone who claims to be an Orthodox Jew, however each time you ask him about a contradiction between science and Torah he answers "All other Orthodox Jews may believe in that concept [let's say the Deluge or whatever], but I don't." or "Even if I don't have an explanation, I'm sure there is one".

    Would you feel he's being honest?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I see our debate so far basically as follows:

    You: There is no convincing evidence that anything happens which does not follow the laws of nature. No gods, No supernatural. This is philosophical naturalism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

    Me: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle seems to contradict this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications

    You: The Kuzari proof is not convincing since we see from the incident at Fatima that people are extremely delusional and may believe anything.

    Me: In that case, why believe anything we know about history? Actually Judaism is as well documented as anything we know about ancient history, as I explain.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/07/is-history-bunk.html

    You: The Watchmaker Analogy is not convincing since the design argument is based on a faulty analogy: we do not know whether the order in nature was the result of design, since, unlike our experience with the creation of machines, we did not witness the formation of the world.

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/#SH6c

    Me: Not witnessing the formation of a machine does not have anything to do with the fact that it was obviously designed. Primitive natives first seeing modern technology knew that something intelligent designed it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Causes.2C_beliefs_and_practices

    You: The five declining levels of Judaic literature do not prove God gave the Torah at Mount Sinai, they are just the result of Jews having respect for earlier generations

    Me: How and why was a global consensus regarding these eras reached among Jews, unless there was a true spiritual decline from the "big bang" of the Mount Sinai revelation?

    You: Even though there is no God, evolution may not be true; there may be other natural means for life to have originated.

    Me: Apparently not because no other atheist thinks so.

    You: We may have free will.

    Me: This contradicts your belief in philosophical naturalism.

    My conclusion: you are deeply in denial and at least a little confused.

    ReplyDelete
  25. “This is part of the addiction process called "denial"”

    I am not ignoring what you say; I am addressing it and refuting it. I am starting to think that you might be experiencing cognitive dissonance due to me explaining why you cannot prove that your imaginary friend is real.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_friend

    “The only other option is "God did it".”


    You are creating a false dilemma

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

    Although it is the best supported theory, the other choice does not have to be “god did it”. You can be an atheist and look for alternatives to evolution.

    “What we seem to be discovering so far is that any evidence against atheism can be ignored by you by claiming "I don't necessarily believe in that".”

    What I have already said is that the only evidence against atheism would be positive evidence of gods existence nothing else. By quoting the opinions of renowned atheists and disputing them you are not disproving atheism, you are simply disputing their opinions.

    “Any evidence for Judaism can be ignored because "Even if I don't have an explanation, I'm sure there is one". ”
    Therefore, the only evidence for a supernatural being would have to the sort that would be impossible to explain naturally; otherwise it cannot prove a supernatural being.

    “So your denial of Torah is based on unfalsifiable dogma, not logic.”

    Non sequitur (actually nonsense but hey…) I deny torah since I deny god I deny god due to lack of evidence. The patient humility of not claiming to know until there is conclusive evidence can hardly be confused with unfalsifiable dogma, it is the antithesis of that, if there is evidence for a supernatural creator I will be the first to admit it, but it better be good.

    Once we are discussing falsifiablity, let me ask you. Can your theory of god be falsified? If yes then how?

    “Would you feel he's being honest?”

    No, Judaism is a religion, and has sacred texts and dogmas that must be followed. So long as he believes in the 13 ani ma’amins he is Jewish.

    “ The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle seems to contradict this.”

    Please explain how a scientific theory contradicts the theory that everything can be explained scientifically?

    “Actually Judaism is as well documented as anything we know about ancient history, as I explain.”

    History itself depends on evidence therefore the further back we go, the less we know. There is no outside confirmation that the Sinai event happened (I am discounting all hearsay that leads back to the bible). Furthermore, my point with Fatima was that even if an event did happen (like Fatima) I have no reason to assume that their interpretation of the event happened.

    “Primitive natives first seeing modern technology knew that something intelligent designed it.”

    These natives saw natural objects and due to their lack of information about how these objects are formed, they assumed a supernatural origin.

    “My conclusion: you are deeply in denial and at least a little confused”

    No, I simply do not claim to know anything about empirical reality unless it has been scientifically and conclusively proven. In your world of dogmas, this may seem shocking that one can be skeptical and honestly admit that they don’t know when they don’t. Perhaps because you are used to a philosophy and worldview that assumes to know everything, including things that no group of desert wandering herders could know, that you find it shocking that some people would rather honestly admit ignorance than falsely proclaim knowledge. You might see this as confusion I see it as clearheaded honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "You can be an atheist and look for alternatives to evolution."

    Who is?

    "Therefore, the only evidence for a supernatural being would have to the sort that would be impossible to explain naturally"

    I think a rational person would look at the preponderance of evidence.

    Imagine a defense attorney at a trial telling the jury "Therefore, the only evidence for guilt would have to be the sort that would be impossible to explain in any other way and there is no chance that any other explanation can ever be found for it." Would that cause an automatic acquittal? Or questions about the attorney's sanity?

    "Can your theory of god be falsified?"

    I think very clear fossil evidence of evolution, not catastrophism, might do it.

    "Please explain how a scientific theory contradicts the theory that everything can be explained scientifically?"

    It contradicts philosophical naturalism.

    "No, I simply do not claim to know anything about empirical reality unless it has been scientifically and conclusively proven."

    Scientifically and conclusively prove that Aristotle existed or that the Peloponnesian War happened.

    ReplyDelete
  27. “Who is?”

    Probably no one since evolution is so well established, however this has nothing to do with atheism. Just like no atheists are looking for alternatives to atomic theory, it has nothing to do with their being an atheist or not, its just that atomic theory is very ell established.

    “Imagine a defense attorney at a trial telling the jury…”

    There is a difference. In a courtroom, you need to be able to reach conclusions without really knowing for sure, however if after the judge ruled that a man was guilty if you put a gun to his head and asked him, do you KNOW that the man was guilty? He would have to say no, I don’t know, but the available evidence seems to indicate that he was and that is all I had. However, in science we do not have to pass judgment on the spot, it is ok to say we don’t know until all the evidence comes in. For example, it would be silly to say now for sure that there is or is not alien life, we can wait for the evidence and then make a claim.

    “I think very clear fossil evidence of evolution, not catastrophism, might do it.”

    I never heard of catastrophism, but according to Wikipedia, it is a geological theory. Since evolution is a biological theory, I don’t see this as an either or question. It could be that one is true, none are true, or both are true. They have nothing to do with each other. If however I got the wrong catastrophism, then please send links. The one I got was

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

    “It contradicts philosophical naturalism”

    This is what I got from Wikipedia,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
    “Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe,”

    Please explain how the Heisenberg principle contradicts this.

    “Scientifically and conclusively prove that Aristotle existed or that the Peloponnesian War happened.”

    I do not know much about history, however I would like to point out two things. First of all not all questions can be answered scientifically, we might not be able to get a scientific answer on all questions, in which case we will have to say that we don’t know, but evidence seems to indicate… Secondly, you can apply a somewhat scientific approach to historical events; it goes like this. If you claim that an event happened, and you have some evidence to support your theory, then you are also claiming that all evidence that we will find in the future (such as archeological evidence) will confirm this theory that an event took place. For example if you claim that all your evidence seems to suggest that the Peloponnesian War happened, then you are also predicting that all future evidence will also confirm this. On the other hand when discussing a case such as Aristotle’s existence, there may never be enough evidence to strongly suggest one way or the other, and we have to be honest with ourselves in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Probably no one since evolution is so well established, however this has nothing to do with atheism."

    Atheism is based on evolution as many prominent atheists have stated. Every atheist is a fanatical promoter of Darwin. You may as well insist that Christianity doesn't depend on Christ.

    This video clip is interesting.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dW-bt_1LzY

    "In a courtroom, you need to be able to reach conclusions without really knowing for sure"

    Which is likewise true when selecting a religion, whether atheism or Judaism.

    "Since evolution is a biological theory, I don’t see this as an either or question."

    Catasrophism means sudden changes. Evolution means gradual changes. The fossils indicate the former.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2006/11/evolution-refuted-again.html

    "how the Heisenberg principle contradicts this"

    It demonstrates that some things do not occur according to predictable laws.

    "in which case we will have to say that we don’t know, but evidence seems to indicate"

    So do that with Judaism.

    "If you claim that an event happened, and you have some evidence to support your theory, then you are also claiming that all evidence that we will find in the future (such as archeological evidence) will confirm this theory that an event took place."

    It doesn't actually work that way. Archeologists often have to reconcile apparent contradictions. It's like detective work.

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_chronology

    "On the other hand when discussing a case such as Aristotle’s existence, there may never be enough evidence to strongly suggest one way or the other, and we have to be honest with ourselves in that regard. "

    So you don't believe in Aristotle.

    ReplyDelete
  29. My impression of you at this point is that you aren't exactly a typical atheist, however you are more precisely a philsophical naturalist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

    This has been discredited by the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications

    However in any case, you believe that nothing occurs which is not controlled by the laws of nature [except possibly human behavior, which for some reason you think may be an exception] because there is no evidence that it has.

    When I present you with evidence, you just brush it aside as being unconvincing.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html

    This is no different than the man who has just been arrested for the tenth time in the past year for DUI. When asked he claims he has no problem; there is absolutely no conclusive proof (in his mind) of alcoholism.

    This denial: people almost always deny their own wickedness.

    ReplyDelete
  30. “Atheism is based on evolution”

    You can keep repeating this like a mantra, but that will not make it any more true. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. Atheism predates Darwin and Darwin was not an atheist.

    “Which is likewise true when selecting a religion, whether atheism or Judaism”

    Your seemingly limitless ignorance and stupidity might just be an example of a true physical infinity. Atheism is as much a religion, as health is a disease, not playing soccer, a sport and starvation is a choice of food. Atheism is the opposite of a religion, it is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. My atheism stems from my refusal to acknowledge anything without conclusive evidence, as opposed to religion, which is the belief in something with no evidence, and sometimes in the face of contradictory evidence.

    “Catasrophism means sudden changes. Evolution means gradual changes. The fossils indicate the former”

    Do you accept that we are related to all species of life?

    “It demonstrates that some things do not occur according to predictable laws.”

    Once again, your ignorance is shocking. The most accurate prediction in the history of science has been the magnetic moment of the electron. This was done using Quantum Electrodynamics, a theory based around the uncertainty principle. Quantum theory is highly predictable. Furthermore natural law and predictable are not synonymous, if I were to dump out a bucket of dice on the table; there is no way with which I can predict how they will all land this however, does not mean that it is unnatural.

    “So do that with Judaism”

    So far, we are only discussing the abstract idea if a god exists, Judaism has its own batch of problems.

    “It doesn't actually work that way. Archeologists often have to reconcile apparent contradictions. It's like detective work.”

    This continues the analog to science. If you have a theory that has been confirmed through observations, then you discover some contradictory evidence, you must go back to the drawing board and find a new theory.

    “So you don't believe in Aristotle.”

    I don’t care about Aristotle, he was wrong on most things, and as far as he was correct, why should I care where the ideas came from? If there ever was, a man named Aristotle? If he said these ideas or it was someone else? Its either correct or incorrect, and that’s all I care about. Although, I should add perhaps there is plenty of evidence for Aristotle’s existence, I just don’t care to find out.

    “My impression of you at this point is that you aren't exactly a typical atheist, however you are more precisely a philsophical naturalist.”

    I am very happy to hear in your opinion what you think I must be.

    “This has been discredited by the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle.”

    It has not, see above.

    “When I present you with evidence, you just brush it aside as being unconvincing”

    No I take the time again and again to explain why they are incorrect and do not prove anything. This is the essential difference between science and theology. In science, that which is considered proof is so strong that even those who do not like the theory will come to accept it, as opposed to your load of mental masturbation passed off as proof, in which I am sure that plenty of people who do believe in god will laugh at your “proofs”.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Without going off on a lot of tangents, basically what I'm hearing is the following:

    I suggest that the complexity and purposefulness of human organs, such as the heart, a pump, or the eye, a camera, is proof of the existence of a cosmic intelligent designer.

    You respond that it is not. Life could have been somehow generated spontaneously, although we don't yet know exactly how.

    I suggest that the unanimous Jewish tradition, oral and written, of the revelation at Mount Sinai could not have been the result of a fraud, delusion or hallucination and therefore proves that the Torah is of divine origin.

    You respond that people are highly dishonest, delusional and gullible. We cannot accept anything historical as fact without a great deal of conclusive physical, forensic or archaeological evidence.

    I suggest that the five distinct descending eras of Judaic literature,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharonim

    a feature unique to rabbinical Judaism, is proof of the gradual spiritual decline of the Jewish people from the spiritual height of Mount Sinai.

    You respond that no, it proves nothing. For reasons now unknown, mysterious unidentified councils of rabbis could have decreed the beginning of new eras and for unknown reasons all the widespread Jewish communities accepted those rulings.

    Frankly, to me this sounds like the classic case of a man who has been arrested ten times in the past year for DUI. Someone asks him if he might have a drinking problem. He vehemently denies it. Regarding the numerous arrests, that proves nothing. The excuses are endless. "I only had two... I haven't had a drink in a week... I don't drink as much as he does..."

    http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info2/a/aa050797.htm

    The end result is usually a lot of suffering and a premature death. For most the denial never ends.

    In your case, the addiction is probably to sex - whether cybersex, real sex or both. When confronted with clear proof that you are committing grave sins, you fabricate excuses which are exactly as convincing as those of the alcoholic, but you really do believe them because the alternative, to be honest about your wickedness, is far too painful. The end result is an eternity in hell.

    ReplyDelete
  32. “I suggest that the complexity and purposefulness of human organs, such as the heart, a pump, or the eye, a camera, is proof of the existence of a cosmic intelligent designer.

    You respond that it is not. Life could have been somehow generated spontaneously, although we don't yet know exactly how.”

    How you can see this, I don’t know you are confusing how life began, and how it has evolved since.

    “You respond that no, it proves nothing. For reasons now unknown, mysterious unidentified councils of rabbis could have decreed the beginning of new eras and for unknown reasons all the widespread Jewish communities accepted those rulings.”

    Again, no. I demonstrated that the differences you make are either nonexistent, or agreed upon. In the case of tanach it was the anshei kinesses hagdola, in the case of mishna, reb yehuda hanasi, and in the case of gemarah it was ravina and rav ashi. In the case of rishonim there was no such agreement and therefore we do find achronim arguing on rishonim.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh

    Furthermore you keep forgetting the crux of my argument. Even if all I just said was false, it still would not demonstrate anything about a god, let alone a god of your description.

    “Frankly, to me this sounds like… ….The end result is an eternity in hell.”

    Thank you for your pearls of wisdom. Under normal circumstances, I have little respect for philosophy or the title philosopher, yet in their defense, I feel I must say that you successfully shame their name.

    Cheers, I am sorry for the petty, jealous, hateful, pathetic, and needy god, which you have created to live under, my heart goes out to your kids. I hope humanity wakes up from this nightmare imposed by all faiths and in particular the Judeo-Christian form of this horror. I am calmed by the thousands of young Jewish youth (and some elders as well) proudly throwing off their yramulkas and cutting their peyos en masse. I see a better future for humanity as I see more people embracing logic and leaving superstition and faith.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Of course you imagine Judaism is terrible. Just like a drunk imagines that sober people have such boring, miserable lives. At least that's how he feels until he's too far gone. And then it's too late.

    ReplyDelete
  34. instead of responding to the fact that you have not proven any god, you once again you on drag this conversation way into the mud. i wish i could say its been a pleasure talking to you. i hope you regain your sanity, if you do not, i hope your children do

    ReplyDelete
  35. Very few are leaving for the sake of their genitals. Remember the tiny counter demonstration at Citifield.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/05/how-many-hasidic-rebels-are-there.html

    ReplyDelete
  36. once again your impeccable ability to ignore the fact that there is no proof for gods existence is truly wondrous.

    for a complete description of your god, and how you relate to him see

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_friend

    ReplyDelete
  37. For addicts, there is never proof of their addiction. Theyre fine, everyone sober is crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. yes, you are clearly hooked on your opiate

    ReplyDelete
  39. Religion is not an addiction. Actually, God will make you sober.

    http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/379-So%20Help%20Me%20God.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  40. since this conversation is right now wallowing in the mud, unless you have any NEW proof of gods existence to present i will not be responding to your nonsense anymore

    ReplyDelete
  41. Musings of a dysfunctional yeshiva bochur.

    ReplyDelete