95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

[sumskilz]

As I stated there is two ways to look at the moral teachings within the scriptures; [1] it is the inerrant word of God [2] you pick and choose; dance around the apparent incorrigible behavior of God. What i am reading from you is a very clever way of avoiding the uncomfortable behavior of God.

I’m probably just repeating myself, but there is no need for someone who doesn’t believe in a supernatural God to justify the behavior of a God within mythological representations. There is no need to pick and choose when clearly all the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are mythological. Whatever parts may be historical is a matter for secular scholarship.

Mordecai Kaplan’s perspective:

Our conception of God must be self-consistent and consistent with whatever else we hold to be true

In his view, nothing in religion should be inconsistent with what is known from science. He was of course not the first Jewish thinker to blatantly reject supernaturalism. Spinoza was excommunicated in his day, but to most modern Jews, Spinoza’s God idea is perfectly acceptable and certainly Jewish.

Moreover, you advanced a crazy idea that I was "defining" philosophy???

That’s true, you didn’t define it.

Buddhism is not dependent upon supernaturalism, would you argue that it is a philosophy rather than a religion? Some Buddhists have supernatural beliefs, others do not. That is how most modern Jewish congregations are. The emphasis of the community is not on belief, but on ritual, community, ethics, and the celebration of traditional holidays (of which there is at least one every week). That is how the president of the American Atheist organization can be a semi-observant Jew and that not be any more inconsistent than an atheist who celebrates Christmas, as many do

Correct practices, hmm. Care to ask a Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc... how many sacraments they are?

Of course, my point was that the primary concern of Judaism is practice rather than belief.

Let's face it, Morality comes from society, not religion. GOD is not the basis of morality; he is not the inspiration; he is not anything to do with morality-- We are; society!

Religion is not separate from society. God is an idea on to which various communities project their morality in order to make it feel sacred.

EDIT: and to give said morality extra authority for those who believe in a God that has the power to reward and/or punish.

[DDWingate]

God is an idea on to which various communities project their morality in order to make it feel sacred.

No it's not, didn't you hear John Lennon's song? It's a concept by which we measure our pain , obviously

(or some other generalizing bulls*** like that)

[PikeStance]

.... there is no need for someone who doesn’t believe in a supernatural God to justify the behavior of a God within mythological representations. There is no need to pick and choose when clearly all the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are mythological. Whatever parts may be historical is a matter for secular scholarship

Religion is not separate from society. God is an idea on to which various communities project their morality in order to make it feel sacred.

EDIT: and to give said morality extra authority for those who believe in a God that has the power to reward and/or punish.

God is either supernatural or he is mortal. He cannot as both. Of course, if you converted to Christianity you could argue both.

Lets dissect this- because this is really nice two step yo are doing. You really do go out of your way to avoid admitting that God is immoral in the Bible. You package his immorality as mere mythological stories. However, the unusually harsh punishments for trivial crimes are not part of stories- they are rules; rules as Jew you should live by.

If these Jewish thinkers....

...Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber, Mordecai Kaplan, Solomon Formstecher, Leo Baeck, Franz Rosenzweig, Richard Rubenstein, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Lawrence Kushner, Roland B. Gittelsohn, Harold M. Schulweis, Alvin Reines, Erich Fromm. .

State that God of the Bible is the basis of morality then they are not much different than anyone else who uses the Bible as the basis of morality. God is not good in the Bible. If society was based on the Torah; it would be a cruel and oppressive society. The fact that modern Jewish scholars (like some Christian thinkers) tear themselves away from it is understandable- but they are still cherry picking. The fact that they found a way to hid their picking doesn't change that fact. We changed our morality as society evolved because society is capable of progressing while the archaic sacred writings of the past cannot.

I’m probably just repeating myself,...

I agree- its my fault, I won't stop playing the music and you can't help but keep dancing.

---

[sumskilz]

God is either supernatural or he is mortal.

That’s a false dichotomy. Spinoza’s God is neither supernatural nor mortal. Neither is Kaplan’s God idea.

You really do go out of your way to avoid admitting that God is immoral in the Bible.

I think it’s silly to be concerned with the morality of fictional literary characters.

However, the unusually harsh punishments for trivial crimes are not part of stories

They are just typical of the law codes of the day.

State that God of the Bible is the basis of morality then they are not much different than anyone else who uses the Bible as the basis of morality.

None of them state that the God of the Bible is the basis morality. As I’ve said, that’s really not a typical Jewish idea. Jewish morality is traditionally more based on interpretation and discussion of Pirkei Avot.

If society was based on the Torah; it would be a cruel and oppressive society.

I should point out that even Orthodox Judaism isn’t really based on the Tanakh, it’s based on the Talmudic interpretation of the Tanakh, despite what Orthodox Jews might claim. The Torah, by the way, isn’t just the Pentateuch. Though it can mean that, the Torah includes all the teachings and writings over the generations. Torah simply means “teachings”. Rabbi Hillel’s famous quote in the Talmud: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your friend: This is the entire Torah, the rest is the explanation, go now and learn it.”

Based on your responses, I still feel like you don’t understand what I’m saying. I’ll give you an example…

My wife self-identifies as an agnostic Conservative Jew. When she uses the various Hebrew names of God in blessings or prayers she is referring to her own idea of God which many Jews share. God to her is a universal set of ethical ideals which may or may not exist, but which humanity has strived to discover over time. In her view, Jewish ethics have evolved toward that end, a goal which is ultimately unattainable, and possibly illusory. The literal existence or non-existence of her God isn’t really important to her, because it is the effort toward the goal that matters, and the rituals and study serve as constant reminders of the goal. To me this belief in a universal ethical ideal seems to be a supernatural belief to some degree, but then again, it is basically the same belief Sam Harris has which he believes can be discovered by science.

[PikeStance]

Based on your responses, I still feel like you don’t understand what I’m saying. I’ll give you an example…

No, I understand you perfectly well; I just not buying your attempts to draw a distinction. here's why

My wife self-identifies as an agnostic Conservative Jew. When she uses the various Hebrew names of God in blessings or prayers she is referring to her own idea of God which many Jews share. God to her is a universal set of ethical ideals which may or may not exist, but which humanity has strived to discover over time. In her view, Jewish ethics have evolved toward that end, a goal which is ultimately unattainable, and possibly illusory.

God is no more ethical than moral. The fact that "most Jews" believe that according to you only demonstrates my points, not disputes it. Are you sure it isn't you not understanding me?

The literal existence or non-existence of her God isn’t really important to her, because it is the effort toward the goal that matters, and the rituals and study serve as constant reminders of the goal. To me this belief in a universal ethical ideal seems to be a supernatural belief to some degree, but then again, it is basically the same belief Sam Harris has which he believes can be discovered by science.

Great, your wife and I agree with one point. You can only find oneself by looking inward, not out.

I guess the band plays on,....

--

[sumskilz]

No, I understand you perfectly well; I just not buying your attempts to draw a distinction. here's why

God is no more ethical than moral. The fact that "most Jews" believe that according to you only demonstrates my points, not disputes it. Are you sure it isn't you not understanding me?

If God is a symbol rather than an existent being, then God is whatever God is imagined to be. That is the distinction.

EDIT: To those that believe in Spinoza’s God, God is existent and partially knowable, but is neither moral nor immoral. But that again is God as a symbol - a symbol for the universe.

[Boyar Son]

I would like some atheists to respond. In very few occasions i ve heard atheists attacking Islam and in no occasion Jewish religion. I dont even mention other religions because they are out of the radar. So why atheists prefer to attack Christians?

Because with one you'd get blown up and the other you'd get fired from your job.

And both just makes you seem like a bigot (especially Judaism)... it's why it's just safer to bash Christianity.

[hellas1]

None of them state that the God of the Bible is the basis morality. As I’ve said, that’s really not a typical Jewish idea. Jewish morality is traditionally more based on interpretation and discussion of Pirkei Avot.

I should point out that even Orthodox Judaism isn’t really based on the Tanakh, it’s based on the Talmudic interpretation of the Tanakh, despite what Orthodox Jews might claim. The Torah, by the way, isn’t just the Pentateuch. Though it can mean that, the Torah includes all the teachings and writings over the generations. Torah simply means “teachings”. Rabbi Hillel’s famous quote in the Talmud: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your friend: This is the entire Torah, the rest is the explanation, go now and learn it.”


My wife self-identifies as an agnostic Conservative Jew. When she uses the various Hebrew names of God in blessings or prayers she is referring to her own idea of God which many Jews share. God to her is a universal set of ethical ideals which may or may not exist, but which humanity has strived to discover over time. In her view, Jewish ethics have evolved toward that end, a goal which is ultimately unattainable, and possibly illusory. The literal existence or non-existence of her God isn’t really important to her, because it is the effort toward the goal that matters, and the rituals and study serve as constant reminders of the goal. To me this belief in a universal ethical ideal seems to be a supernatural belief to some degree, but then again, it is basically the same belief Sam Harris has which he believes can be discovered by science.

Regarding "orthodox Jewish perspective:"
I'd like to say that you've actually stated the orthodox Jewish perspective very well sir!

I applaud you.

I have some perhaps, insights, into what you state in the above paragraphs:

I own Artscroll Publications Tanakh series which is anthologized with rabbinic, talmudic and midrashic commentary. I find ALL the series to be enlightening but I don't believe everything that a particular rabbi states.

This is the reason why for me, reading the Tanakh by itself must be qualified as such.
I want to read the Tanakh with the verb tenses explained in English. I have not found a version which does this yet. Maybe you can help me?

Regarding your wife's stance about God:

I would be EXTREMELY careful in making the "The literal existence or non-existence of her God isn’t really important to her, because it is the effort toward the goal that matters" statement.

Why? She has a concept about the Biblical God which might not accord with the Biblical facts/statements.
I for one, wouldn't want her to waste her life following the wrong understanding about God per the Tanakh or in listening to rabbinic interpretations of the Tanakh either!

The Literal existence of God is what the Tanakh, especially Genesis, is all about.
The prophets, for example, weren't hallucinating on ergot infested bread when they prophesied but claimed that the Ruach Ha'kodesh, spoke to them and through them.

My 2 cents,
hellas1

[Ludicus]

95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity

Source, please.

[MasterAdnin]

I also have a question; why do followers various religions claim that they are specifically being attacked when followers of other religions make the same claim?

Adnan

[Mangalore]

I would like some atheists to respond. In very few occasions i ve heard atheists attacking Islam and in no occasion Jewish religion. I dont even mention other religions because they are out of the radar. So why atheists prefer to attack Christians?

Just an afterthought but why do you count Judaism, a religion of less than 20 million people and consider Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism which numbers in the hundreds of million as "out of the radar"?

It appears by sheer statistics there should be very few remarks about Judaism outside Jewish circles. Also, Islam likes chest thumping that it is a religion of 1 billion when some lunatic blew himself but isn't statistically relevant when we have 2 billion Christians and secularists who blew themselves up and torched buildings on a far less regular basis although on a sheer statistical mean they should have the same amount of idiots.

[sumskilz]

I want to read the Tanakh with the verb tenses explained in English. I have not found a version which does this yet. Maybe you can help me?

I don’t know if any such publication exists, though I can read classical Hebrew reasonably well so I’ve never really looked. You may know the tenses are difficult to translate into English because they don’t match up well with English verb tenses, and there are several complicating issues. I don’t want to take this thread off topic any further, but I’ve attached a RAR file with two PDFs in it which explain one of the main issues.

EDIT: The first PDF is an explanation. The second shows how it works in Genesis 22.

[PikeStance]

If God is a symbol rather than an existent being, then God is whatever God is imagined to be. That is the distinction.

EDIT: To those that believe in Spinoza’s God, God is existent and partially knowable, but is neither moral nor immoral. But that again is God as a symbol - a symbol for the universe.

If God is a symbol, then again what's the point of the Bible? That is other than a source of understanding Jewish traditions and customs.

You stated

God is an idea on to which various communities project their morality in order to make it feel sacred.
EDIT: and to give said morality extra authority for those who believe in a God that has the power to reward and/or punish.

This would suggest that God is more than JUST a symbol. You either associate with the God of the Bible or you must completely disassociate with the God of the Bible. Any symbology of the God of the Bible means you get all of his acts and decrees. Anything else, you simply cherry picking.

---

[sumskilz]

If God is a symbol, then again what's the point of the Bible? That is other than a source of understanding Jewish traditions and customs.

In practical terms it isn’t anything more than a source of understanding Jewish traditions and customs, but even many Jews who hold this view have an emotional attachment to it which is reverent. It is also a symbol. Think of how patriotic Americans treat the American flag - they are aware that it’s just cloth. The Bible is a collection of literature that has been discussed by Jewish communities for over two thousand years, which is an important thing to people who value tradition, even a constantly evolving tradition.

This would suggest that God is more than JUST a symbol. You either associate with the God of the Bible or you must completely disassociate with the God of the Bible.

To be clear, this is a different conception of God than others I’ve mentioned. The universe would still exist without placing a label of reverence upon it. God is a word, words are symbols. They represent different ideas to different people. Their definitions change over time. There is so much diversity within Jewish conceptions of God because the nature of God doesn’t matter that much to the practice (with the exception of a few groups like the Chabad-Lubavitchers)

Spinoza’s conception of God had no direct connection to the God of the Bible and the Talmud, but it is well-rooted in the Jewish tradition and heavily influenced by the medieval Jewish rationalists and the Safed Kabbalists. He was excommunicated by the Amsterdam Jewish community for teaching “horrible heresies”, but his view of God was only one logical step removed from the dominant Jewish view of God in his day, which is still subscribed to by many Orthodox Jews - that God and the universe are essentially the same.

Spinoza frequently borrowed the language of Rabbi Moses Cordovero who wrote:

“In investigating this subject the reader will find: that we all proceed from Him, and are comprised in Him; that our life is interwoven with His; that He is the existence of all beings; that the inferior beings, such as vegetables and animals, which serve us as nourishment, are not outside of Him; in short, he will discover that all is one revolving wheel, which ascends and descends—all is one, and nothing is separated from Him.”

But this view presents all sorts of inconsistencies with the revelation tradition which Cordovero spent a book trying to address. Spinoza simply resolved all these issues by concluding God must not have any distinct intelligence or will of his own.

Any symbology of the God of the Bible means you get all of his acts and decrees.

No you don’t, those are just other people’s ideas about God from the same tradition/lineage which has evolved for quite some time now. I can’t really understand such a rigid position. It seems an artificial construct to me.

The symbology of the Bible predates the Bible. The Hebrew language and other cultural traditions also existed independently of the Bible. God is an English word, but Jewish rituals are in Hebrew.

The most sacred name of God in Hebrew is the past tense continuous of “to be”. The name is a verb which implies “that which continually manifests”. That does seem very inline with Spinoza’s conception. All the Semitic gods had names which were aspects of nature. The difference with the monotheistic cult was simply that one ego was imagined to be behind the forces of nature rather than many. Out of this same root, the words for “destruction”, “desire”, and “chasm” are formed.

God’s other common name in Hebrew means “gods” (plural) or “divine beings”, but originally denoted the revered ancestors who were celebrated at drunken parties mentioned repeatedly in the Bible.

The Bible itself is a fusion of multiple and sometimes contradictory traditions, it’s conception of God is inconsistent within it. How then can one claim that the symobology is inextricably linked to any particular part of it when it changed and evolved even within the Biblical period.

[Lazarus]

I also have a question; why do followers various religions claim that they are specifically being attacked when followers of other religions make the same claim?

Adnan

It's a victim complex and various forms of bias. If a Christians hears an Atheist criticize Islam, it's because Islam is wrong (and so that criticism "doesn't count") but if they criticize Christians, it's because they hate Jesus. That sort of thinking (with the reverse being true for Islam or any religion) is what makes people feel like they're being singled out and attacked.

Also of note: People go out of their way to be offended. A Christian will look for someone disrespecting Jesus, a Muslim will look for someone disrespecting Islam and an Atheist will look for someone jamming God in to places he don't belong. This combines with the fact that I mentioned above - a Christian sees a Muslim get offended and scoffs so he doesn't chalk that up as anyone offending Islam, he chalks that up as those crazy Muslims overreacting, but then the Christian goes out of his way and gets offended and chalks two or three up to people attacking Christianity. Again you can replace Christianity and Islam in that sentence with any religion, or indeed any ideology.

TL;DR People criticize your opponents because they're wrong, they criticize you out of spite. Your brain will do amazing things, invert itself, backflip and turn in to a liquid to avoid admitting it was wrong about something (if you don't keep it in check - which is no easy task so that in itself is not a criticism of any group of peoples).

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I would like some atheists to respond. In very few occasions i ve heard atheists attacking Islam and in no occasion Jewish religion. I dont even mention other religions because they are out of the radar. So why atheists prefer to attack Christians?

Because where most atheists live, the dominant religion is some sort of Christianity. That being said, many have attacked Islam, too. It's just that Christians are more available to make fun of, and they generally won't chop off your head (not anymore, anyway).

I believe all atheists can agree that all religions are equally retarded. Yes, retarded, because human knowledge has moved on.

[Diocle]

Because where most atheists live, the dominant religion is some sort of Christianity. That being said, many have attacked Islam, too. It's just that Christians are more available to make fun of, and they generally won't chop off your head (not anymore, anyway).

I believe all atheists can agree that all religions are equally retarded. Yes, retarded, because human knowledge has moved on.

I agree with all this staff Blatta!

1. I'm atheist and I live in Italy! You can understand......

2. The Church offers an infinity, really believe me: an infinity, of good occasions for fun!!

3. Indeed: They don't chop off our heads, but this only because they now cannot anymore (the last heads chopped by the pope were chopped one year before the Unification of Italy, we are speaking of the last years of the XIX century AD!!!!....)

4. All the Religions are equally retarded , without offense of course!

5. I would attack also Islam, but I fear the rections of the fanatics...it's not a beutiful spectacle!

[The Dude]

I attack Islam almost daily and I'm still alive, Diocle. Unless you intend to publish your critique in the form of a youtube video or a newspaper illustration I'd say you're generally fine.

[PointOfViewGun]

If you live in USA you'll see atheists criticizing Christians mostly, if you live in Turkey you'll see atheists criticizing Islam mostly. It's simply a matter of logistics.

[Denny Crane!]

I attack Islam almost daily and I'm still alive, Diocle. Unless you intend to publish your critique in the form of a youtube video or a newspaper illustration I'd say you're generally fine.

Pat Condell aggressive atheist 44 million views, 170000 subscribers and criticises Islam, still alive.