95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

[God]

People who disagree with you politically are in a cult?

Wut.

[Raubritter]

People who disagree with you politically are in a cult?

Wut.

Most times yes.

This isn't something i decide, this is something i notice.

[Dragus]

That's quite interesting. I wonder if he will call these "cults" religions instead once it becomes clear they are the majority, and social conservatism fades from the western world.

[PikeStance]

I must have missed the atheist/ agnostic memo,.... cause I am a libertarian, not a socialist!!!! Oh where did i go wrong (don't answer that I am being rhetorical)

My brother-in- law insisted I was a liberal for two years until he finally admitted he was wrong about it. Anyway, labels are such a pain,... it is so much easier to argue against a label than to take the time to understand a person and discuss their position. Once my brother- in- law learned that, our conversations improved dramatically.

People who disagree with you politically are in a cult?

I am quite certain that TWC is a cult.

----

[sumskilz]

I going to assume this is the source of your quote. I did not find your quote, but I did find some other interesting as well. In the end it doesn't matter. Your "exception" argument is just a red herring. It demonstrates more convincingly, that even the Jewish community is uncomfortable with the "morality" stated in the Bible and they too "dance" around this issue.

Uh… what argument do you think I'm making? My point in posting a quote from an Orthodox Rabbi was to show that Jews don’t see the Bible as the source of morality. In assuming otherwise, you were applying a concept from one form of monotheism to another.

Whichever path they choose, whether accepting the acts of God and "spinning them as moral" or they spin it like your rabbi, its just "spin doctoring."

I just told you that Jews don't have to believe in a supernatural god, or a god that acts in the world. Why would there be a need to put a spin on mythological events?

There is just no escape; the Bible (including the Torah) is an immoral document.

What a religious sounding thing to say. Do you also believe the Epic of Gilgamesh is immoral?

It is nice to know that now I have a source the next time someone argues that Atheism has no moral basis.... I can no say, wait, I know the orthodox Jew who begs to differ. <sarcasm off>

It seems like you saw the title of the webpage I found the quote on and thought it somehow disproved my point? Orthodox Jews are theists (not all, but they tend to be), they believe morality comes from God, but that it is “revealed in mankind through human nature and not as a command” (same page). Disagreeing with God is actually part of the tradition that goes back to the biblical period. Jews call themselves Am Yisrael - “people who wrestle with God” -a name that is attributed to the story in which Jacob wrestles God and wins.

Though I wasn’t talking about Orthodox Jews in the first place.

[Eliazar]

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 they don't dare to do this to other religions .
They will have great problems

[LWT]

Ask those people if they want "Free government school" most of them will say yes. Ask those people if they want "free government healthcare" they say yes. Ask those people if we need "serios gun reform" most of them say yes.

I say that and i'am some kind of atheist. I just don't like the word because that associates me with people like Richard Dawkins who wants Eugenics and that Government and Technokrates desicde who can have kids till we end like china.

If you define socialism as being pro education and against guns, I think a lot of people are socialist.

[DDWingate]

Because they don't dare to do this to other religions .
They will have great problems

Yeah, because atheists know not to ever with jews

[PikeStance]

Uh… what argument do you think I'm making? My point in posting a quote from an Orthodox Rabbi was to show that Jews don’t see the Bible as the source of morality. In assuming otherwise, you were applying a concept from one form of monotheism to another.

I just told you that Jews don't have to believe in a supernatural god, or a god that acts in the world. Why would there be a need to put a spin on mythological events?

What a religious sounding thing to say. Do you also believe the Epic of Gilgamesh is immoral?

It seems like you saw the title of the webpage I found the quote on and thought it somehow disproved my point? Orthodox Jews are theists (not all, but they tend to be), they believe morality comes from God, but that it is “revealed in mankind through human nature and not as a command” (same page). Disagreeing with God is actually part of the tradition that goes back to the biblical period. Jews call themselves Am Yisrael - “people who wrestle with God” -a name that is attributed to the story in which Jacob wrestles God and wins.

Though I wasn’t talking about Orthodox Jews in the first place.

We need to back up for one minute. This entire conversation started when the statement that the Bible is a horrible source for morality. Someone ask why and the conversation went from there. At some point you joined in. If a certain group of "orthodox Jews"[1] run away from the Bible as a source of their morality, then kudos for them. Why would I disparage that? I agree with that; the Bible is a horrible source of morality.

You will have to explain "spin mythological events" or the "Epic of Gilgamesh is immoral" comments,... I have no idea how they are related to the discussion.


[1] Orthodox Judaism isn't a singular entity. It is made up of various groups with different views and interpretations.

--

[Lazarus]

Most of them think because they see a obviously fraud as a fraud makes them so smart even when they duck up in every other part of their pilosophy. Also, they don't understand that their moral compass is already influenced by christian philosophy. In areas of islam for example, there is a total different game. You don't even count as a real human being if you don't follow islam. Its for them like we would see someone with a totaly perverted sexual fetish.

This is all wrong. I'm not even going to explain why but just trust me.

Also, most atheists are socialists more or less openly so their just found a new cult to worship and ain't that critical as they would pose.

Most people would take offense to this. Me? I love it. It means I never have to take anything you say seriously ever again.

I let everyone his little cult when it makes him feel good, but just don't force me to follow their rules so i don't have to shoot you.

If you separate this from the rest of your little spiel it sounds like you're talking about religion. Anyone else see that or is it just me?

Because they don't dare to do this to other religions .
They will have great problems

Seriously? There's literally a thread right here in TWC about Islam feeling offended and Atheists are brought up there too.

Is there a game show on at the moment where we give out prizes for the person who says the most incorrect thing that I'm unaware of? Because this is just uncanny, even for TWC.

[sumskilz]

We need to back up for one minute.

Sure… just be clear, this was the line of conversation as I was following it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Most of the homicidal acts take place in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Jewish community, like many Christian denominations choose to ignore them.

They also know that they were written by people and reflect the morals and politics of the times. Religions evolve a lot over time, most Jews recognize this… There are very religious Jews who have no belief in a supernatural God...

If the Bible is the moral basis for morality, then why argue parts of it is immoral? If the interpretation of the based on modern understanding of morality then what use is the Bible to determine morality?

Your question assumes that Jews view the Bible in the same way that Christians do, but that is not the case. Here’s an Orthodox Rabbi’s perspective... [quoted text] In other words, modern interpretation of morality is the culmination of a long social evolution, for Jews that includes all their literature. Even Modern Orthodox Jews are aware of this, though I was initially referring to the more liberal denominations which are actually more predominate.

In the end it doesn't matter. Your "exception" argument is just a red herring. It demonstrates more convincingly, that even the Jewish community is uncomfortable with the "morality" stated in the Bible and they too "dance" around this issue. Whichever path they choose, whether accepting the acts of God and "spinning them as moral" or they spin it like your rabbi, its just "spin doctoring." There is just no escape; the Bible (including the Torah) is an immoral document…

They're not running away. There was never the same belief as in Christianity, at least not in the same way. (although I might be overgeneralizing myself slightly, because there have been times and places Christianity influenced Judaism) To Jews, the covenant was a contract and the basis for their law. It’s written in the same format as an alliance between a powerful king and a vassal was written.

I could dig through the Talmud myself for the evidence, but this is easier:

Judaism offers the world a different understanding of the limits of religious law and Divine-human relationships, for it exempts no text (whatever claim it may make of its sanctity) and no person (prophet or prince) from the challenge of moral conscience. This critical questioning of commands includes even those claimed to be “the word of God.” Jewish rabbinic literature is filled with illustrations of vaunted religious personalities who, against God, in the name of God, and for the sake of God challenge egregious biblical laws. Significantly, in some of these confrontations, scriptural edicts are reversed, nullified, or overturned. For example, when Moses is bringing the Ten Commandments from Sinai, he reads God’s pronouncement in the Second Commandment that children will be punished to the third and fourth generations for the sins of their fathers. Shocked by such an unjust law, Moses questions God’s judgment: “Sovereign of the Universe, consider the righteousness of Abraham, and the idol worship of his father, Terach. Does it make sense to punish the child for the transgressions of the fathers?” (Numbers Rabbah Hukkat XIX, 33).

According to the midrash, God responds to Moses: “By your life, Moses, you have instructed Me. Therefore, I will nullify my words and confirm yours. Thus it is said, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers’” (Deuteronomy 24:16). In the rabbinic tradition, God is open to human critique and respectful of moral dissent. Conscience enables a dialogue between the Divine and human, partners of the covenant. ~Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis

Morality: The Duty To Disobey

[1] Orthodox Judaism isn't a singular entity. It is made up of various groups with different views and interpretations.

Well yeah, and Orthodox Judaism is an invented tradition from the Nineteenth Century which was a reaction to the Enlightenment’s influence on what became mainstream Judaism, no such orthodoxy existed historically. Neither was strict orthodoxy a traditional Jewish value considering a large portion of the Talmud is a catalogue of differing opinions.

But really, this diversity further supports my view the some posters overgeneralize about religious people

You will have to explain "spin mythological events" or the "Epic of Gilgamesh is immoral" comments,.. I have no idea how they are related to the discussion.

There is no need to rationalize the actions of a deity which take place in a fictional story.

Here are two quotes, one from the Bible, one from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

All this I laid to heart, examining it all, how the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of Elohim; whether it is love or hate one does not know. Everything that confronts them is transitory, since the same fate comes to all, to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to those who sacrifice and those who do not. As are the good, so are the sinners; those who swear are like those who shun an oath. This is an evil in all that happens under the sun, that the same fate comes to everyone. The hearts of all are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. But whoever is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, their memory is lost. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun. Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for Elohim has long ago approved what you do. Let your garments always be white; do not let oil be lacking on your head. Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your fleeting life which are given you under the sun, because that is your allotment in life, and in your labor at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might; for there is no work, or thought, or knowledge, or wisdom in the pit to which you are going.

Gilgamesh, wherefore do you wander?
The eternal life you are seeking you shale not find.
When the gods created mankind,
They established death for mankind,
And withheld eternal life for themselves.
As for you, Gilgamesh, let your stomach be full,
Always be happy, night and day.
Make every day a delight.
Night and day play and dance.
Your clothes should be clean,
Your head should be washed,
You should bathe in water,
Look proudly on the little one holding your hand,
Let your mate be always blissful in your loins,
This, then, is the work of mankind.

They both reflect a similar worldview. The first is Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes). There are many different perspectives represented in the Hebrew Bible because it’s an anthology of a particular culture’s literature from a particular time period. If it were a contemporary culture, you would be tremendously ethnocentric to refer to this anthology an “immoral document”. Without taking a stance that morality is objective, I can’t really see making such a claim, which is why your statement sounds religious to me. Though I suspect you probably don’t find Qoheleth to be immoral.

I never hear anyone say the Greek classics are immoral.

[PikeStance]

This was the statement that started the whole thing,...

when I critique and rubbish religion I am doing it to all monotheistic religions. They are all morally reprehensible!

You answered; why?

I answered with immoral examples that is contained in the Bible.


You later responded with this

They also know that they were written by people and reflect the morals and politics of the times. Religions evolve a lot over time, most Jews recognize this.

That what Sogdog claims about religious people is an overgeneralization. There are very religious Jews who have no belief in a supernatural God, but they tend to not like the atheist label for similar reasons to why Einstein rejected it.

Both you and Sogdog made overgeneralization. I did not.

They're not running away. There was never the same belief as in Christianity, at least not in the same way. (although I might be overgeneralizing myself slightly, because there have been times and places Christianity influenced Judaism) To Jews, the covenant was a contract and the basis for their law. It’s written in the same format as an alliance between a powerful king and a vassal was written.

As I said already, I think the "spinning" it so that they can be consistent with the modern sense of morality. The fact that they recognized that the Bible is not inerrant is a positive thing. The website I linked earlier seems to do a two step on the issue,... it really doesn't matter it serves my point of view anyway.

But really, this diversity further supports my view the some posters overgeneralize about religious people

This is one of the inherent problems of any discussion about religion. One must be careful to present a sound argument while recognizing diversity within a group. When it comes to morality religious groups must choose between literalism or metaphoric-ism. With the former, you have to rationalize the immoral behavior of God, and with the latter, you have explain how one things is literal and the other is not. Regardless of your choice, there is some "spinning" happening. You obviously disagree.

There is no need to rationalize the actions of a deity which take place in a fictional story.
Here are two quotes, one from the Bible, one from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

They both reflect a similar worldview. The first is Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes). There are many different perspectives represented in the Hebrew Bible because it’s an anthology of a particular culture’s literature from a particular time period. If it were a contemporary culture, you would be tremendously ethnocentric to refer to this anthology an “immoral document”. Without taking a stance that morality is objective, I can’t really see making such a claim, which is why your statement sounds religious to me. Though I suspect you probably don’t find Qoheleth to be immoral.

I never hear anyone say the Greek classics are immoral.

If I was raised Christian and of European ancestry I cannot be ethnocentric to state that Greek mythology and Christian Mythology is immoral since they both form the foundation of my culture. Moreover, I never made any such absolute statements. I would not throw out the baby with the bath water. There is a value in everything that is written; I just won't based my morality on "stories" of the past.

---

[Matthias]

If it were a contemporary culture, you would be tremendously ethnocentric to refer to this anthology an “immoral document”. Without taking a stance that morality is objective, I can’t really see making such a claim, which is why your statement sounds religious to me. Though I suspect you probably don’t find Qoheleth to be immoral.

I never hear anyone say the Greek classics are immoral.

You are confusing the idea that morals are subjective with relativism, a very common mistake. You can say a document is immoral as your personal opinion and that is perfectly consistent with the idea that there is no such thing as obejctive morality.

Lots of people do actually say Greek classics have immoral elements. It's all personal opinion and preference that makes up whether you view something as "moral" or "immoral" in the first place.

So, according to an individual's preferences and value system, some morals are indeed "better" than others. You don't have to believe that all morals are equal if you don't believe in objective morality, that's just a silly (and sometimes intentional) mistake religious people often make when debating about objective morality.

[sumskilz]

Both you and Sogdog made overgeneralization. I did not.

This I took to be an overgeneralization…

There is just no escape; the Bible (including the Torah) is an immoral document.

Both As I said already, I think the "spinning" it so that they can be consistent with the modern sense of morality. The fact that they recognized that the Bible is not inerrant is a positive thing. The website I linked earlier seems to do a two step on the issue,... it really doesn't matter it serves my point of view anyway.

Well that was a Chabad site. Their perspective is not the same as the intent of the original authors of the Bible, but it’s consistent with early Rabbinic Judaism in that anything found in the text (including by number games) was already there. Basically it can be made to say just about anything and that’s okay. The Bible is not seen as authoritative in the same way as Christians see it.

There is a story in the Talmud in which Rabbi Akiva is finding new interpretations in the semantically meaningless crowns on the text. Moses has to sit in the back of the Rabbi Akiva’s classroom because he doesn’t understand. So Moses asks God “You have a man like this and you give the Torah through me?” and God says “Silence! That is how it came to me in thought.” So Moses says to God, “Master of the World! You showed me his Torah. Now show me his reward!” And God says, “Turn Around!” So Moses turns around and sees Rabbi Akiva’s flesh is being cut up by the Romans in a meat market. So Moses asks God, “Master of the World, this is Torah and this is its reward?” and God replies “Silence! That is how it came to me in thought.”

My point is, from a Jewish perspective, the Bible isn’t always supposed to be a completely inerrant and positive thing.

I had an anthropology/religious studies professor who was involved in a Chabad community. He taught a class called Monotheism and Mass Murder. He was always surprising students with his very puncturing attacks on religious truth claims because he looked and dressed like an Orthodox rabbi. One time after class a Christian student asked him about Jewish views on the “problem of evil”. He responded, “The problem of evil is never going to be solved. Either God is wicked or God is weak. It’s as simple as that. But to the individual who has been carried through hell by a belief in God, God is neither wicked nor weak.” Another time he also said, “Humans have an amazing ability to hate because God has an amazing ability to love – an amazing ability to love one group over another.”

This is one of the inherent problems of any discussion about religion. One must be careful to present a sound argument while recognizing diversity within a group. When it comes to morality religious groups must choose between literalism or metaphoric-ism. With the former, you have to rationalize the immoral behavior of God, and with the latter, you have explain how one things is literal and the other is not. Regardless of your choice, there is some "spinning" happening. You obviously disagree.

I disagree because you present a false dichotomy which assumes a Christian perspective. A significant portion of modern Jews don’t believe God has behavior, God is not a being. Spinoza’s God is a perfectly valid perspective, as are many others. God to many is a philosophical abstraction or a symbol of whatever a community hold’s sacred (obviously this can change). There are multiple conceptions of God presented by different authors of the Bible, these are just seen as their ideas and they reflect a time when most people imagined the forces of nature as being controlled by an intelligence. It’s secular scholarship which figures out which parts of the Bible are literal history. Many Rabbis have degrees in ancient Near-Eastern history or archeology. Besides it really doesn't matter in Judasim what a person believes, it matters what they do.

You are confusing the idea that morals are subjective with relativism, a very common mistake. You can say a document is immoral as your personal opinion and that is perfectly consistent with the idea that there is no such thing as obejctive morality.

Lots of people do actually say Greek classics have immoral elements. It's all personal opinion and preference that makes up whether you view something as "moral" or "immoral" in the first place.

So, according to an individual's preferences and value system, some morals are indeed "better" than others. You don't have to believe that all morals are equal if you don't believe in objective morality, that's just a silly (and sometimes intentional) mistake religious people often make when debating about objective morality.

No, I'm not confusing anything. What you're saying is obvious, however all morals are equal except by subjective preference. To believe otherwise is a religious position. We all tend to prefer our own culture’s sense of morality over others, seems like natural low level ethnocentrism to me. If someone were to take a more extreme position like saying “all Islamic literature is immoral” that would sound like more extreme ethnocentric to me, even if it were true by their subjective moral values. Ethnocentrism can be a subjective moral value.

[PikeStance]

This I took to be an overgeneralization…

Originally Posted by PikeStance
There is just no escape; the Bible (including the Torah) is an immoral document.

This is NOT an over generalization; the Bible is an immoral document. Is it other things? Yes. Regardless of the "other things," it doesn't change the fact that it espouses immoral behavior.

Well that was a Chabad site. Their perspective is not the same as the intent of the original authors of the Bible, but it’s consistent with early Rabbinic Judaism in that anything found in the text (including by number games) was already there. Basically it can be made to say just about anything and that’s okay. The Bible is not seen as authoritative in the same way as Christians see it......My point is, from a Jewish perspective, the Bible isn’t always supposed to be a completely inerrant and positive thing.

I have "Jewish" friends who would beg to differ. However, since I already stated that there are many perspectives on how the Bible is interpreted, then this is a mute point.

I had an anthropology/religious studies professor who was involved in a Chabad community. He taught a class called Monotheism and Mass Murder. He was always surprising students with his very puncturing attacks on religious truth claims because he looked and dressed like an Orthodox rabbi. One time after class a Christian student asked him about Jewish views on the “problem of evil”. He responded, “The problem of evil is never going to be solved. Either God is wicked or God is weak. It’s as simple as that. But to the individual who has been carried through hell by a belief in God, God is neither wicked nor weak.” Another time he also said, “Humans have an amazing ability to hate because God has an amazing ability to love – an amazing ability to love one group over another.”

You would have to be amazingly naive and/ or stupid for fall such nonsense is this.

I disagree because you present a false dichotomy which assumes a Christian perspective. A significant portion of modern Jews don’t believe God has behavior, God is not a being. Spinoza’s God is a perfectly valid perspective, as are many others. God to many is a philosophical abstraction or a symbol of whatever a community hold’s sacred (obviously this can change). There are multiple conceptions of God presented by different authors of the Bible, these are just seen as their ideas and they reflect a time when most people imagined the forces of nature as being controlled by an intelligence. It’s secular scholarship which figures out which parts of the Bible are literal history. Many Rabbis have degrees in ancient Near-Eastern history or archeology. Besides it really doesn't matter in Judasim what a person believes, it matters what they do.

Please do not accused me of a fallacy and then feed me more psycho mumbo jumbo.

I personally believe that God's essence (or whatever you want to call it) is beyond human comprehension. It is impossible to conceive of such a ------- much less define ------ properties. I am also well aware of the multitudes of different perspective on the subject.

I believe most people who understand the Bible are aware that there are any authors of the Bible and the perspective of God changes throughout; from one among many Gods to one and only one God. But none of this has anything to do with morality and the Bible; does it? No, so why are you going off on a tangent?

No, I'm not confusing anything. What you're saying is obvious, however all morals are equal except by subjective preference. To believe otherwise is a religious position. We all tend to prefer our own culture’s sense of morality over others, seems like natural low level ethnocentrism to me. If someone were to take a more extreme position like saying “all Islamic literature is immoral” that would sound like more extreme ethnocentric to me, even if it were true by their subjective moral values. Ethnocentrism can be a subjective moral value.

This is a rather silly straw man argument. Morality can transcend cultural norms. While certain cultures may have varying ethics based on their cultural traditions, certain morals exist in all cultures. Moreover, since morality is ab evolving concept, it changes at different in different cultures. There are grey areas; like honor killings. This is an immoral act in the West, but it is gradually becoming immoral in other cultures.

---

[Eliazar]

Seriously? There's literally a thread right here in TWC about Islam feeling offended and Atheists are brought up there too. .

It is not the same
An offense for Islam is even a picture of Allah
For Christianity it is not

[sumskilz]

You would have to be amazingly naive and/ or stupid for fall such nonsense is this.

What I thought about it, was that it was funny. There is a deeper anthropological commentary behind it that you seem to have missed.

I believe most people who understand the Bible are aware that there are any authors of the Bible and the perspective of God changes throughout; from one among many Gods to one and only one God. But none of this has anything to do with morality and the Bible; does it? No, so why are you going off on a tangent?

I think you misunderstand me more than you disagree with me, but you seem intent on arguing, and you seem to argue most with what you understand the least.

Morality can transcend cultural norms. While certain cultures may have varying ethics based on their cultural traditions, certain morals exist in all cultures. Moreover, since morality is ab evolving concept, it changes at different in different cultures. There are grey areas; like honor killings. This is an immoral act in the West, but it is gradually becoming immoral in other cultures.

There is a biological component to pro-social behavior which is naturally cross-cultural, but many aspects and specifics which are products of enculturation.

[Lazarus]

It is not the same
An offense for Islam is even a picture of Allah
For Christianity it is not

Todays topic - Special Pleading

[PikeStance]

What I thought about it, was that it was funny. There is a deeper anthropological commentary behind it that you seem to have missed.

I think you misunderstand me more than you disagree with me, but you seem intent on arguing, and you seem to argue most with what you understand the least.

There is a biological component to pro-social behavior which is naturally cross-cultural, but many aspects and specifics which are products of enculturation.

Are we resorting to condescension already? It would seem I am both argumentative and woefully ignorant. Perhaps I am well informed person who happens to disagree with your interpretation. Do you always think people who do not agree with you do so only because they lack knowledge? You need to seriously get over yourself. I understood every point you made; I just don't agree.

Now if you don't mind, I prefer to discuss the substance of a person's argument and NOT the person! If you have nothing more then to add than the nonsense above I will assume the conversation is over.

-----

[Eliazar]

Todays topic - Special Pleading

You disagree with my post ?