True Atheists are Anti-Belief

To Fate and Bob:

XOXOXOXOXOXO

believers don't have a life! How can they! Their lives are owned and controled by their creator--Their God. If your God is the creator, then you are his creation.And if your God is all powerful and all knowing, He knows that at the very point he created you what you are going to say and do throughout your life. If that is true, then u have no choice, you are predestined. If your belief is God created you then you also have to believe only God can decide when it is your time to die. If you commit suicide, then God determined you to die that way. So, is that really free choice? When I was raised in the "House of Providence" catholic orphanage for boys, I got whooped on every single time i made a free will choice. So the nuns quickly taught me i had no such free will. The 900 or so people who died at the Jonestown cult, if that was free will, it sucks. All religions are cults, and any belief in a God is a cult. Made for weak people who don't have the courage to stand on their own to feet alone with no help from anyone. As for air, maybe you can't see it, but you can certainly feel it. Tell you what--Let me cut off the air you breath for a few minutes and see if you still don't believe that air exists. Pretty lousy arguement i say. Kind of like the Holy Roller theory. Something must have got us started--O'h, it must be God--Right?? Then what got God started?? is dad, and his dad and his dad. If their was nothing before God, damn, he must have been bored--just him all lonesome--yupper must have been pretty damn boring--think about it--no universe, no suns or planets or galaxies-nothing--just emptiness--endless nothing--no one to interact with--all alone am God! So, he pulls out his magic wand and says, i can't take this emptiness anymore. Ahhh, I will creat Man in my image--but, i have no mirror--no water to see my reflection -- will have to creat that to see just what i look like so that i can creat man! But if i do this i have to keep myself amused--ahh--got it--man will have to choose between GOOD and EVIL! This aught to be real fun. Kind of like a vertual reality game --ooopps, i haven't come up with the computer idea yet. First things first--I'll give them the wheel. Wow, what an experiment this will be and i do hope they can choose GOOD! But, first I have to creat both GOOD and EVIL. Can't have one without the other--right? Ok, Lucifer-your going to have to take the fall for this one, I will creat you to be my fallen angel! Let the games begin! OPPS., got Adam, but now what to do--YES-Eve!! Poor Adam, Women were created to tease and draw men into sin! I mean, if you read the bible, that is what is indicated--right? Gog-god-god-I choose to believe in Casper, i think the friendly ghost is our creator.

paul c wrote: "Dave in A2: have you read anything in this thread? Non-believers constantly degrade believers as ignorant, superstitious or worse."

I guess you have not read any of spiderman's posts yet. Talk about degrading people, though in his case, anyone not a fundamentalist christian fanatic.

paul c wrote: "As you can see in the previous posts, there is a debate about whether non-believers should be called "free thinkers" or " super- free", implying of course that religious people can't think for themselves. Most of the atheists on this board are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that thinking people could come to conclusions different than their own."

Well, yes, if those conclusions were determined before the thinking began. You see, a free thinker will take the evidence and let it lead them toward a conclusion, what ever it may be. That is how one finds truth. A believer though has this bias, a belief in God's existence, and so examines evidence, like the universe, with that bias and guess what, God is the reason the universe exists! The conclusion was determined before the evidence was even examined. That is an example of biased thinking, not free thinking. To look at it another way, a free thinker could accept God's existence if proper evidence brought him to that conclusion. A believer however can rarely follow evidence that questions God's existence to its conclusion. The bias that there must be a God is a powerful bias that prevents free thinking.

paul c wrote: "Fate: your problem is that you don't believe in your heart of hearts that anyone can use reason to find God."

True since God has not provided the evidence for His existence. Would you care to show it to me? Is his named scrawled on the side of a mountain? Did he put seashells up on mountain tops to confuse us? Did he write impossibilities into the bible just to see us scratch our heads? You see, I can understand believing in a God. Belief is after all an assumption not based on facts. But you claim people can use reason to find belief. That is, by definition, impossible, since reason would lead one to look for the evidence of a God's existence, which is scant at best.

paul c wrote: "In answer to your question, Of course I and many others before me looked at the physical laws inherent in this universe and concluded that an intelligence must have been responsible for that order. To think otherwise, requires you to believe that order came spontaneously from chaos. Nothing in our observations of the universe supports that thesis."

Really? Order cannot come from chaos? Have you seen a tornado form? How about a hurricane or even a simple thunderstorm. How about a snowflake? These are examples of order arising out of disorder. Gravity brings clouds of interstellar gas together to form a star. Order from disorder. Rivers form spontaneously from a heavy rain. There are many examples of order resulting from chaos. That is why it is not so difficult to believe living cells formed on their own or that the universe exploded out of whatever existed before it. But when you just toss the science aside and say its all due to a God, there is nothing more to study, nothing more to learn, nothing more to investigate.

You know, only 100 years ago believers pointed to the sun and said it was proof of God because no one, not even scientists, could explain how it had been shining for even the 6000 years the bible said the earth had existed, forget the billions science knew it had existed. It was a real mystery and believers held it up as proof, as you now hold up the universe as proof. Then nuclear reactions were discovered and theorists determined nuclear fusion is how the sun stays lit and could stay lit for billions of years. Believers stopped pointing to the sun. Just because something is a mystery is no reason to jump to the conclusion that God is the explanation. It is just more evidence of the bias, a belief looking for proof to support it, rather than letting the study of the universe take you to wherever it takes you. That is how a free thinker examines the universe. That is how scientific discoveries have been made with no help from any religious belief.

Paul C - you missed my point completely. let me repeat it:

"I'm sure many believers consider themselves to be free-thinkers, in the sense of being intelligent, analytical and open to new information. They're often insulted by being called deluded by non-believers. In many cases the only ways they're deluded or limited in their thinking is by belief in the supernatural."

I was a believer recently myself and I know that I was just as intelligent, etc. then as I am now. The only difference is that now I'm free of supernatural beliefs. I'm a super-free.

Jim - as you very well know, it can be proven there is air, and stars. Are you joking?

Free thinker is a good choice. But actually, "thinker" should be enough. Don't you agree?

I am not clergy. In fact I lost faith in church and religion a long time ago. Once I re-evaluated my position the more I realized how much I needed the Belief of God in my life. I do not believe in God because it requires proof just as I believe that there is air even though there is no proof.

Here is a quick test that you can take to prove or disprove what I am saying. You know that air is all around you. Please reach out and grab a hand full of it and keep your hand shut. With the other hand reach out and grab a handful of God and keep that hand closed also. Now open both of your hands and tell me what you see. You see nothing yet you believe in air but you cannot believe in God.

You can conduct the same experiment with everything. I believe there are stars in the sky but I cannot prove they are there can you? I am not religious, I am not atheist, I am not agnostic, Buddhist, Jewish, Catholic or Christian. I am just a man that believe in air, height, water, space and GOD.

oops - sorry. I just read Jim's post more closely. I retract my earlier comments, which were an insult to clergy.

Jim, are you kidding? Are you a prankster just trying to make believers look dumb?

Dave in A2: have you read anything in this thread? Non-believers constantly degrade believers as ignorant, superstitious or worse. As you can see in the previous posts, there is a debate about whether non-believers should be called "free thinkers" or " super- free", implying of course that religious people can't think for themselves. Most of the atheists on this board are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that thinking people could come to conclusions different than their own.

Fate: your problem is that you don't believe in your heart of hearts that anyone can use reason to find God. In answer to your question, Of course I and many others before me looked at the physical laws inherent in this universe and concluded that an intelligence must have been responsible for that order. To think otherwise, requires you to believe that order came spontaneously from chaos. Nothing in our observations of the universe supports that thesis.

Jim - are you Clergy? You sound like it - if you're not - I suggest you become one. You'd fit right in.

There is no evidence that there is air yet we breathe it. There is no evidence of water yet we drink it and we float on it. There is nothing but mathematical data that confirms distance, height, speed, heat etc.

We choose to believe the sun is 93 million miles from earth. We choose to believe light travels. We choose to believe that a fraction exists. We choose to believe the earth is spinning and rotating. We choose to believe in evolution. We were forced to go to school where we were forced fed these mathematical assumptions. Believing these supernatural assumptions created by science does not make them true just accepted.

Nothing can be proved or disproved. Most people believe in something. That doesn’t make it real and believable nor does it make it unreal and unbelievable. It is simply an individual belief without proof.

I could hardly disagree more--there is a wide gulf between "non-belief" (atheism) and "anti-belief".

What I find most curious about "believers" is their hostility to non-believers, and their sense that non-belief is a de facto attack on belief.

Curiously, most atheists I know do not feel threatened by people of faith, nor do they feel that a belief in a supreme being implicitly involves a threat to those who don't share that belief. With the exception, of course, of the all-too-common examples (particularly among fundamentalists) of expressed threats against so-called non-believers.

One never hears atheists threatening people of faith because of their beliefs, only the reverse. Curious.

Fate - I like "Freethinker" too. What I like about Super-free is that it isolates that one thing that separates non-believers from believers - belief in the supernatural.

I'm sure many believers consider themselves to be free-thinkers, in the sense of being intelligent, analytical and open to new information. They're often insulted by being called deluded by non-believers. In many cases the only ways they're deluded or limited in their thinking is by belief in the supernatural.

I have a word for believers too - pro-supers.

The words might not catch on, but I think they do isolate our most important difference -- and hopefully make people think about it in a more fruitful way. Believers aren't deluded; non-believers don't live a life without morals or meaning. We just have different positions on the supernatural.

"Regarding your not identifying with the term atheist, now about "super-free,
meaning free of supernatural beliefs."

I prefer the term "free thinker" since religion, as Galileo learned, does not allow free thinking.

I used to imagine a church as a place where you can debate. Can you imagine clergy and lay people sitting in a circle debating the existence of God? But religions are not democracies. They are institutions, requiring money and people to maintain what should be a natural thing. And to make sure we maintain the belief, we attend church weekly to recite over and over the same thing about believing in God.

In Catholic school I couldn't help myself and pointed out, to the nun carrying the heavy ruler, flaws in what she was teaching about God. I guess the beatings never taught me to not think freely, but I now many who spout the same flawed teachings the nun taught us, and when I point out the flaws, all I get is a shrugged shoulder, as though that's just the way it is. I guess they carried that ruler for a reason, just as heaven and hell are explained in graphic detail to anyone considering to think freely. I remember in 3rd grade our nun explaining "free will" and I, being a snot, got up and began to walk out of class. I was grabbed and thrown into my seat with a rap across the knuckles with the ruler. So much for free will in this religion I thought.

paul c wrote: "Fate:You are simply proving my point: you just don't analyze the data the same as I do. Don't assume I am any more pre-inclined to a solution than you are."

But you are. If you had not grown up in an environment of believe in spirits, would you have concluded, without evidence of any sort, that a spirit made the universe?

paul c wrote: "And my argument here is that there is a God, I don't care what you call him/her/it."

Saying that laws of nature is proof of a God is a not proof but a rationale, something that you determined after the existence of a God was believed in. It was not the examination of physical laws that drew you to that conclusion based on evidence. I mean, were you one day thinking about the physical laws of nature and then screamed Eureka as you determined it all could be explained using something unknown to you at that time, a God?

Asoders 22: "What I am wondering is if Adin Steinsaltz reads all the comments, and if he is learning anything at all."

Me too - And I like to think he is learning something - after all, he's a learned man, presumably open to new information and he can't help but see how logical the atheists' arguments are, even if he continues to disagree with them.

Regarding your not identifying with the term atheist, now about "super-free,
meaning free of supernatural beliefs.

Fate:
You are simply proving my point: you just don't analyze the data the same as I do. Don't assume I am any more pre-inclined to a solution than you are.

And my argument here is that there is a God, I don't care what you call him/her/it.

What I am wondering is if Adin Steinsaltz reads all the comments, and if he is learning anything at all.

Paul C wrote: "When I see that the universe is governed by a set of physical laws, I believe that something created those laws and I call that entity God."

With what evidence? And why not thousands of gods? Why not a god of gravity, a god of matter, etc? If we instead saw was the physical laws breaking down now and then, would that change your mind? I doubt it. This sounds more like you believe first then look for the evidence to support your belief.

Paul C wrote: "When I see that all matter seems to be made of the same common building blocks and that is often in predictable ratios such as pi and phi, I think something must have dictated that and I call that something God."

Again, why and why not multiple gods? The origins of the universe are a mystery, but a mystery has never proven the existence of God in the past as those mysteries were eventually, through science, solved without a God. Why do you expect this mystery to require a God when others did not?

Paul C wrote: "Belief in God can and should be achieved through reason not through blind faith."

But it cannot since there is no evidence of a God. If there were, it could be proved through experimentation and science. The existence of physical laws not more proves God then it proves a flying spaghetti monster.

Paul C wrote: "There is plenty of evidence of God's existence out there. You won't see it, though, if your first inclination is to block it out."

Or you'll see it if you need proof for your belief. Some people see Christ's face in algae growing on an underpass. Do you consider that proof? Consider why your evidence points to God, and not some other religion's god. Could Ganesha have made the universe as easily as your God? If so why not consider Hinduism as the correct religion? If not, why not?

I would submit to the atheists that have said in their posts that there is no evidence that God exists that perhaps they are not interpreting the data the same way that others do. Sure, we can't see God directly but we can see his works much in the same we we experience the wind (but of course more profoundly). When I see that the universe is governed by a set of physical laws, I believe that something created those laws and I call that entity God. When I see that all matter seems to be made of the same common building blocks and that is often in predictable ratios such as pi and phi, I think something must have dictated that and I call that something God. Belief in God can and should be achieved through reason not through blind faith. There is plenty of evidence of God's existence out there. You won't see it, though, if your first inclination is to block it out.

Real atheists pray to Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin. No harm in that. At least they once were real. Which is more than you can say for gods. Any gods. All gods.

Recommend..."Against All Gods" by A.C.Grayling.

Brilliant book delightful to read.

So many interesting comments from atheists surprises me and really makes my day.

Where do all you guys come from? Time was when you couldn't find an atheist anywhere, and now they're all over the place.

I credit 9'11 for the popularity of rational thinking over idiotic beliefs of Paradise in the sky.(Never mind the virgins).

I woke up that day and realized how brainwashed I had let myself become...just going along with the faith thing like everyone else, without thinking too deeply about it.

But those religious maniacs made me realize that religion is extremely silly and that everyone died for nothing; and that Christianity is just as banal and irrational as Islam. And there is no god, as there are no celestial virgins, and no afterlife.

Its all a terrible scam; the most terrible scam that ever was. The God-scam. But now it seems its days may be numbered. We can only hope so.
And hope too,that the three thousand dead didn't die for nothing; perhaps their deaths have triggered a new wave of anti-superstitious, ant-God rationalism that signals the beginning of the end of the God hypothesis.

sorry for the typos, i know my typing sucks.but bring it on and let me hear about it. I love critics.

Ooopps did i offend you again d. rod??!! I am an atheist for sure. But if i had any respect for religious people, it would be the Amish and Quakers. About the only religious people who really try to walk the talk. Peace-loving and the ultimate in forgiveness. D. Rod, could you forgive someone who just killed your children in cold blood like the Amish did? I think not. Although i have a low opinion of Islam, If you put a gun to a moslim's had and tell him to deny Allah, or die, most, if not all would probably choose to die. That's why hey have so many suicide bombers. I'll bet D. Rod, if someone put a gun to your head and asked u to choose between your god and life, you'd deny your god in a split second, because you'd find your life a teeeeny bit more important. I want to hear from you! Yes, personally, i do find all most religious people pretty insecure and u proved my point. most wars and killings in this world are caused my religious defferences, even now in iraq. Millions upon millions of people have died because of god and religion. back in the middfle ages, even the pops was involed, ordering the massive killing of the french heugonots in Paris, etc. So, please don't tell me about your religious virtues. become an atheist and save yourself.

Meh. Maybe there's a sentient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, unobservable being in the sky who created us and the universe we inhabit. Maybe there's not. This question is no longer interesting.

I believe that most professed atheists are not so much anti-belief as anti-religion. Honestly, people who make their living by claiming a direct line to this possibly extant supreme being have been shown time and again to be, at one level or another, cynical charlatans living parasitically on the fears of others.

You can 'no true scottsman' all you like, but religion has earned the distrust of thinking people over the centuries, and anti-religious sentiment will only increase as our society evolves beyond the need to live in a myth.

Atheists are the ones saying there are no gods.
Atheists are the ones saying superstition kills.
Atheists are the ones saying we need a more rational world.
Atheists are the ones saying that religion is 200 years past its 'best-before' date.
Atheists are the ones saying that praying is meaningless.
Atheists are the ones saying that religion is primitive groupthink.
Atheists are the ones saying that religion is a meme passed down through the generations to us, from our totally ignorant ancient ancestors.
Atheists do not pray. Only the superstitious pray.

I presented myself earlier as an atheist, but coming to think of it, the word atheism is in itself derived from theism, shaped from the presumption of a god.

Not good. To be a theist is to add a god to reality. To NOT add a god to reality shouldn't require a word. It's simply the natural state.

There is and there is not. There is no in between. Intellectualism cannot exist because there is nothing that can be analyzed. Zeno made this contradictory statement using mathematics and our highest math cannot dispute Zeno’s observations. For instance calculus can be solved as long as you approach but do not reach zero. Why, because everything prior to reaching zero is and zero isn’t.

Denial has nothing to do with reality thus all the intellectual scrutiny of reality is a waste of time. The minute one hears the word Jesus, God, Angels, Devil, Heaven, Hell etc they exist. To waste one’s time denying or refuting the existence of these beings verges on insanity.

Dealing with God, Angels, the Devil, Heaven and Hell is the burden placed on mankind at birth. We could not prevent ourselves from hearing these words and now we have to deal with their reality. The hierarchy of these beings was established as was the conclusion to their being.

We can deny or refute how the world was created we cannot deny the existence of a world. We try to control birth and death to no avail. Everything that was is and thus everything that is was. There can never be something that happened yesterday and there can never be something that will happen in the future because today was yesterday and tomorrow will be today.

Those who die and leave the world today leave the word of God behind for those who enter the world today. It was like that when I was born and it will be like that when I die. The same holds true for all humanity.

Atheist, agnostics, Christians, Jews, Buddhist, etc all exist and live today this cannot be changed. Neither can the existence of God. END THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Your wrong!

Anonymous,

How rude of you to call my belief in faires "ridiculous"!

Dear Rebbe,

My disagreement with you is in your assumption that atheists are only defined by being a group in opposition to theists - people that believe in gods. It seems that you and many think this is always a dipole - like a magnet that requires two opposing forces. It is not.

Some people just have not bought into gods. They have no ownership in a need to believe in gods. It is like walking down a row of shops that have nothing to sell that interests you. We just moved on, let it go. That is why the tooth fairy analogy is valid. When you were young, you may have believed in the tooth fairy for a while. When you grew up you let it go. It is not an issue anymore.

It is not that we don't have faith. Faith means trust, not belief. We trust in many things, even some people. We just don't trust in gods.

D Rodriguez - Thanks for getting back to me.

I forgot to add my name, but those comments from Anonymous are mine. I wasn't trying to be clandestine.

E Favorite-

ALL of Bob's comments were smug and insulting.
"D. Rodriguez: please get a life. Yhis is what i mean. You and most other believers are the emotional ones. You are so defensive because your faith is being challanged. Casper the ghost does exhist--lol. Prove to me he doesn't. to believe in something that can't be proven is illogical. I as an atheist don't have to prove in the non-existence of something there is no absolute proof ever exhisted. You on the otherhand get so emotionally defensive at the mere thought of someone challanging your fictional beliefs. Time for a rea;ity check Rod! I've been there and done what you are now doing. Please do come join us atheists in the new dawning of the age of awakening. Be free and easy and start taking real responsibility yourself for your personal exhistence instead of looking for some crutch to save you from your own inner ego."

I feel these are examples of smugness and border on RUDE!

He calls me "Rod"
He tells me to "get a life"
He says, ,"to believe in something unproven is illogical"
He says, "start taking real responsibility yourself for your personal exhistence instead of looking for some crutch to save you from your own inner ego".

Your post was very polite but the patronizing insinuation that my beliefs are as ridiculous as "fairies" is smug whether you accept that or not.

I don't judge you and perhaps you need to know that I have respect for all people and never ridicule or belittle people's beliefs UNLESS they are beliefs which are hateful, cruel, demeaning or criminal. I abhor fundamentalism of any and all types because fundamentalism is the narrow-minded, short-sighted and extremist view, whether it is political, religious, secular or WHATEVER.

I live my beliefs by example. I never push my beliefs on to others.

D. Rodriguez - I'd like you to point out examples of where I (not Bob or anyone else) was smug and implied that you were "irrational, unintelligent or ridiculous."

If you do, I promise not to challenge what you say. I just want to see how you've come to that conclusion.

Thanks

What?

To be aethist is "anti-belief" like something bad? To be an aetheist goes beyond "rational thinking"?

The author did get one thing right. Jupiter, Minerva and Janus are not Gods but stopped short of the truth - and that is that there is no God. Period.

Any rational thinking person knows that there is no God and that religion (the greatest fairy tale ever) is responsible for most of the horrors that have ever visited themselves upon mankind.

What if a spiritual relationship was a complex coordination of heuristic planes generated by various intellectual centers of the brain? An 'atheist' would be someone who could not generate such coordinated heuristic images within his own brain (that is, a Human brain) and might be exceptionally rare. Adin Steinsaltz' definition of an atheistic 'intellectual rigor and clarity of mind' could mean that the person had to maintain so rigorous a view that he excludes heuristic perception that is 'normal' for Humans and this would reasonably account for the extreme scarcity of atheists as defined even by the PEW "survey". A spiritual existence might be purely individual except for identical twins and the problem with the Spiritual Scriptures such as the Mahayana or Quran is that they are attempting to define a common temporal heuristic experience for many when such contradicts the individual nature of spirituality. The real question might be whether a scientist/philosopher should attempt to define spirituality in terms of space and time at all.

Dennis Rogers wrote: "There is not a shred of evidence that God exists. Neither is there a shred of evidence that God does not exist."

This is a flawed premise. Evidence of a negative is not possible, so your second sentence makes little sense though it is used by many believers. Read Chuck Colson's blog to see how he misused it.

Dennis Rogers wrote: "Therefore, theism or atheism are both based solely on faith."

Theism is based on faith, yes, but atheism is not based on faith anymore than your non-belief in a flying spaghetti monster or leprachans or fairiess is based purely on faith. Did you believe there are no fairies or have you not been shown any evidence of fairies? Do you believe there are no flying saucers or have you not been shown proof of flying saucers. Do you believe there are no mole people or have you not been shown any evidence of mole people?

Dennis Rogers wrote: "And as such, both are equally rational and equally flawed intellectual positions."

No, theism is flawed BECAUSE it is based solely on faith, just as those who believe in flying saucers have a flawed intellectual position. Atheists have not been shown the evidence and so are not convinced of a supernatural existence. That is not a flawed position, it is a sound position based on facts and reason.

Dennis Rogers wrote: "It is like saying I believe chocolate to be the superior ice cream. The key word in the argument is "I"."

No, the key word is "believe". It is a position based on little fact and no proof. But this is a bad analogy since you can prove chocolate ice cream exists.

Dennis Rogers wrote: "Whatever gets you through the night..."

And why do people seem to have problems sleeping without their belief? Might it be the indoctrination they received since childhood of the belief? People don't typically end up believing so they can sleep through the night. They believe because to turn against the indoctrinated belief gives them a restless night's sleep. Consider that christians tend to have christian children, jews have jewish children, muslims have muslim children, etc. Its not genetic, so why is the religion maintained this way instead of children determining their own religion just as they determine their own careers which typically are different from their parents? Show an atheist some shred of proof of God and they might consider God a possibility, but without proof believing in any supernatural being based purely on faith is an intellectually hollow position.

Mr. Steinsaltz is clearly incorrect. He says that "to truly be an atheist requires a good amount of intellectual rigor and clarity of mind." This isn't true. The only thing that sets atheists apart from whatever variety of theist you can think of is that we atheists find the tales told by god-believers to be uncompelling and unconvincing.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no "man-god" relationship to have a different understanding of. God is exactly like Harry Potter; they both exist only in books and in the imagination. They have no reality outside the human brain.

I'm not denying any gods because as far as I'm aware there are none to deny. Nobody has ever shown me otherwise (but that's not for lack of them trying).

I don't know where he gets the idea that to be an atheist one must also be anti-belief. It's true that I, personally, am anti-theist in addition to being atheist, but that's a separate issue. (I find the god concept to be not only unbelievable, but an outright bad idea.)

I think the matter is very simple: If one cannot answer "yes" to the question, "Do you believe in God?," then (whatever else may also be true of you) you are an atheist. Theism requires a specific mental state in order to obtain (positive belief in one or more god)--every other state is atheist. That's all atheism is--a stance regarding the believe/disbelief of a single proposition. When someone says they are an atheist, that's really the only valid inference that can be made without further inquiry of the atheist in question.

What compels me to write my opinion at all is that I cannot silently abide those who wish to define me out of existence. I assure Mr. Steinsaltz that I do, in fact, exist (unlike the god he proposes). I am an atheist and do not believe in the god he believes in--I'm not merely calling it something else, or understanding it in a different way, making us all default believers using different language.

Whatever our similarities as people, we are different in regards to where we stand concerning god belief; he's a theist, I'm an atheist. Why should that be a problem? Why would we need to be the same?

Oh, and by the way, Bob- I DO INDEED HAVE A LIFE. A very rich and full one!!! I am the mother of three and grandchildren and people who love and esteem me. I have a fantastic job and the respect of my associates. I am in a fulfilling and joyous personal relationship, so don't be so smug and ASSUME with such superiority, that I need to get a life.

See what I mean about the bitterness and spitefulness of atheists! I wouldn't tell YOU to "get a life". Perhaps you need to work on your manners or your own personal values and ethics on how you address others. Do onto others...

Looks like anonymous is emotional after all!!! Maybe he is not a true atheist as defined by theists?

Bob Again and E Favorite- Save your smugness for someone who cares. I am completely unemotional and don't care in the slightest that you think I am irrational, unintelligent or ridiculous because I have a spiritual faith and belief. It is like anything else that people differ on. You KNOW that you are right and that I am wrong and I KNOW that you are wrong and I am right. Your impression of me does not give me even a moment's concern. I have my own personal reasons for the faith I have and obviously you have your reason for your belief or lack thereof.

Have a good day and remember, keep your opinions to yourself. I will do the same. I am not trying to change your mind, don't ridicule my belief system and try to change mine.

How can you expect people NOT to identify with atheism when many of the established religions have taken great pains in pointing out who does NOT belong to their group: Catholic priests refusing to provide the sacraments to Demorats who support abortion, James Dosbson saying that Obama is distorting the Scriptures and is not a "true" Christian etc. The question shouldn't have read "Do you believe in God?" but instead "Do you believe in organized religion?" to which I would have answered a loud and confident NO.

What the Romans called jews is really not important. The current definition of atheist is a non belief in a supernatural being. It literally means non-theism.

But to clarify what it means, it means both the rabbi and an atheist do not believe in Ganesha, the Hindu god. When it comes to Ganesha, the rabbi and an atheist completely agree. That agreement also covers other gods from around the world. Only in the case of the Hebrew God do the atheist and the rabbi disagree.

But the rabbi goes further in this article to say that the Romans and jews were very much alike. Both were believers in a higher power, just not the same one, so neither were atheists and so he would not call a Hindu an atheist. He seems to be saying that it is proof that man innately understands a higher power exists and this has manifested itself in the many religions. But theism is not something that is innate. Religions expend a lot of work and a lot of money to maintain the faith. Consider how much money is spent to get you to eat each day, have sex, breathe, or drink water. These things are innate that humans need little encouragement to do. Religion requires hellfire, paradise, and other incentives as well as repetative indoctrination and a lot of money and workers to maintain it. It is far from something that is natural in man and is more like a department store telling you what you need in life.

As for this poll, I think its confusion is clear. Thanks to misinformation from christians, mostly evangelicals, atheism in this country has come to mean not just "no belief", but a stand against belief, a hatred of religion and those that believe. This notion has been used by some to demonize atheists as not just people who do not believe in their God, but people who hate them because of their belief. This confusion was summed up in another blog where someone noted a daughter who told her mother she no longer believed in God and was an atheist. The mother said something to the effect "I can understand you questioning God's existence, but an atheist!?" I believe if the poll were conducted with clear terms, like belief and non-belief instead of belief and atheism, a clearer picture would occur. Never underestimate the ignorance of the American public.

What I read here is the fairly common form of denial and control
in which one person affirms the correctness of one's own beliefs
by deminishing or "explaining" the beliefs of another and that is precisely what the good Rabbi is doing here when he suggests that atheism is anti-belief, ergo, not to be taken seriously and certainly not up to the standards of what he might call "proper" belief; that is to say, his belief. The Rabbi quickly shows his colors and his intent when he opens his comments with the suggestion that those claiming, in the Pew study, to be atheist are either ignorant or liars or both.
It's been a while since I've read gibberish of this calibre but
it is in perfect harmony with the smug and arrogant conceit of
believers who like to elbow their way into other's belief systems and pee on the rug.

Non of the Sumerian religions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam... - are monotheistic. There are two chief gods, El and Yahweh, a devil, angels, demons etc. and the relevant commandment just says I am No. 1, not there are no others.

Admitting to being an atheist in the US is still dangerous so I suspect there are far more than showed up in the Pew survey.

Perhaps some atheists pray because they find the repetition of meaningless phrases relaxing.

A great majority of people adhere to at least some principles without any physical or purely deductive basis: fair exchange of goods and services, or just plain enlightened self-interest. Most also believe in decency and respect. Many believe, too, in more general principles of justice and liberty. However, there is only one principle with near universal recognition: fear of pain and punishment. Belief in a deity, no matter how envisioned, is enough to enforce that fear among many. However, even atheists have enough fear of lawsuit, jail, or loss of money to avoid evil deeds. Most crime is probably committed by people with no formal atheism whatever, but possibly steered by highly elaborate beliefs in things invisible.

Dennis Rogers - would you also say that there's not a shred of evidence that Caspar the friendly ghost does not exist? a flying teapot? Zeus Does this put Caspar and the teapot and Zeus on a par with the god that the rabbi thinks exists?

There is not a shred of evidence that God exists. Neither is there a shred of evidence that God does not exist. Therefore, theism or atheism are both based solely on faith. And as such, both are equally rational and equally flawed intellectual positions.

It is like saying I believe chocolate to be the superior ice cream. The key word in the argument is "I".

Whatever gets you through the night...

D. Rodriguez , I’m glad your reading the comments here. Maybe with some reflection you will consider that it’s not childish or insecure to point out a major similarity between your god and Caspar (both invisible).

Please consider also that the reason it comes across as ridicule is because such beliefs have been given an undue amount of respect up to now. Would it be disrespectful for you to roll your eyes if an otherwise rationale person said he was sure that fairies who lived in his backyard were responsible for his flourishing garden? Or that a ghost who lived in his basement kept the house safe from burglars – the proof being that the house had never been broken into?

I realize that religions differ from the examples above in that religions are ancient, ingrained and taught and accepted by respected and educated people. But like the above examples, they are based on invisible supernatural beings for which there is no evidence. That’s a pretty important similarity.

D. Rodriguez: please get a life. Yhis is what i mean. You and most other believers are the emotional ones. You are so defensive because your faith is being challanged. Casper the ghost does exhist--lol. Prove to me he doesn't. to believe in something that can't be proven is illogical. I as an atheist don't have to prove in the non-existence of something there is no absolute proof ever exhisted. You on the otherhand get so emotionally defensive at the mere thought of someone challanging your fictional beliefs. Time for a rea;ity check Rod! I've been there and done what you are now doing. Please do come join us atheists in the new dawning of the age of awakening. Be free and easy and start taking real responsibility yourself for your personal exhistence instead of looking for some crutch to save you from your own inner ego.

Certainly there is a distinction between those who do not believe there is a god, and those who believe there is no god. It seems to me that Rabbi Steinsaltz' definition of atheism seems like the latter. Perhaps many of those who define themselves as atheists are closer to the former. Honest non-belief does not require either irrationality or social rationalization.

What utter drivel.

If people actually answered these polls with what they BELIEVE rather than what they PROFESS to believe ten the amount of believers would be almost nil.

There is no god and you know it. Stop pretending.

Hey, if you don't want to believe, that is your choice BUT WHY do atheists INSIST on ridiculing and belittling the religious beliefs of others? You say things like "Caspar the ghost" and compare faith in God to the tooth fairy and worse. Just let it be, people.

If you want to live in your non-believing world, Rock On. Just lay off the bitter comments. Geez, if you are so blissfully happy in your non-belief, why do you have to tear down the beliefs of those who do have faith. Come on, it is very childish and shows a GREAT deal of insecurity.

D Rodriguez – Did you read any of the other posters’ responses? If you had, you might not feel so sorry for atheists and instead consider that they are not ridiculing your beliefs when they say there’s no evidence for your god, but simply pointing out the obvious.

Robert Randolph - you’re quite right – neither religion nor atheism can be proven, but given the incredible lack of evidence, atheism looks more likely, don’t you think? And aren’t you an atheist when it comes to gods other than your own? Do you bother to prove there’s no Zeus or thor or Mithras?

Vic – I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. are you being sarcastic?

i find that the true god believer is in total denile of reality and is looking for some crutch to explain his existence and hope for some fictional help to save himself from his daily problems that he feels he has no control over or doesn't want to deal with in a reality earthy way. I have also found that out of the highest educated people, scientists, etc., that most tend to see reality the clearest and therefore are atheists. Those who feel the need to believe in the illogical existence of a god would be no different then believing in casper the ghost, etc. To believe in god you got to believe in the illogical as there is no logic basis for the existence of a god. As for me, i can't say i am emotional about this as i don't feel the need to be about something i totally believe is not sane reality--"a belief in a god. I used to be christian--roman catholic and later eastern orthodox until my mid 20s. Then, i had a new awakening in logic and reality. I was suddenly willing to question beliefs that were basically brainwashed into me as a child being forced to attend mass and being raised in a catholic orphanage for 5 years. It was like my mind suddenly became cleansed and purified by truth, logic and reality. I felt gradually totally freed from the cell that confined my total existence to faith and god. I was finally released into total creative freedom. To see all human beings as total equals, no one better then the other. I heard this joke once about religion and unfortunately for the believers it is totally true. Every religion pretty much says that if you don't believe in that specific religion you are bound for hell, which means all of you who are religious are bound for your hell, because unfortunately for you there is more then one religion. But for me, wow what it is to be totally free.

Per the Webster's definition below, an atheist does not have to deny the existence of god. While that is one definition, the other is much less "active", it's simply disbelief, not denial. Recently, at a Catholic wedding standing with 4 couples, I was surprised to find that 5 of the 8 of us did not believe in god. 3 of the couples were split. The number it would seem to me is actually higher than reported. There is a huge group who intellectually are there, but can't quite shake the dogma that they learned as children.

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]

AMEN! Well said. I agree 100%. Isn't it "so cool" to say one is an atheist. NOT! I always just shrug my shoulders and feel sorry for that person. AND, most atheists I have ever encountered are as bad as any fundamentalist religious person in their extreme and insulting demeanor. FINE, be an atheist, but don't insult or ridicule MY beliefs.

It's a curious arguement that atheists are non believers.

What does it mean to 'beleive'? esp in the religious realm.

It seems to me that faith (unprovable belief) is an element of all our knowledge. The difference between scientific belief and releigous belief is the degree to which one is willing to modify belief.

What we believe can be plotted along a line. At one end is Faith. At the other is Reason. And this is important: Niether is intirely absent of the other.

In this view, Atheism requires as much faith as many very dogmatic religions. Niether religion or atheism can be proven

Sorry Rabbi, but your atheist opponents have embarrassed you on this one. After all, the benefits of Atheism as a belief system were shown definitively in the twentieth century. Hitler, Stalin, Mao - together responsible for some 100 million deaths within about 40 years - put to shame religious violence, demonstrating each in his own way the moral progress that "scientific" thinking (ok, what if it was a tad bit distorted?) must inevitably bring.

As an atheist philosopher once remarked: "Man is descended from the apes, so we must all love one another" Don't you see how the latter conclusion clearly follows from the former fact?

I actually think there are a lot more Atheists than anyone realizes, because it is a little scary being around Christians, Muslims and other fundamentalist religious people who strongly disapprove of Agnostics and Atheists. You can imagine a woman for president and an African American for president and an older man, but few can imaagine having an Atheist or Agnostic for president in today's religious climate.

Yonkers, New York
09 July 2008

Adin Steinsaltz here proves that he has a way with words.

But when he asserts that "true" atheists are "anti-belief," he misses the point, or is wrong completely.

True atheists are not "anti-belief." They clearly "believe" that there is no "God" as that word is understood by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, or Hindus.

Atheists also believe in the supremacy of reason which is based on empirical evidence, over religious "faith" which is based on emotion or intuition.

There is therefore no way of reconciling reason with faith. One must necessarily exclude the other.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

A Jew should know what it feels like to be defined by someone else. Not good, and it often implies a lot of misunderstandings and misinterpretations. As a atheist, I don't particularly appreciate being define by religious people, be they Jews, Christian, Muslim or of some other faith.

You write "one may observe, rationally, that he doesn’t see or perceive a certain thing, but to deny its existence, at any level of vehemence, goes beyond rational thinking and into the realm of an emotional – sometimes very emotional – anti-belief."

This is a strange thing to write for a person representing a group who, without any shred of evidence except for what someone once wrote in a book, can believe there is a God out there. There is no need for any level vehemence to be an atheist.

The point a departure, or the point of rest and equilibrium, if you like, must be the reality that we haven't actually seen a God. Ever. So, in order to believe, it takes a large portion of emotions and a large portion of willingness to deny what common sense is telling you. Sometimes, all it takes is the lust for power, since many religious institutions have aggressively gathered a lot of power over other people for themselves.

God (like the one described in the bible)does not exist it's as simple as that.

Atheism is straight forward.
It's not hard.
It's not a impossible concept.
It's simply the cold hard truth that believers are afraid to face.

Believing is simply wishful thinking. And even if at times I may engage in this wishful thinking, deep in my heart I always know it's just that.

mr Steinsaltz claims that most people try to be atheists while actually they believe in a god. In my experience it's the other way around, people try to believe in a god while actually they know it isn't true.

Albert Richie

The business of being an atheist seems so simple to me, having been one since my Bar Mitzvah. It just involves a system of belief about the universe and life itself that does not entertain any notion of a deity, "higher power" (I don't consider human and other forms of life to be particularly "low") or any other form of supernatural existence. I respect other people's religious beliefs. I just do not share them and would ask them only to respect my view of life. What is so complicated about that? But nothing, dear Mr Steinsalz, simple-minded about it either, and certainly not aimed at shocking my old grandmother - as she told me when giving me my fountain-pen (those were the days before the Rolex), she agreed with me.

How does it 'go beyond rational thinking' to simply not accept the proposed existence of a non-observable entity? Mr. Steinsaltz should consider Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy. It seems to me most direct and logical to say that religion consists of superstition and made-up stories. It's fiction. This isn't an appeal to emotion on my part; it's common sense. Humans are great story tellers; we excel at inventing magical, mystical creatures and scenarios. It seems perfectly natural that the best of these stories would, over time, become enshrined as sacred truths within a given culture. In fact, this process happens in nearly every culture; and each culture comes up with a different magical story (or stories). In particular, when considering the mutually contradictive variety of magical, superstitious, and religious beliefs among the various peoples around the globe and throughout history, it seems clearly most rational (and least emotionally charged) to hold the rather dry view that religious beliefs, while anthropologically quite interesting, are never true.

may i say about atheism that i had met in this land after 1980?

atheism is "being earth, being body, and from this earth may be another vase for water or flower",

this is from persian asian literature, shaped with "sourceless" random "evolution" and "communism" without "rules".

and today i have presented the "rules" and "source" in History.

Everyone is an atheist. Christians are atheistic to the god of Islam, Jews are atheistic to the god of the Christians, etc.

"Atheists" in the Pew survey just go one god further.

Rabbi Steinsaltz makes a very good point when he points to the emotional element in convinced and crusading public atheists. These people are not indifferent , but rather filled with hatred at the idea of God. The reason for this is often their sense of the cruelty and abuse perpetrated in the name of Religion. The rise of radical Islam with its monstrous acts of cruelty against innocents is a major stimulus in the rise of the New Atheism.But also on the purely intellectual level the worldwide increase in Religious Fundamentalism has spurred an extreme reaction in the opposite direction.
In any case Radical Atheists pretend to know for certain what no one can know for certain. And most often they do this with the bitterness and anger of most real prejudice.

I always feel that it is instructive to describe any argument in its starkest terms. In this case Rabbi Steinsaltz has made a simple proposition: the cohort of atheists consists of a small number of rigorist intellectuals and a large number of emotional posers. The rabbi doesn’t rely on poll data; I presume that he didn’t commission a survey. So the source of the rabbi’s information is his own mind, augmented by sketchy observations.

Well, seat-of-the-pants conjectures are not always wrong. Certainly, in a society immersed in religion, choosing true atheism requires deep consideration. But I can’t figure out what the rabbi’s rationale is for distribution between posers and true believers (?). I don’t see any logical presumption in his favor, not that I am surprised. Religion seems to be a topic where the lack of data is no impediment to issuing an opinion.

The "Jocktanian" poster's posts remind me of the stuff that's written on bottles of Dr. Bronner's soaps.

This is pretty silly. The Rabbi seems worried that there may be more of us than he would like to believe-- so he redefines his terms to lower the level of "atheism" (while busily re-interpreting the new "non-atheists" in terms that he finds more acceptable). This is patronizing, at best, and downright insulting at worst. I have no idea where he would categorize me, but I know where I categorize myself-- by the ordinary understanding of these terms, I'm an atheist. That is (unlike the ancient Israelites, who believed in a single, non-Roman God) I believe in no God at all. As for 'higher powers', well, I do find the way that language gets tortured in this neighbourhood mildly amusing, but if what the Rabbi means by this is some universe-governing intelligence, I've already answered the question: I believe in no God at all. This is a non-belief, a simple disbelief, not some strange mirror image of religious belief. I don't believe in any God in the same way I don't believe in invisible rabbits. Is that clear enough?

As is the case for everyone that declares identification with any philosophical valence, those who declare themselves to be atheists do so for a variety of reasons. To declare absolute certainty about either the existence or non-existence of "the divine" requires a certain degree of arrogance or narrow-mindedness or need for self-definition. Intellectual integrity requires that one have the courage to stand in the presence of the unknowable and the ineffable, and accept the existence of mystery. Perhaps this is the reason that, in many traditions, the true name of "the divine" is not to be uttered. The range of our vision is defined by what we know we cannot see.

How can one prove something to be there or not to be there that is ultimately divine and requires faith. You are correct, Rabbi, in defining atheism as a belief structure of its own. I will remember your comparison to anti-matter, as it is the best description I have heard yet of atheism. I do believe, though, there are many doubters and people who, myself included, have never experienced the divine in a way to inspire full faith to a particular doctrine or even an internal sense of spirituality. This may be what the so called atheists are referring to.

It is unfortunate that so many people clearly feel compelled to reject the broad, culturally perceived notion of "God" by labeling themselves atheist when they know very little about atheism in and of itself. I suspect that this desire to disconnect from a diety (specifically a "One True" diety) is due in large part to the very vocal minority of incredibly indoctrined individuals that seem to be ubiquitous in the lives of so many who have been exposed to monotheistic faiths.It is often the hard-liners that lead to misperceptions of any faith; nevertheless, it is also those same hardliners who get the most press (the squeaky wheel gets the headline). As one who has rejected the "God" of his spoon-fed religion of youth, I can relate. Though I identify now a spiritualist (the whole intangible life-force thing) I think that praying to that force is absurd. If your religion/belief system is one that encourages good will and harmony towards others on a personal level, then "god" bless. Otherwise, it is the spread of hate, xenophobia, ethnocentrism and faux piety that is so often associated with organized theistic religions that poisions the attitudes of others--this blog-posting field being no exception. No wonder so many people would reject it.

While his definition of atheism is debatable, the rabbi is right for his bewilderment with the "survey's" findings that so many self-identifying atheists pray. Taking the notion of prayer as a communication/plea to a 'higher power', this report is incredible! As Fieldenstern accurately described, if you are 'A'theist ('without' a religion/god) than you have no 'god' to whom you would pray. A crude definition, maybe, but if you pray to any higher power that cannot be rationally proven to exist, you are not an atheist.

Well put. Did manage to turn into a self righteous prig at the conclusion. I think you had better talk to your grandmother and take a pass on this anti-matter stuff.

I'm interested in the doesn't matter.

the writer doesn't understand the word. a- before the greek root does not mean anti. it can, but can also mean non-. as an atheist, i san safely say that all the atheists i know are not anti-belief, they are anti-proselytizing, anti-getting it shoved down our throats by oaths, governments, schools and all the other places where it does not belong. shut up and keep your beliefs to yourselves and leave us alone. that's what we believe.

I eventually stopped believing in the god I was brought up with (which somehow or another was 3 gods in one). I have not investigated other world religions like I did my own, which I eventually concluded to be cobbled together, barely coherent, inconsistent-from-one-account-to-another tripe featuring a man in Jesus I came to suspect never even existed. A look at the Old Testament is no more edifying.

Half baked catho atheist also wrote:
Rationalism is the death of art. I would claim that it is the death of science as well.
Certainly, I have had first hand experience with people in science clinging irrationally to pet theories long past the time it was seemly to do so. Conversely, particular directions of investigation are often guided by a hunch that ends up turning up unexpected surprises.

I agree that art requires our emotions. DA Vinci's beliefs were not exactly that of Pat Robertson's and his art was not void of the inherent emotional component of human nature. Science has also had relevant discoveries done on a hunch. That does not in any way translates into declaring the existence of god or supernatural beings as de facto. The hunch has to be followed by rigorous science in the form of replicable results in order to be accepted as factual. The emotion in a painter is followed by the technique utilized in applying the brush and paint. We cannot divorce ourselves from our emotions but we can reasonably and most reliably explain life and the world only through scientific examination. Everything else falls entirely on the realm of myth and superstition.

There is no such thing as "true" or "pure" atheism, the reasons why someone believes in God or not are highly personal and diverse. Atheists are just like anyone else, which is to say they are all different. There is a broad range of people who do not believe what the major religions preach. Some call themselves atheists. Some call themselves agnostics. Some call themselves free thinkers. There is no requirement to engage in rigorous mental gymnastics to purge all doubts about the non-existence of God from our minds to use the term "atheist" (despite the wishes of some theists to pigeon-hole us). Whatever term one chooses to describe their own personal non-beliefs does not alter them or their reasons for (not)having them.

Perhaps the reason why some atheists become emotional about their (non)beliefs is that we are pretty much the only (non)religious group which all the major religions seem to agree that it is OK to bash without provocation. There is a lot of misunderstanding of atheists by theists, and many theists assume that all atheists are immoral. While some who describe themselves as atheists may do so because they enjoy the idea of "shocking their grandmother", odds are most people reading this know people who don't believe in God but just don't talk about it for that very reason. Frankly I fail to see why anyone would assume the Pew Survey numbers are accurate given that many atheists probably wouldn't want to volunteer any personal information to a religious organization.

So, does Rabbi Steinsaltz deny the existence of Jupiter, Minerva, and Janus. If so, why is he being so emotional? I've heard the rebbe's ridiculous argument before in many guises. Refusing to believe that something exists when there is no evidence to support its existence is the opposite of emotional.

Half baked Catho atheist wrote"
I subscribe to Rabbi Steinsaltz's idea that non-believers or even agnostics will sometimes choose to call themselves atheists out of simple shock appeal. Certainly this has been used on more than one occasion to rouse up the ire in a particularly self-righteous, religious family member. The remnant Catholic in me however sees the meanness and dare I say, sin, in such incitement so I just can't bring myself to do it on a regular basis.

Having lived in a Baptist religious environment I could probably use the atheist label as shock treatment for my parents. I suspect though that most atheists do not choose to do so because of the irrational, emotional reaction that such confession will provoke. In fact, I suspect most atheists dwell in the shadows never telling friends and relatives about their convictions for fear of being declared an outcast. Therefore to claim that we go around declaring our beliefs like any pious religious person does on any given Sunday is quite an exaggeration.

Here's something to chew on: your vehemence that there is no Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or Thor is identical to my atheist inclusion of Yahweh, God, Allah, and the resurrected Jesus in this list. In the end, my belief system is left only with forces that can be explained by natural processes open to examination by Science. Science is an open-ended process, unlike religion. Religion takes a set of assumptions and tries to view the world in a way that conforms to these. Science takes the way the world is and tries to conform its assumptions to those. Science progresses and builds on earlier discoveries, yielding greater and greater progress. In religion there is no progress, only stagnation.

Does this argument make the Flying Spaghetti Monster more or less probable?

To say Atheism is built on emotion is preposterous, do people of any religion look upon other beliefs with a "who know, maybe they're right" attitude as well? Placing faith in the belief that the universe is controlled by a Big Daddy of human form seems to qualify as the ultimate emotional construct.

Your ability to create definitions that explain what YOU want to believe is impressive, but fallacious.

I grew up in a very anti-intellectual (a verifiable term) environment. I was "saved" at the age of 10. As an adult, I don't believe in a higher power, and my belief comes from the most rational part of my thinking. I've made decisions emotionally, so I know the difference. Just because my belief that there is no "higher power", much less a god, differs from yours does not make me wrong.

As the years wear on I find that the vehemence with which I once approached faith is fast disappearing. Why should anyone expend any mental or verbal effort to dismiss another's "apparently" irrational approach to life? Such behavior makes for disagreeable conversation and always casts the self-professed rationalist in a somewhat pathetic light.

In my experience, those with the most adamant anti-religious positions are either reared in oppressively religious households or have had no first-hand experience with religion. They are behaving no better than the religious fanatics who accept their faith solely on the basis of political or social convenience. It is my strong conviction that their is no God, and it is this belief that allows me accept the theistic views of others. I can always respect a point of view if it is based in a well introspected philosophy.

More to the point; I would not want to envisage a world without the beautifully "irrational" beliefs and rituals of humans - as quaint as they might seem to a religious outsider as myself. Our most cherished cultural achievements were created by people who were moved in a religious or irrational way; that is to say, they viewed the world in a way that is not completely deterministic. I put forward the music of Olivier Messiaen, Arvo Part and John Tavener as a fine examples of the juncture between spiritualism and art.

Rationalism is the death of art. I would claim that it is the death of science as well.
Certainly, I have had first hand experience with people in science clinging irrationally to pet theories long past the time it was seemly to do so. Conversely, particular directions of investigation are often guided by a hunch that ends up turning up unexpected surprises.

Getting back on topic though, I think that what atheists find particularly irritating about studies such as the Pew Survey is that all non-believers get thrown into the same "atheist" bin. Christians at least have the dignity of being lumped into grossly defined denominations. Atheists just get stuck with that old label that congers up visions of the multitude of eternally damned unbelievers and hoards of heretics burned at the stake throughout the centuries. It term atheist has unfortunately come to be synonymous with amoral in the public eye.

I subscribe to Rabbi Steinsaltz's idea that non-believers or even agnostics will sometimes choose to call themselves atheists out of simple shock appeal. Certainly this has been used on more than one occasion to rouse up the ire in a particularly self-righteous, religious family member. The remnant Catholic in me however sees the meanness and dare I say, sin, in such incitement so I just can't bring myself to do it on a regular basis.

"when people claim to be atheists, they are not denying the existence of a higher power, but rather they are merely expressing their ideas in a different language or speaking from a different point of view"

"to define themselves as atheists can likely be attributed to a desire to belong to certain social milieus"
I think you could say that of the group of people who claimed to be atheists but who believe in praying. But a true atheist simply does not believe in any deity or supernatural beings. We don't see that there is any reason to believe in an afterlife. We believe in proof and scientific evidence. We believe that nature itself holds explanations for all occurrences within it. We know that the eyes can be deceived by preconceived ideas and that the scientific method offers the most reliable and reasonable way to offer explanations. A true atheist explains the belief in an afterlife as a psychological palliative to make our passing less painful and in part as our well documented human desire to be superior to animals and other forms of life. There is not a single emotional component in any of these true atheists beliefs. On the contrary, we know by experience that emotion can cloud our perception of the truth. Moreover, the only path to finding the truths about our humanity is through objectivity, trial and error and replicable results. The only function that our emotions should have in this process of discovery, and understanding is that of sparking our curiosity in finding the truth. On the other hand, Religion and faith are by definition emotion based beliefs. The Rabbi has his own wishful thinking. He wishes that there was not a single true atheist left in the planet so that he could justify by way of majority rules the minority, his belief in a God.

I see very frequently the assertion that actual atheism, as stated, 'goes beyond any rational thinking'. It's apparently common opinion that a quiet, inoffensive agnosticism is the only position taken by truly rational non-believers.

However, no one accuses people who deny the existence of Bigfoot of being irrationally fervent in their denial, elsewise surely they would accept the vague possibility and take an agnostic position.

There can certainly be an emotional aspect to atheism. However, it is not the defining trait of 'true' atheism. The majority of non-believers are simply not compelled by the arguments for a deity, rather than being compelled against belief by emotion.

The good rabbi seems to try to explain away that which he does not wish to accept, and defines atheism in a manner to fit his (pre?)conceptions.

His definition is narrow. In addition to his anti-belief grounded in intellectual and emotional argument, there is simply non-belief. One need not have rigorous intellectual analysis or vehement emotional argument to be a non-believer. I simply find that any form of theism requires me to set aside virtually every rational and sensory avenue by which I experience and understand life to accept a supra-rational construct for which not a shred of evidence exists in my life. I am not at all against belief. I feel that one has it, or does not. I am against viciousness, cruelty, oppression and all the other misbehaviors that bring such grief to people, and such evils are waged more often by those who profess belief than those that do not, simply because there are so many more more believers. But I fail to see any significant cause and effect between religious faith and good conduct.

Belief and non-belief are useless as predictors of human behavior and our lives are peopled with those whose religious beliefs give rise to both principled and unprincipled conduct as well as their opposites.

People are what they do, not what they profess to believe (or not believe). Whether their inspiration comes from the Torah, the New Testmanent, the Quran, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius or simply following the example of moral people in their own lives I care not. It is enough that they show compassion, or courage, or kindness, or justice when called upon to do so.

Intellectual and emotional debate about belief and non-belief (or theism, atheism and nontheism) is a waste of time that would be better spent in constructive actions that better the lives of people around us.

Steinsaltz is absolutely right in true atheism requiring clarity of mind. The emotional aspect is, I think, misconstrued. Rational thinking cannot justify belief in any deity, if by rationality one means chains of argument that do not lead to contradictions. I'm an atheist and a physicist and it pains me to see terms like anti-matter bandied about without any understanding of what anti-matter is. Anti-matter is not matter rearranged. The existence of anti-matter is a rational mathematical theorem following from a set of mathematical assumptions. If the assumptions are not realized in nature (this is where mathematics meets physics), the necessity of anti-matter will vanish. This is all rational thinking. So can Steinsaltz give a more coherent statement of why `emotion' is involved in atheism? You don't need to replace a deity with a passionate disbelief in a deity, it suffices to open your eyes and realize that nothing in the universe depends on a passionate belief in deities or anti-deities. There is no religion/deity system that does not require a suspension of disbelief at some point. Personally, I like to think of pediatric hospitals and wonder if these exalted scholars of god have ever had a chance to witness the true suffering of innocents.

>true atheism has two essential components: a rather
>rigorous intellectual way of thinking, and an
>element of emotion.

So your strategy is to broaden the definition of theist and narrow the definition of atheist? Did you take you cue from last year's Republican radio ad that claim Martin Luther King would have been a Republican?

Face it: An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in fairy tales. Just because Christian and Muslim fairy tales are derived from Jewish ones doesn't bolster the legitimacy of any of them. History is full of gods who were discarded when something better came along.

Or do any Zeus worshipers want to chime in?

Huh?

"To truly be an atheist requires a good amount of intellectual rigor and clarity of mind."

No, it just requires not believing in God. I don't believe in God, I don't believe in Zeus, and I don't believe I have $1,000,000 buried in the back yard. It might be nice if these things existed but I just plain don't think they do. I don't see how it betokens any special qualities to not think this.

Positions like only serve to bring dishonor to their advocates in the profound depth of their dishonesty. I defy the advocates of organized religion, especially dualist religion, to lay sole claim to the word "faith" in which no theistic concept appears whatsoever. One can have plenty of faith in existence without inventing the additional overlay of "creation". One can see an inter connected universe bigger than can be fully comprehended by our meager minds, without inventing spirits, spooks, and gods. The true mystic sees and experiences the world for what it is, not through the prism of a theoretical document transmitted through generations of self serving editors. One can be in awe, but why must the theists think only their vote counts?

Tripe. Pure tripe. You really believe that there is a hippie looking white guy who lives outside time and space, up in the sky, whom is responsible for all of our successes and all of our failures, whom could reveal himself( or herself?) but chooses not to, so that he/she can either reward us at the end of our lives by letting us into a cloudy utopia where we can visit our departed relatives or punish us by casting us into a fiery pit of despair? How about Judgement Day? Is our day of repentance near? What an utter joke. The ridiculousness of the tenets of christianity and nearly non-existent commonality of behavior by those whom profess it are proof enough for me that God is an incredible myth put forth by those without answers seeking to placate the weak of mind and character.

What a joke. The barriers to entrance of being a christian are nonexistant. A serial killer on Death row claims to have become a christian and is forgiven, regardless that he killed 30 people. And how about Everybody whom claims to be a Christian whom's family were murdered by said killer? Since God governs all and "has a plan" how can you justify being angered or vengeful? For that matter why is the guy on death row, since god is responsible for all and is infallible? The President sends our soldiers to kill and be killed and his devotion to christianity is never questioned. Apparently both the president, whom is revered by the Good people and whom's orders cause the death of thousands, and the serial killer, who is reviled by the people, for the death of 20, are equal in gods eyes, and on par with Mother Teresa.

On the other side of the coin, why is it everyone in their everyday lives uses rational thought and the scientific method and analysis for almost every decision? All these so called christians whom apparently don't accept that Evolution occurs, don't seem to mind using the fruits of our scientific efforts, using modern medicine to cure their aliments, rather than relying on their precious god. Buckling their seatbeats and going the speedlimit, not because god says so, but because experts and statisticians say so. Why does everybody plan and hypothesize their compute times based on previous experiences and observations, instead of waiting for the divine word of god instruct them?

Because they know from experience that god isn't gonna help them and that not relying on modern medicine, expert advice, and personal experience isn't an option. Not only do they know that god isn't involved in these daily rituals, but they would probably argue in most circumstances that god isn't involved in any of the minutia of life. Were I to steal, rob, murder, speed, do drugs, drink and drive, or do anything for that matter that is viewed is "bad" and then claim that I did so because god told me too, these so-called christians would label me crazy.

Religion is a crutch for the weak to justify a narrowminded existence, used to enforce strict adherence to some arbitrary set of norms by the wicked.

Just as the author of this worthless article does, I think that most of the people who claim to be christians really aren't christians, because their behaviors aren't inline with the teachings of christ, they've just been told since birth that they are Christians, and that were they really to examine their faiths they would find God neither necessary or possible.

Right on, Mike Cooper: “If Mr. Steinsaltz truly had courage behind his convictions, he would have tried to refute a Atheist's portrait of Atheism, rather than his own.”

Clergy are used to making pronouncements in the company of believers or in circumstances where they are unlikely to be challenged. I think we do them a great service to let them know how they come across to the actual group they are pronouncing upon.

Nic Brady – Yes, the desire for things to make sense often got in the way of the religious beliefs I’d learned as a child. I responded by not thinking about religion very much. I suspect that’s not an uncommon response.

I also agree with your comment on the Jacoby thread (too clunky to post there now): “I see religion being marginalized eventually, as science goes on its logical way of figuring things out, and discovering new paradigms of knowledge and perception, making religion look increasingly absurd and irrelevant.”

It’s happening. Many people who still have religious beliefs are also very scientifically oriented. They’d never trade prayer for science. The growing number of religiously unaffiliated people means more and more religiously unaffiliated children. Also, the more educated people become the less religious they are and everyone’s in favor of higher education, right? I’ve seen no movements to decrease educational attainment in order to preserve religious beliefs. Plus people like us speaking out will make a difference.

This guy's the cream of the crop of Jewish theology? Oy vey.

Re: Ted's post

I, too, wonder what is wrong with emotion, either among atheists or among believers.

I believe just the opposite is true - that most people that say they believe in religion and god, don't really, when they are questioned to some degree. This is because when they hear themselves describe why they do believe, they realize that they have to abandon reason and going into a state of mind that where they are not comfortable. Most people say they believe in god because of fear of the unknown as well as not wanting to be different.

This article appears to classify atheists as either stupid or childish - the author feels no sane person could deny the existence of a higher power, and therefore, there can not be many of them. Semantics must be the cause, the author says.

I suspect that there are few people who "intellectually" believe in god.

Mr. Steinsaltz:

"As for the emotional element of atheism – one may observe, rationally, that he doesn’t see or perceive a certain thing, but to deny its existence, at any level of vehemence, goes beyond rational thinking and into the realm of an emotional – sometimes very emotional – anti-belief."

By "a certain thing" you mean any particular thing, right? So:

"one may observe, rationally, that he doesn’t see or perceive Harvey the Rabbit, but to deny its existence, at any level of vehemence, goes beyond rational thinking"

"one may observe, rationally, that he doesn’t see or perceive a Martian invasion, but to deny its existence, at any level of vehemence, goes beyond rational thinking"

"one may observe, rationally, that he doesn’t see or perceive an all-powerful overlord", but to deny its existence, at any level of vehemence, goes beyond rational thinking"

So what exactly do you consider "rational thinking"? I thought it was the ability to use logic and evidence as a means of discriminating between truth and nonsense. You claim it's the complete opposite!

Rabbi, your insight into the issue is different and appreciated. While one would expect a real atheist to adhere to a rigorous intellectual way of thinking the emotional component you identify is not so obvious. Many if not most atheist consider themselves to be logical not emotional. They imagine that the believer is an emotional, illogical person.

The atheist makes fun of the believer as if he is an emotional basket case believing in fairy tales, or afraid of hell or thinking there are winged creators, etc. Yet what is at issue is not these things but the possibility of something existing - the existence of God. This is no joking matter and frankly not something to be illogical or emotional about. This is serious business.

It never really occurred to me until reading your post that those who deny God's existence, at any level of vehemence, go beyond rational thinking and into the realm of an emotional – sometimes very emotional. However, it makes tremendous sense. Accordingly, many atheists are really the emotional, irrational group that they accuse others of being. Interesting, ... perhaps your analysis points to the truth in Psalms 14:1 - "the fool says in his heart that there is no God."

EXAMINING THE LINKS BETWEEN JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

If the Bible is the greatest story ever told, the tale of the Dead Sea Scrolls runs a close second.

Laced with intrigue, it illuminates Judeo-Christian tradition and offers fascinating insights into the faith, fears and daily activities of people living under Roman rule at the dawn of the Common Era (C.E.).

As the oldest known translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament to Christians), the Dead Sea Scrolls predate other existing copies by 1,000 years. The uniform rows of Hebrew and Aramaic letters are a physical link to the original biblical texts that have never been found and may no longer exist. Many scroll passages from Psalms, Isaiah and Deuteronomy are surprisingly close in wording to modern versions of the Bible and the Torah.

But who wrote these ancient texts and why they were hidden in caves overlooking the Dead Sea are questions that continue to divide biblical scholars.

Since the discovery of the first scroll fragments by Bedouin goat herders in the late 1940s, researchers from around the world have studied this vast collection of religious and secular texts. Many, though not all, believe the scrolls were composed by a religious group that rejected mainstream Judaism and left Jerusalem to live at Qumran, the site closest to where the scrolls were discovered.

Evidence for this theory rests in scientific tests on the soil composition of the clay scroll jars. The tests proved that most of the jars were made locally in Qumran and four other nearby sites. With further testing, researchers are hoping to match DNA from the goat-skin scrolls to the bones of goats buried near Qumran.

The community of the scrolls

Biblical scholars know several things about the authors of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, according to SDSU’s Levitt Kohn. These scribes believed that the biblical texts they were transcribing contained hidden messages and secrets about their future, secrets only the righteous – like themselves – could decipher.

FYI- THESE ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE SCROLLS

FARNAZ, IMHO you should start your own blog where you can set the rules about how bloggers should respond to you. You have no business to be making up your own rules on an international forum. Remember the saying, "If you can't take the heat, get the HELL out of the kitchen."

FYI all: Read Farnaz's extensive posts on Susan Jacoby's threads, and on Claire Hoffman's on George Carlin. They sound like obsessive rants.

"As for the emotional element of atheism – one may observe, rationally, that he doesn’t see or perceive a certain thing, but to deny its existence, at any level of vehemence, goes beyond rational thinking and into the realm of an emotional – sometimes very emotional – anti-belief. As anti-matter is only matter arranged in a slightly different order, anti-belief is almost the same kind of belief, even though it has minuses instead of pluses."

I think this is true. Most atheists including me have intellectual as well as emotional components to their atheism. I don't see emotion as
a dirty word.

The ultimate question is, how did the universe(s) come to exist? Or, why is there a universe instead of no universe? Intellectual questions? Oh, yeah, deliciously so. Emotional? Only if you let the lack of easy answers get under your skin.

I don't know the answers to those questions. I do love a mystery. I think the answers the "catholic" church gave me as a youth look like received hallucinations in retrospect. Faith is delusion. "God" is the ultimate cop-out.

Atheism is sui generis. What standing do you, a Jew, have to speak about atheism? I suggest you stick to Judaism. To hear a Jew speak about atheism is offensive to many, as I'm sure you understand.

Mr Steinsaltz;

You say atheism has an emotional element,

That's Bertrand Russell's line...

"I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation.They accept religion on emotional grounds."

Bertrand Russell "Why I Am Not A Christian" pp 28

Atheists don't dance around singing atheist songs, or have big cry-ins where everyone worships The Big God-shaped Hole in the sky. Atheists don't shout and praise the absence of the supernatural, or get excited about being rational.
We might get emotional when believers blow up buildings and do other scary things, and we do get excited when science uncovers for us the great wonders of evolution, and when some of the mysteries of the human mind are discovered and revealed to us by neuro-scientists, as well as the mind boggling pace of development of modern technology.

Other than that, atheists are just like everyone else; ordinary people.

Every religious authority seems to have their own Atheist straw man in the closet that they can trot out whenever they need to win a debate.

Would you like to me to teach you about "true Judaism" is Mr. Steinsaltz? You will find it to be a ridiculous belief system, easily refuted, just the way I, as an atheist, like it.

If Mr. Steinsaltz truly had courage behind his convictions, he would have tried to refute a Atheist's portrait of Atheism, rather than his own.

Ainer iz a ligen, tsvai iz ligens, drei iz politik.

Below, I've re-pasted, from the main thread, Jeff D's excellent critique of the Pew Survey's approach to data gathering and analysis. In light of the commonly accepted definition of "atheist" and the Survey's contradictory findings, Jeff D's analysis is worth a read.

Jeff D :

I have read both the full report and the summary of this latest Pew "religious landscape" survey.

The full report stated, "Yet there are significant differences in the exact nature of these beliefs and the intensity
with which people hold these beliefs. For example, while most Americans believe in God, there is considerable variation in the certainty and nature of their belief in God."

Survey Question 30 was "Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?"

Question 31 was "How certain are you about this belief? Are you absolutely certain, fairly certain, not too certain, or not at all certain?"

Question 32 (p. 229 of the full report) was "Which comes closest to your view of God? God is a person with whom people can have a
relationship or God is an impersonal force?"

The table showing answers to Q. 32 lumps all the "unaffiliated" respondents together and shows 28 percent believing in a personal God, 35 percent believing in an impersonal force, 22 percent saying they didn't believe in God, and 8 percent giving other answers classified as not believing in a God or universal spirit.

It's obvious to me that the "finding" that 21% of American "atheists" believe in "God" is a result of --

(1) a small sample size for the group of nonbelievers / unchurched / no religion [on p. 177 of the full report, the margin of error for the 5,048 religiously "unaffliated" respondents out of the total sample population of about 35,500 is shown as + or minus 2 percent], AND

(2) the unwillingness of some atheists to appear closed to some sort of transcendent experience or "something grand out there," AND

(3) [most of all] terrible imprecision and sloppiness in how "God" was defined for purposes of the survey questions.

In the summary report's table showing the survey results on Americans' "conception of God," 60 percent of the total sample population said they believed in a "personal god," 25 percent said they believed in god as an "impersonal force" (I guess this means a non-intervening force), and 7 percent had some other concept of "god." That's how the report got to 92 percent "net belief in God" for the entire sample population.

Of the sub-population of self-described "atheists," only 6 percent believed in a personal god. How can this be anything other than confusion, sampling error, or mis-labeling of respondents as atheists? 12 percent of the "atheists" said they believed in god as an "impersonal force" (maybe they are Spinozan pantheists), and 3 percent gave "don't know" or some other concept. Since when is it kosher in social science surveys to count "don't know" as a Yes answer? In any event, the 21-percent figure for atheists who "believe in god" was reached only by combining the 3 percent "other/don't know" with the 12 percent "impersonal force" responses and the 6 percent "personal god" responses.

The report text states that 8 percent of atheist respondents said they were "absolutely certain" that a God or universal spirit exists? But this fudges the results shown in the tables. On p. 28 of the full report (p. 31 of the pdf), 3 percent of atheist respondents were "absolutely certain" that a personal god exists and 4 percent were "absolutely certain" that an "impersonal force"-type god exists. That adds up to 7 percent, not 8 percent. In contrast, 73 percent of atheist respondents responded that they don't believe in God.

Atheists and other members of the reality-based community are used to being treated as outliers and (relatively) unimportant curiosities in social science surveys. And we are used to seeing this sort of imprecision and sloppiness in survey design, where various kinds of non-believers and religiously-unaffiliated folks are lumped together.

July 2, 2008 5:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Well put Joe B. I wish I could say the same about my friends and family...I just avoid the subject, unless asked my opinion. I love them all too much to fight over something as meaningless to me as their invisable friends.

Where's Christopher Hitchens to knock down another religious person who can't fathom that others don't believe as he does? I cannot fathom a belief in God. It is utterly inconceivable to me.

I find it amazing that religious people consistently look to redefine what other people believe, to say that I must not have understood the question or what my answer means when I say I'm athiest. How arrogant! Stop trying to say I'm saying something I'm not: I don't believe in God, any gods. And I don't care about 'shocking my grandmother' or anyone else, but I also don't believe in God; never have, never will.

And, by the way, all of my family and virtually all of my close friends are also athiest - in the same meaning I have (in fact, I suspect we are all closer to believing exactly the same thing than any two Christians ever would be). From what I've seen, the poll asked vague questions about spirituality, hence the strange responses. From what I can tell, the number of athiests in this country is much more than "extremely small;" it has to be at least 10%.

Victoria:

How about your promised study: lexis, syntax, punctuation. I told you I'd check back. Where are the lexical and syntactic parallels? The parallels in punctuation? You promised a linguistic analysis. I'm waiting....

E Favorite and DITLD::

I cannot imagine why Jewish education would be of such great concern to you, a Christian.

Lecturing one of the foremost Jewish scholars of the 21st century could offend some people, has offended them.

Moron Anonymouses, et al. Yes, I believe they are Christians, Catholics, and a Christian atheist, which, as we know, is not contradictory.

What is up with this lying Victoria? I don't believe she is anything. She is no Muslim, no Jew, no Christian.

Not everyone is a white Christian like you. I want to like you, but you've got a lot to learn.

Is that appropriate? She has also grilled me on my beliefs and done the same with other Jews.

- Get it?

What garbage. Yet another example of believing what you want to believe, rather than what the facts show. The golden standard requirement for those who follow mythology.

There is no need for "vehemence" in the denial of the existence of supernatural beings. To the atheist, they simply don't exist like a boogeyman under the bed or Santa Claus. Do rational adults feel vehement about these mythical creatures who are as real as God to a 6 year old? No, they don't give them a second thought as they go about their everyday life. What does pique atheists anger on occasion are people who feel they are defective or lacking some exceptional quality because they can't believe in a magical all-powerful invisible magic ghost. It is as if the child who cried out "the emperor has no clothes" is constantly being taken to the woodshed in need of reeducation.

I cannot imagine why Jewish education would be of such great concern to you, a Christian.

Lecturing one of the foremost Jewish scholars of the 21st century could offend some people, has offended them.

Moron Anonymouses, et al. Yes, I believe they are Christians, Catholics, and a Christian atheist, which, as we know, is not contradictory.

What is up with this lying Victoria? I don't believe she is anything. She is no Muslim, no Jew, no Christian.

Not everyone is a white Christian like you. I want to like you, but you've got a lot to learn.

Is that appropriate? She has also grilled me on my beliefs and done the same with other Jews.

- Get it?

Here is an atheist who, in his most desperate moment, during the holocaust,refused to pray. This is a man!

Primo Levi;

I entered the Lager (Auschwitz) as a non-believer, and as a non-believer I was liberated and have lived to this day. Actually, the experience of the Lager with its frightful iniquity confirmed me in my nonbelief. It has prevented me, and still prevents me, from conceiving of any form of providence or transcendent justice...I must nevertheless admit that I experienced (and again only once) the temptation to yield, to seek refuge in prayer. This happened in October 1944, in the one moment in which I lucidly perceived the imminence of death...naked and compressed among my naked companions with my personal index card in hand, I was waiting to file past the 'commission' that with one glance would decide whether I should go immediately into the gas chamber or was instead strong enough to go on working. For one instance I felt the need to ask for help and asylum; then, despite my anguish , equanimity prevailed; one does not change the rules of the game at the end of the match, nor when you are losing. A prayer under these conditions would have been not only absurd (what rights could I claim? and from whom?) but blasphemous , obscene, laden with the greatest impiety of which a nonbeliver is capable. I rejected the temptation; I knew that otherwise were I to survive, I would have to be ashamed of it."

From Primo Levi; The Drowned and The Saved.(1986)

In general I agree with your assessment of atheists being in two camps,the intellectual way of thinking, as you put it and emotional. I disagree on the emotional angle because most intellectuals can, and do, challenge religion using science, and those who can't handle the science are the people who have never benefitted from being religeous. In other words, there are many more prayers that have not been answered than prayers that have been answered, and that
generates a lot of skepticism

Why, thanks for the kind words, JJ!

If anyone reading this thread believes Spiderman is having a day off, you're not paying attention.

He's all over this thread using various names chatting to himself.

He can swap ID's, but the brain remains the same.

Daniel,

Sorry! I inadvertently typed your name in instead of mine.

Farnaz

E.Favorite;

The last time I prayed I must have been six or seven tops. As a kid I remember mumbling "Please God forgive me" whenever I was up to no-good. It was a habit like a nervous tic. If I told a lie I'd mumble 'please God forgive me', if I stole anything I'd mumble the magic words. If I was chalking where my parents told me not to, I'd mumble please god etc. But one day I decided it was really dumb to keep mumbling to myself pretending anyone was listening. I knew I had no significance,(cosmically, that is),and knew somehow that with all the million things happening everywhere all the time, no God could be interested in what I was up to.
I never looked back. God makes no sense. I like sense. Seems you do too.
Cheers.

DITLD:

You know, I think I do understand something better. I tried to explain on the last Jacoby thread that I didn't want to go into the reasons why the short story Jacoby had selected was so offensive. Part of the problem was that although you might not have known why, she certainly did.

When someone in a minority group addresses a piece of literature that is known to be offensive the last thing she wants to do is discuss its contents. That is what I tried to explain to you in the material I re-posted below.

I feel in a way as if I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. If I try to explain, then you say that I think you are "stupid." If I don't explain, then you say that I'm "unfriendly" to people who don't have the same knowledge as I do.

I want to communicate with you, but I think you have to understand that it is as difficult for me as it is for you.

Farnaz

Gottabe Kidding: "What in the world were you smoking"

Thank you for revealing your emotions so honestly.

Your theory regarding the second element of a true Atheist - emotion - is quite a stretch, even for those with irrational minds.

"..that he or she doesn't see or perceive a certain thing, but to deny it's existence, at any level of vehemence, goes beyond rational thinking and into the realm of an emotional - sometimes very emotional - anti-belief."

What is the world were you smoking when you wrote this? Do you honestly expect rational, thinking minds to accept your senselessness?

So I'm emotional for not seeing or perceiving - a parallel universe? ghosts? lochness monster?

Just amazed at your arrogance.

DITLD:

I'm sorry if I hurt you; I certainly didn't intend to. Frankly, I felt hurt myself, but let's let that go for now.

What did I say to hurt you?

Farnaz

There is no reason on earth why folks should believe in your Skygod except it's been told to them over and over by parents, teachers, friends, relatives etc,while growing up 'til they just accept or assume there must be a God, without thinking too much about it.
Well, atheists DO think about it, and more often read about it, and look to other sources for information about existence and the cosmos, and life's big questions.
An atheist is an atheist because he doesn't see your God as being anymore real than Apollo, or Thor, or Minerva, or Vishnu, or The Boogie-man.

The default position on the God question is - there isn't one.

Farnaz

I am a human being, and not your fantasy of a "contemplative" person.

I made the statement that I wanted to like you but that you seemed unfriendly.

Your reply to me was EXTREMELY unfriendly and hurtful.

So, I am a human being, with feelings.

I guess that is easy to forget, when posting on a blog such as this, in which we are just quasi-virtual-friends, who do not even remotely know anything about each other.

Mike K.: "What evidence is that? Perhaps it exists outside of my view."

I'm sure it does.

L.Kurt Engelhart:

"I see a great deal of evidence that atheists are a social group..."

What evidence is that? Perhaps it exists outside of my view.

"The rhetoric I see tells me that the rules for being an insider are very strict, and that peer pressure to conform is very strong."

Then we see things very differently. The only "rule" for being an atheist is that one lacks a belief any gods or goddesses.

Ferromula:

Explanation accepted.

Mike K.: "If I wanted to be part of a social group"

I see a great deal of evidence that atheists are a social group with well identified insiders and outsiders. The rhetoric I see tells me that the rules for being an insider are very strict, and that peer pressure to conform is very strong. We all can see from general human behavior that belonging to such a group can exert a very strong attraction, esp. on those who may feel themselves ostrasized by an "unbeliever" community that surrounds them. In this sense, atheists are very much like Catholics, or Jews.

L.Kurt Englehart:

The bulk of my comment was strictly about the single phrase the Rabbi himself used: "As anti-matter is only matter arranged in a slightly different order,". I took this particular phrase by the Rabbi to be referring to something about the physical nature of antimatter and matter, and not their religious properties (of which I confess I am wholely ignorant). But based on the measured physical properties of antimatter and matter, I stand by my brief description of the differences between antimatter and matter, to which I thought the Rabbi seems to be referring in this metaphor, and why I think this particular phrase is not accurate and why the Rabbi should have probably found a better and more compelling one. I never expected the Rabbi to have a deep understanding of the physical differences between antimatter and matter and that is no criticism of him personally--I thought he would appreciate knowing that that particular phrase might raise a few eyebrows within certain audiences that he may encounter. If I were to wax about certain Talmudic distinctions that were in fact inaccurate, I would not be offended (and in fact would appreciate) being advised of these inaccuracies by the fine Rabbi.

As for my last sentence, it was intended more as snark than disrespect. I will be the first to admit that my expertise in religion and religious opinion is miniscule (due to both the large amount of time I've spent in the discipline of science and my inclination that led me to follow that particular path). However, it does seem to my untrained religious eye that there are many discussions about and within religion that depend an awful lot on the meaning and interpretation of certain words and phrases, and that there seem to be a multiplicity of meanings and interpretations of these same words and phrases by differing religious traditions, affiliations or leanings.

"To me, the fact that so many people identify as atheists actually means that they deny specific names or expressions of God,"

That's just it: gods exist ONLY as "names and expressions", as creations of man. Or, to be more generous, our only evidence of them arrives as filtered through other men.

It's not our fault that all of these names and expressions have failed to produce any tangible, independent evidence outside of the say-so of those men and their holy books.

If you are going to make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it, not on us to disprove it. That's just how the world works. You can't go around believing everything anyone tells you.

THAT is true intellectual rigor, Rabbi. Your entire column is simply you throwing up your hands in exasperation that people won't accept what the holy men say, without question.

DITLD:

I have to tell you that I'm surprised and disappointed by these posts. I had always enjoyed reading your comments and had thought of you as a contemplative person, sensitive and open. The Daniel I thought I'd come to know is nowhere evident in these recent posts; I don't see that Daniel. I see an angry person who wants to make a case, to set someone else straight, not someone who wants to communicate. This doesn't seem like you at all.

Farnaz

Nic – I didn’t pray much even when I was a believer. It just didn’t make sense to me that God would answer my prayers and let other people’s more important prayers go unanswered. Still, occasionally, in a tight squeeze, I’d find myself saying “Please God…”

After I became an atheist, I would still find myself saying that in a tight squeeze, as if it were force of habit. I catch myself, knowing full well no one is listening, then I switch to just concentrating my mind on whatever I wanted to happen. I makes me feel calmer and more in control and it’s easier to think more clearly and even let go of whatever is troubling me -- sort of like prayer, without the magic. Maybe atheists who say they pray are doing something similar.

Daniel itld – good idea to bail out.

MESSIANIC MESSAGE STIRS DEBATE

Scriptural scholars are abuzz over a stone tablet that is said to bear previously unknown prophecies about a Jewish messiah who would rise from the dead in three days. But there are far more questions than answers about the tablet, which some have suggested could represent "a new Dead Sea Scroll in stone."

Do the tablet and the inked text really date back to the first century B.C., as claimed? Where did the artifact come from? Can the gaps in the text be filled in to make sense? Is the seeming reference to a coming resurrection correct, and to whom does that passage refer? Finally, what impact would a pre-Christian reference to suffering, death and resurrection have on Christian scholarship?

Such questions are being addressed this week in Jerusalem, at an international conference marking the 60th anniversary of the Dead Sea Scrolls' discovery. They're also being addressed in reports about the "Vision of Gabriel" tablet that have trickled out over the past few months.

That trickle flooded onto the front page of The New York Times on Sunday, in a story that quoted one professor as saying some Christians would "find it shocking" that Jewish scriptures prefigured Christian theology.

(more here)

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/07/1184950.aspx

DITLD:

Again, I don't know what you want. All right, I stand corrected. Jihadist brought up the term self-hating Jew? What is the point? You asked why that was bad, and I responded to you.

As for E Favorite, she did, at one point, with Hugh mention that the NT was a fairy tale. This I recall. However, I cannot recall her going on threads of Christian/Catholic panelists and lecturing the panelists on how they were to disabuse the faithful of the myths and fictions of the "NT," as she has done with R. Steinsaltz, a formidable scholar, the most formidable, in fact, currently posting here.

Is that appropriate? She has also grilled me on my beliefs and done the same with other Jews. When I try to explain, she refuses to understand.

What would you have me do, Daniel? I didn't initiate any of this, nor have I been making judgements about you, as you have just made about me.

I've been accused of all sorts of craziness and yet you haven't commented....

L. Kurt Engelhart stated "I see a great deal of evidence that defining oneself as an atheist identifies one as belonging to a certain social milieu."

But that's not what he wrote. He wrote "to define themselves as atheists can likely be attributed to a desire to belong to certain social milieus"

With "to a desire" implying that it's not a lack of evidence or that fact that religious claims cannot withstand our honest scrutiny that causes us to lack a belief in deities, but rather a desire to be part of a social milieu. What is the evidence for that?

If I wanted to be part of a social group, I'd join a golf league or a social club. I wouldn't pick the one that has no "group" in the first place. There's no milieu to speak of, no atheist group gatherings that I'm aware of. His point is baseless and comes off as a way to diminish the reasons that atheists self-identify as such.

In visual terms I see it like this...

a child stands encircled by many adults,
the adults are all talking to the child.

They are saying things like "God is great"
"Have faith in the Lord they God". "If you believe in God you will live forever in Paradise".
"If you do not believe in God you will will go to Hell and burn forever." "Love God because He loves you." "All other Gods are false Gods." "Our God is the TRUE God." "You HAVE to BELIEVE in Him."
"God created the world". "God gave His only begotten son to suffer for all our sins."

And on and on and on.

If despite this continual religious din surrounding him throughout his childhood, he grows up to be an atheist, it is a miracle; a miracle of the will, acting on behalf of the intellect, in resisting the power and irrationality of religious indoctrination.

Atheists don't believe there's a God, don't believe in a supernatural world, and usually don't believe in fairies or UFO's. And I never knew one who prayed. As an atheist, he who prays is foolish, because there isn't anyone listening.
My daughter almost died many years ago. The idea of praying never entered my mind. We had a good surgeon and a good hospital,etc.,and everything turned out fine.
I would no-more pray than I would sacrifice my dog to Apollo so that he would spare my daughter.

A praying atheist is a contradiction in terms. You pray - then you are not an atheist.

KPINSEA: "I really lean toward the latter[analytical process of examining the evidence]."

I see a great deal of evidence that defining oneself as an atheist identifies one as belonging to a certain social milieu. Have you analysed that evidence?

Ferromula: "As an experimental particle physicist"
and "playing word games"

I believe it is the "scientist" here who is out of his (or her) element. By your own argument you need to learn a lot more about religion before you are qualified to criticize a religious opinion. Try to learn something about metaphor while you are at it. And I think the thing about "word games" is disrespectful.

"to define themselves as atheists can likely be attributed to a desire to belong to certain social milieus"

So ... my conclusion that Santa and the Tooth Fairy probably didn't really bring me any gifts is only the result of a desire to belong to a social milieu?

Or are simply the result of the same analytical process of examining the evidence before me that I apply to the question of whether an idealized Super Santa created the universe or not?

I really lean toward the latter.

Farnaz

I think I have made a number of very concrete points to you, and even though, technically, you do "reply," you do not address these points.

What about, for example, Jidadist brought up the phrase "self-hating Jew," not me, to explain what she thought you might be getting at? What about, that E Favorite has on several occaisions, argued that no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed, to the exasperation of many, I might add?

It just bothers me that you throw little bombs, and then never come back to the subject again.

I think that you like to argue with people over little things.

SISL: "the only path to finding the truths about our humanity is through objectivity, trial and error and replicable results"

While your description of the search for truth is commendable for mundane matters, it will not help us for sacred matters (like truth about our humanity), for which there can be no proof. For sacred matters we must all, even you, resort to imagining possible solutions based on our intuition. No wonder these imaginings are so varied, hard to institutionalize, and subject to enforcement using violence. We all have to find a way to get beyond that.

It is clear that the Rabbi is not a scientist and is not aware of the actual physical properties of matter and antimatter. His use of the "As anti-matter is only matter arranged in a slightly different order,..." metaphor is simply scientifically incorrect. If he wishes to use a property of the natural world as a metaphor, it would be nice if he used a property that is factual accurate, and not factually inaccurate as he does here.

As an experimental particle physicist, antimatter is not "matter arranged in a slightly different order", i.e. matter rearranged. As P.A.M Dirac predicted and numerous particle physics experiments have repeatedly confirmed and studied, antimatter's fundamental constituents are different and separate from the fundamental constituents of matter--although these fundamental constituents of matter and antimatter have some physical properties that are the same as each other (such as mass) and some that are in fact exact opposites of each other (such as electric charge). No amount of "rearranging" the matter inside of a proton will convert it into an antiproton. To convert a proton into an antiproton you have to actually replace (not rearrange) all the quarks in the proton with their corresponding antiquarks. Now a quark and its antiquark are two separate, different, and independent physical objects with measurably different physical properties (one being having the opposite electric charge, since that is a property that is among the easiest to measure experimentally). You can't simply rearrange a quark into an antiquark, which implies you can't simply rearrange a proton into an antiproton because you can't convert an object of electric charge +1 into an object of electric charge -1 simply by rearranging its constituents of a given electric charge. So if the Rabbi wants to use a metaphor based on the physical world, he should find a more accurate metaphor than one using matter and antimatter. That is, providing he isn't playing word games with the common meaning of "arranged in a slightly different order".

Amy: "As an atheist, should I start defining who is and who isn't a true Jew?"

So, we are admitting that atheism is a religion?

The idea of a "true" atheist subscribing to a particular strain of disbelief is insane, but to have a believer arrogate to himself the authority to decide who is and who isn't an atheist or what an atheist must believe to be able to use that word is the height of insanity.

As an atheist, should I start defining who is and who isn't a true Jew?

Although I can appreciate the rabbi's definition of atheism (it's a far sight more complimentary than many believers'), I have to agree with others on this post in saying that the absence of a belief in gods is sufficient to define an atheist. Expanding on that idea means we have to determine if someone disbelieves "properly" before they can claim the title, which is no different than when Christians try to disown people who - although they may say they believe Jesus was the son of God - don't believe exactly as they do. You can believe in Bigfoot, aliens & unicorns, but as long as you don't believe in any gods I would say you are an atheist by definition.

I have no idea what the people involved in that Pew survey were thinking, but they clearly fail to meet the one requirement of being an atheist.

Steveco,

Your angry, emotional response to the post proved very well R. Steinsaltz's assertion that atheism is based--at least in part--on emotion, particularly a revulsion towards organized religion. The irony is so great that I wonder if your post itself is a farce.

By the way, if you didn't notice, R. Steinsaltz is Jewish, so I wonder about your rants against the trinity, which Jews do not accept.

when people claim to be atheists, they are not denying the existence of a higher power, but rather they are merely expressing their ideas in a different language or speaking from a different point of view"

"to define themselves as atheists can likely be attributed to a desire to belong to certain social milieus"

I think you could say that of the group of people who claimed to be atheists but who believe in praying. But a true atheist simply does not believe in any deity or supernatural beings. We don't see that there is any reason to believe in an afterlife. We believe in proof and scientific evidence. We believe that nature itself holds explanations for all occurrences within it. We feel that the eyes can be deceived by preconceived ideas and that the scientific method offers the most reliable and reasonable way to offer explanations. A true atheists explains the believe in an afterlife as a psychological palliative to make our passing less painful along with our well documented human desire to be superior to animals and other forms of life. There is not a single emotional component in any of these true atheists believes. On the contrary we know by experience that emotion can cloud our perception of the truth. Moreover, the only path to finding the truths about our humanity is through objectivity, trial and error and replicable results. The only function that our emotions should have in this process of discovery, and understanding is that of sparking our curiosity in finding the truth. The Rabbi has his own wishful thinking. He wishes that there was not a single true atheist left in the planet so that he could justify by a matter of majority rules the minority his belief in a God.

"As for the emotional element of atheism – one may observe, rationally, that he doesn’t see or perceive a certain thing, but to deny its existence, at any level of vehemence, goes beyond rational thinking and into the realm of an emotional – sometimes very emotional – anti-belief."

More mumbo-jumbo crap from another believer that just doesn't get atheists.

"Anti-belief." Sounds like a stomach pill.

Atheists don't "deny" a deity, anymore than we "deny" Flying Anvils. We just think humans that believe in deities do it on faith, and we don't have that faith. Being there is zero proof of any deity, much less the Christian three, it's natural not to believe.

But, being that most children in America are brainwashed into accepting Christianity, most people don't have time to think about it. They're religious, hopelessly so.

I'm not. I took time to study my feelings about a life philosophy. Some made-up trinity of unlikely deities ain't part of it.

If anyone's emotional, it's religious people, especially these days, the far right extremists. There's "over-emotion" for you, and a lot of misanthropy at the same time.

I wish you adult Santa Claus people would quit trying to explain MY beliefs. You don't know crap about what I think. Shut up and write about something you actually know about.

MARY CUNNINGHAM:

Persecutions of early Christians were far less violent and less frequent than commonly supposed. And the "persecutions under Nero" have apparently been invented to predate the earliest mention of Christians.

MC: "But IMO the problem with the historical evidence for Jesus is restricting oneself to non-Christian sources."

MJ: But only by using these independent, non-Christian sources, one can ascertain historicity. Christian sources about the Christ are hagiographical and historiographical, but not historical, which you yourself state by saying: "And the gospels themselves were not written as historical accounts but as proof that Jesus was the Messiah." I partly support that statement, especially the second part of the sentence, and have to extend it to e.g. the Church Fathers' writings about the Christ. And I have to correct that the *original* gospels were written as historical accounts. Still, scholars don't seem to find any historical match.

MC: pagan sources in the AD50 to 400 period are not plentiful. Christian sources in the same period OTOH are copious.

MJ: Well, *that* is simply not true. There are more than enough "pagan" sources to get a good, if not magnificent picture of ancient realities.

MC: "Anyway, if you exclude the Church fathers"

MJ: I don't. Just below I quoted Augustine.

MC: "if you exclude the Church fathers--and the actions of the early Christians--from your historical evidence you are not left with much."

MJ: Totally correct. When you simply look at the Easter fire, especially the Orthodox rite of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem, one can only shake one's head in disbelief and say: "What's that got to do with Easter?" But when reading the remark by Augustine that the Christ received his apotheosis by fire and that he resurrected due to a cremation, the Easter rituals (as well as related rituals like the Fallas in Valencia) suddenly make a lot more sense. We're stilling missing any historical accounts, but it's at least a start.

MC: "My point on the fire of Rome was that gentile Christians, by rejecting the gods of their ancestors, could be and were seen as atheists, and worse, as atheists who would bring the enmity of the ancestral gods down upon the rest of the population."

MJ: Well, I don't know about the atheism-thing, but we know that the early Christians definitely rejected the worship of the Roman emperor. And from Patristic writings it's clear why: they perceived Christ as "their emperor"… "Christus Imperator" is one of the names they gave him.

James Bond Anon:

FYI: "Semicolon" is one word.

I look forward to your linguistic analysis; remember, lexis, syntax, punctuation. Don't forget your Thorazine. What you are about to undertake is dense work, requiring several lengthy samples; you will need to concentrate.

Please give my regards to the CIA/FBI, Interpol, etc.

I'll be checking back, Victoria.

Farnaz-

Your spelling errors are much more compelling.

James Bond Anon:

FYI: "Semicolon" is one word.

I look forward to your linguistic analysis; remember, lexis, syntax, punctuation. Don't forget your Thorazine. What you are about to undertake is dense work, requiring several lengthy samples; you will need to concentrate.

Please give my regards to the CIA/FBI, Interpol, etc.

James Bond Anon:

"Farnaz-

You've forgotten that your different personas have had different posting styles. You must be consistent to establish the charade.

We all know Victoria's posts as she never uses caps. She has posted here since the beginning and has been consistent.

Take a look at the many posts you've made to this thread in several different personas. The capital greetings, the commas and semi-colons are all a mess."

Is that so? Kindly edify me, FBI/CIA Anon, on the rules for commas and semicolons. And then, post by post, demonstrate the similarities with respect to punctuation, lexis, and syntax. Take your Thorazine first.

Farnaz-

You've forgotten that your different personas have had different posting styles. You must be consistent to establish the charade.

We all know Victoria's posts as she never uses caps. She has posted here since the beginning and has been consistent.

Take a look at the many posts you've made to this thread in several different personas. The capital greetings, the commas and semi-colons are all a mess.

MJ:

Yes, being an early Christian must have been hard work: the angry mobs, the persecuting authorities, putting St Paul up for the night :>)

But IMO the problem with the historical evidence for Jesus is restricting oneself to non-Christian sources. The thing is that pagan sources on most things in the, say, AD50 to 400 period are not plentiful. Christian sources in the same period OTOH are copious. The early Christians produced too much information really, and the Church was faced with the huge dilemma of sifting through it all, deciding what was inspired, what was not. And the gospels themselves were not written as historical accounts but as proof that Jesus was the Messiah.

Anyway, if you exclude the Church fathers--and the actions of the early Christians--from your historical evidence you are not left with much. That is the problem. Like I said it's not my field, I;ve read just enough to be able to put a historical context around the philosophy of the ancients, which I'm sure you'd agree is great, thought-provoking stuff.

My point on the fire of Rome was not that the Christians (or the Jews) started it, but that gentile Christians, by rejecting the gods of their ancestors, could be and were seen as atheists, and worse, as atheists who would bring the enmity of the ancestral gods down upon the rest of the population. Happens a lot, mobs getting upset about a specific religious group, bottom up anti--choose just about any religion, Catholics in England, Protestants in France, Jews in Russia.

Anyway, that's all from me.

Best

Josh,

Re: Elisha

No, I don't think Elisha was Gnostic. What's really fascinating is all this speculation, all these arguments that he was Gnostic, or even Christian! The latter seems to me to be impossible on its face, given what we know. That really is the subject of my research, these apparently groundless assertions. What is engendering them?

Farnaz

Farnaz,

Sorry I can't be of help with Elisha. A fascinating figure though. What do you think? Gnostic?

I, somewhat, disagree with this assertion. While I would agree that there are a large number of people who proclaim to be atheists for shock value, or really do not understand the term, I believe that there are many, such as myself, who simply do not believe in supernatural beings or magical powers.

Please allow me to ramble on with an example.

Due to a dense cloud cover, we can’t see the surface of Venus. If someone believes that there are dinosaurs and giant, intelligent monkey-men on Venus, (as I am sure that someone does) are you an “atheist” if you do not share that belief? Do you have to take a leap of faith to not believe that there are monkey-men inhabiting the planet? Do you have to make that commitment on an emotional level? I don’t think so.

There are many beliefs or religions that Rabbi Steinsaltz does not have to think about in the least, to dismiss. He does not have to consider, evaluate or examine the “facts” of these religions to simply know that an alien being is not going to arrive on earth someday, on a comet, to take us all away. Does that make him an “atheist” to that religion? Is he engaged in a fervent “anti-belief” system to the point of this being his religion? Is there an emotional component to NOT believing this?

I would say that myself and the Rabbi, are of the same mind on 99.99% of the world’s religions. We think that they are just made up creations of men. If we went down the list he and I would agree on every single religion, except perhaps one. It just so happens that I feel the same way about all the religions that he feels about the Roman Gods. Why am I suddenly different than him?

JOSH:

On an entirely different note, I'm researching Elisha of Akiva fame. I'm doing okay, but could be doing better. Any recommendations?

Thnnks!

Farnaz

"when people claim to be atheists, they are not denying the existence of a higher power, but rather they are merely expressing their ideas in a different language or speaking from a different point of view"

"to define themselves as atheists can likely be attributed to a desire to belong to certain social milieus"

Finally, Someone who truly understands.

Daniel,

As I said, I really don't know what you want from me. You said I didn't answer your question, and I did, so I repasted it.

I think you need to figure out whence all this hostility to me. You can tell me, and then we can hash this out if you'd like. Frankly, I don't like going over minutae but you raised it. Then you get angry at me for replying to it?!
How, then, can I win?

What is it you wish from me? Tell me, and I'll try to provide it.

Farnaz

In a fury of defense- Farnaz has posted under another of her personas undoubtedly hoping to defer readers from her current dilemma.

Anyone else know "who is Farnaz"?

JOSH:

I would start with Lucy Dawidowicz "The War against the Jews." You will also find helpful The Holocaust Encyclopedia, ed. Walter Laqueuer, which you can probably get for about 20.00 or so. It's a pretty good reference guide. Also the USHMM web site is extremely useful and has many valuable links:

http://www.ushmm.org

Farnaz

On another point, you are wrong. I did not introduce the term "self-hating Jew" to the thread; Jihadist introduced it, to try and explain to me, what you were getting at. (Jihadist, if you read this, pershaps you could verify that this is so).

So, I googled Philip Roth, and I also came up with the term "self-hating Jew" probably from the same source as Jihadist. What I was trying to do was read your mind, since you would not explain what your thoughts were. If I read it wrong, then why not tell me?

I do not get any pleasure at all in wading through this nit-picking minutia of recrimination and rehashing every little detail of old, worn out, and stale threads.

As I said earlier, you are not a very friendly person, so I will stop bothering you, as I can see that I really am a bother to you.

Daniel in the Lion's Den:
Josh

"Not everyone is a white Christian like you."

"You are an insulting jerk."

I'm sorry you feel that way.

DILTD:

Farnaz

You must think I am a very stupid person.

July 8, 2008 12:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Not at all! I've never thought that, quite the contrary, in fact. Your remark seems to be a non sequitur. You said I didn't reply to your question about why it was bad to be a self-hating Jew, and I did. That's why I re-pasted what I'd written.

I'm not clear about what it is you wish from me.

Farnaz

Josh

"Not everyone is a white Christian like you."

You are an insulting jerk.

MARY CUNNINGHAM:

MJ: I think it's not relevant whether Seneca wrote before or after the start of the insurrection, because tensions in the orthodox Jewish regions had begun earlier. Already under Claudius and Caligula there had been tensions between Jewish and Egyptian Romans in Egypt, which were at first reconciled under imperial Roman supervision. The remark on Seneca being angry because of the fire of Rome, is a possibility, but that would imply that the Jews set fire to the city. I've written in Jacoby's post that the original term in the oldest Tacitus sources was "chrestiani". "Christiani" (meaning "Christians") was later included in the Tacitus-text by correction, plus the rewriting by inserting the interpolation on Jesus, the crucifixion and Pilate. The term "chrestiani" could be a foreign word as a derisive term, a Graecism from "chrestai", meaning speculators. Tacitus himself supports this. The people who caused the fire were therefore real estate speculators. Whether they were Jewish speculators is unclear. But there is also no evidence that they were Christian.

MC: Their actions, to the superstitious Romans, thus had the result of angering the gods and bringing destruction to the places they lived in. It's plausible.

MJ: Even if there were evidence of Christians being responsible for the fire (which there isn't!), I wouldn't connect the religious actions of the early Christians with the fire of Rome, being seen by the "superstitious" Romans as the wrath of the gods. I don't know any valid source that would support this. But the Christians angered a lot of people! They even angered their own people, like the character known as Paul. :)

Farnaz:

I found the bib on the Carlin thread. Where should I start?

Btw., I'm emailing this thread to R. Steinsaltz. I don't know if he reads his threads but he should.

Josh

Farnaz

You must think I am a very stupid person.

It seems the Rabbi has taken a long, winding road to simply get across the street.

There is no need to parse degrees of unbelief: If you do not accept the existence of a setient deity, then you are an atheist.

Daniel, I did respond to you more than once. Here is my post to you on self-hating Jews, a term you introduced to that thread.

Farnaz:
DITLD,

First, I don't know who you mean when you refer to "my friends." Second, I did not say that Roth was a "self-hating Jew," neither here nor anywhere else, at least not without sustantive qualifications. HIs own views of his Jewishness warrant compassion, not contempt. Finally, when did I suggest you undertake research?

Self-hatred within any minority group represents what Anna Freud called "internalization of the aggressor." That is to say, the minority group victims internalize the prejudices of their majority group opressors. As a result one sees phenomena such as skin-bleaching, eye-brow straightening, nose jobs, etc.

Ethnic/racial self-hatred is the deformation of character, identity. It is a horrible, horrible thing. During the American Civil Rights Movement, African Americans insisted on the use of the word "black," instead of "Negro," in common parlance, since "blackness" had been associated with unattractiveness. Recall "Black is beautiful." Black people sought to undo centuries of damaging white hatred.

Within communities "of color," lighter skinned persons may be prejudiced against those with darker complexions. This phenomenon, generally called "colorism," is "internalization of the aggressor" writ large.

Personally, I don't feel like discussing this short story, any more than I would like the person who posted on "Smokescreens" to explain why s/he thinks of it as his/her favorite book. That is not the issue.

June 26, 2008 4:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments

"ENOUGH ON VICTORIA? OR SHALL I GO ON TO ANOTHER THREAD, WHERE MORE MUSLIMS TAKE OFFENSE AT HER?"

Please continue your rant- Farnaz. Lets see what you have.

Farnaz

I do not understand you at all. You did not respond to anything that I said.

When I made my comment before about "self-hating Jew," you did not repsond to that. I got that phrase from a google, not from you. You assumed wrong on that; in fact, you assusmed, wrongly, on every point that I made, but I did not reply because I sensed it would be hopeless, just as E Favorite has stopped replying to you.

If I do not have any authentic Jewish experience, and you do, why do you not share it with me, instead of giving me a list of books to read?

My point was that E Favorite has been highly critical of the belief, that Jesus Christ even ever existed at all, but you ignored that and failed to acknowledge you mistake, but instead, said a bunch of things designed to make me feel bad, and to imply that I am an insensitive person, when, I do not think that is true.

I do not believe I have ever lectured anyone here or anywhere else on anything regarding Jewishness.

My only problem with you in the previous thread about Philip Roth is that you expressed a negavtive sentiment about the author, without saying why, for the ediification of those of us who knew little about him, and when pressed to explain youself, repeatedly stated that this thread was not the place, and then you just continued, expressing negative sentiments, without saying why.

And then when I did the briefest google on the subject, and came up with very little, you jumped all over me for, my apparent ignorance, I suppose. I acknowledge, that I am ignorant on many things. But why be angy at me because of that?

Josh,

Maybe stop pasting all this stuff. Let's remember this is only a blog. Forget these unfortunate people. Let me know if you are able to get to Claire Hoffman's Carlin thread for the bib.

Farnaz

DILTD:

I'm echoing Farnaz. You seem like a pleasant enough fellow, but don't seem to get it. Not everyone is a white Christian like you. I want to like you, but you've got a lot to learn. Your not so generous as Farnaz and neither am I.

Josh

Farnaz tries to cover her mistake-

"DILTD:

That last post was from me. I started posting to Josh, got flustered and typed in his name by mistake."

Farnaz has confused which of her many personas is supposed to be posting..

This is rich.

And look at the number of "Josh" posts in defense of Farnaz.

My-My-My..

ENOUGH ON VICTORIA? OR SHALL I GO ON TO ANOTHER THREAD, WHERE MORE MUSLIMS TAKE OFFENSE AT HER?

another kafr :

There is only one thing Victoria has proven herself to be post after post:

she's a liar..

March 25, 2008 4:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Nadeem from New Jersey :
Farnaz wrote to Jihadist:

Here is the link to Victoria's plagiarized post on Islam.

Appreciating Islam

Thank you, Farnaz.

I followed your directions and found all to be as you said. What is up with this lying Victoria? I don't believe she is anything. She is no Muslim, no Jew, no Christian.

A liar and a thief. That is what she is.

March 26, 2008 4:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments

jon :
Victoria

Its foolish of you to pretend this is the first time you've been accused of lying.

Any long time reader of this forum knows you have repeatedly been caught and documented passing off false statements on this board.

You have a pattern. You accuse islamophobe -then say you are insulted and will no longer post until someone apologises. Then you continue posting on another thread.

Its clear you are troubled and have no full-time occupation -other than post here.

Get some therapy and give it a rest..

What I believe, Rabbi, is that is the Americans who were asked these questions took the time to truly consider what they have come to believe, not simply repeating what their parents had told them and what they in turn have told their children, the reported number of professed Athiests in this country would actually rise; though only by a few percentage points.

Why does Josh only show up to support Farnaz?

"Josh" is only one of her personas.

Farnaz- give it up or I will post your very obvious spelling errors..

To whom it may concern,

It is completely impossible to follow allong all the "tit-for-tat" back and forth of who said what when.

For each of us, why not just say what we think, now about things now, and don't worry about picking apart old threads?

I hope that I have not offended anybody by this request, although, I am sure I must have.

Alina :
She needs to be blocked. Victoria is a menace.

March 26, 2008 9:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Mehtab :
The only way to get rid of the lying Victoria is to call her out every time she shows up on a thread.

She's not just sick. She's destructive.

March 26, 2008 4:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Samir :
Muslim have enough problem without Victoria. You can ban person from a blog. She should not
post here.

March 26, 2008 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Huda E :
Jamo:

You can always tell Victoria. The same tone, style, hysteria. She's lied before on other threads and she has been caught.

Thanks to Farnaz for catching her this time.

March 27, 2008 12:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Believer wrote "Rabbi Steinsaltz correctly observes that to make atheism a cause, or to incorporate it as part of your essential self-image, requires an emotional response as well as an intellectual one."

That's not what he wrote. He wrote nothing about making atheism a cause nor incorporating it as "part of your essential self-image".

He wrote that an emotional component was necessary to being a "true atheist". A true atheist lacks a belief in any gods or goddesses. That's it. No emotional component necessary.

Maria Janna,

I think Seneca might have lumped Jews together with Christians regarding atheism in his "On Superstition" preserved in Augustine's "City of God." Written in AD65 (?) before the first uprising in Judea in AD66, Seneca might have been angry because of the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64 (?) for which the Christians were blamed.

However, in what little I've read of ancient Eur. history, the Christians were the sect charged with atheism. Jews were generally allowed to opt out of worshipping the state gods (they had to pay a special tax--hey! nothing is free, empires cost money) maybe because Romans thought they had *always* worshipped the one God, but gentile Christians OTOH had converted from paganism. Their actions, to the superstitious Romans, thus had the result of angering the gods and bringing destruction to the places they lived in. It's plausible.

But I'll cede to you on this one.

DILTD:

That last post was from me. I started posting to Josh, got flustered and typed in his name by mistake.

JOSH: I posted a bibliography of Holocaust readings on Claire Hoffman's Carlin's thread. Let me know if you can navigate your way through it. If not, I'll post it again here.

DILTD:

I want to like you, too, Daniel, but you seem insensitive to people who are different from you. I recall your asking me what Jewish self-hatred is and what was wrong with it. I took you seriously, and answered you, but isn't the answer obvious?

I want to like you, but you need to recognize that the world is made up of many different kinds of people with many different kinds of beliefs. Lecturing one of the foremost Jewish scholars of the 21st century could offend some people, has offended them.

Read anything of Sander Gilman if you want to know anything about Askenazic Jewish subjectivity.
In this country it applies to Sfardim as well. Also, read Franz Fanon's two masterpieces on whiteness and blackness. Jews figure in Fanon's thinking.

I want to like you too, Daniel, and I respect you, and your beliefs. I do not go around lecturing Christian/Catholic panelists on debunking "NT" myths and fictions, do I?

What say you?

Since the poll does not reflect what the rabbi wants it to, he effectively states that the people polled have lied.

Rabbi - are you lying about your faith too?

Let's all get a grip here - if you don't believe in god, you're an atheist. From Dictionary.com:
"atheist: person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Very simple, very clear; Rabbi, you're very wrong.

An atheist.

Amro :
Victoria wrote to Farnaz:

"Among posts to another panel, someone pointed out that you are a Jew.S/he went on to say that when you rise up in defense of others in lieu of asserting and defending your own group/religious identity, you are quite understandably held in contempt by those you seek to "protect."

let me point out, it is quite possible , and ive done it with people of different races, sexual orientation, religion-...

Get therapy, Victoria. Farnaz is not your brother, Idiot, and neither am I,

March 27, 2008 2:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Farnaz

I remember a few months back, on Susan Jacoby's thread, that E Favorite caused a big dust-up by questioning the existence of Jesus Christ, that such a person ever even existed at all. And I remember the E Favorite was quite persistent in this quesitoning, even against Susan Jacoby's dismissive replies.

So, why are you so angy at E Favorite?

I want to like you, and I feel that you have alot of authentic Jewish experience and knowledge that I and most people I know, do not have, which I would be interested in knowing more about.

However, you mostly seem very unfriendly to people who do not have the same authentic experience that you have.

Cowardly Anon:

Many people doubted and still doubt Victoria's Muslim creds. They've posted here, but unlike your spineless self, they give their names. Thanks for the link.

FARNAZ: Thanks for the post. I'm going to post all the Muslim bloggers who have the authenticity of Victoria's Islamic identity. She might be one of the Anonymouses. She's big into blaming victims.

I really don't have a solid grounding in the Holocaust. The only book I've read is Yahil's. Can you give me some recommendations?

"Are you emotional about your lack of belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

No - and I don't define myself by that lack of belief, either. I don't proseletize against others' belief in it, or make a cause of my lack of belief.

Rabbi Steinsaltz correctly observes that to make atheism a cause, or to incorporate it as part of your essential self-image, requires an emotional response as well as an intellectual one.

Farnaz thinks-

"She is a troubled and frightened soul who is spreading hatred and fear.. I am not a bully.'

You've been a bully from your first post. Your style of attack and ridicule is REALLY getting old:

This is one of Farnaz' first posts to this forum-

March 23, 2008 4:33 PM

"Victoria:

I doubt very much that you have the slightest idea of what my correspondance with Jihadist concerns. At least, your post shows no sign of comprehension. My guess, from having followed J, is that she does.

As for you, I did not seek your advice, but since you proffer it, I shall offer you some of my own. Among posts to another panel, someone pointed out that you are a Jew. S/he went on to say that when you rise up in defense of others in lieu of asserting and defending your own group/religious identity, you are quite understandably held in contempt by those you seek to "protect."

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

In the current case, you quite misunderstand the context, although, J, who does not carry the same baggage as you do, probably does.

The sad thing to me is that your identity has become so hollowed, so emptied, so deformed, that you are unable to assert it, that all you can do is "defend" those who neither need nor welcome your defense. Sadly, you are not alone among your brothers and sisters.

You have been injured, Victoria. The cause is history. The healing must start within you.

Farnaz"

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2008/03/resurrection_faith/comments.html

And FYI you make spelling errors that distinguish your various post personas. Sad. Sad.

FARNAZ,

it was I who posted the message, but please mind: nothing of what I wrote is "insane" or even wrong. And there's no need to apologize, because you were not ad-hominem like others on this blog. (And btw: I have no dealings with "Jihadist".)

But you seemed to have misunderstood me (as Joshua has in another thread): there was a large Graeco-Roman influence on Jewry, its iconography (especially in the diaspora), its secular culture etc., especially on that of the so-called "hellenized Jews", but NOT on the Jewish religion and rituals in general! There were syncretisms that were declared by some people, but that doesn't mean that the Jews *changed* their religion due to Graeco-Roman influence. I never ever said that! But fact is that there was no Jewish attempt to create orthodoxy in the Roman diaspora, and even in Palaestina and Judaea there was a great variety of Jewish practices and philosophies.

1. The sons of Herod? What's wrong with that. Like many people from the Jewish elite they were pro-Roman, studied Greek and Roman literature, culture and religion etc. Many people don't know that the first wave of the Jewish insurrection had many characteristics of a civil war: anti-Roman against pro-Roman Jews. They didn't just go snap and said: well, let's kick some Italian butt5! ;)

2. There were various reasons for the creation of the Septuagint. Of course. I didn't say that there weren't. But one of the reasons was the fact that Greek was the lingua franca in the eastern regions of Europe and that many Jews didn't speak the original language of their scripture well anymore.

3. Email to Steinsaltz: Oh, okay. I thought Steinsaltz was reading these posts and was possibly willing to answer, like Jacoby did in her threads. But I already found a few additional sources on my own, e.g. Horace, Tacitus, Juvenal etc. But the only source on the accusal of atheism that I could find is Cassius Dio LXVII 14: he writes that emperor Domitian had his cousin killed and his wife exiled, on charges of "atheism", because they had "drifted into Judaism". But you can't do it like Steinsaltz and write that "the Roman authors" called Judaism an atheism! Dio wrote about a time right after the Jewish insurrection, a time when there were a lot of tensions between Rome and the Jews in the east. It's absolutely wrong only to define Jewish-Roman relationships from what happened in and was written about the times of the Jewish insurrection

4. No, the relevance of my remarks was directed not at Mr. Anon, but at what Steinsaltz wrote in his article, namely that "the ancient Roman writers […] categorized the Jews as atheists simply because they didn't believe in Jupiter" et al..

First of all it would have to be shown that (a) no Jew ever participated in "pagan" or Graeco-Roman religious rituals, and that (b) no Jew ever used the rituals of the Jewish religion to honor the Graeco-Roman gods (in syncretism or directly). You see, the Jews, who prayed "according to their customs" (Suetonius) at the pyre of Julius Caesar, mourned for him as a newly resurrected god, as the new Jupiter ("Divus"), which is clear from the Roman sources and especially the funeral reports by Sueton and Appian. So there's one example. Another example is that in the Biblia Iudaica, the people of Israel themselves have worshipped other gods. In Philo ("Embassy to Gaius" 355–7) it is stated that the emperor Gaius (Caligula), who was a pr*ck by the way, forced all adherers of foreign religions also to sacrifice to the emperor, during his lifetime, the latter being an affront even to many many urban Romans. Philo makes it clear that the Jews had done so on several occasions. It is however clear that this was inflicted by imperial orders, and was not the free religious will of the Jews themselves. But the latter might also have been the case, since the Herodian temple in Jerusalem, which was *also* a Roman temple, would have included Jupiter (and possibly the first deified emperors) as a so-called "theos synnaos" for worships and sacrifice. After all, Herod had been adopted by Julius Caesar into the Julian family.

But in general, the remark by Steinsaltz sounded like an oversimplification. Sure, some Romans were possibly anti-Jewish (like Cicero and Pompeius for example, plus at times the writers I've mentioned above), although you couldn't always call it "hostility towards the Jews"… it was more of a derision from a cultural standpoint that they perceived as superior, which is of course nonsense. But many misunderstandings on the Roman-Jewish relationship stem from the use of the Latin term "superstitio". The term is not an indicator of a systematical dismission or derision of non-Roman religions, although many Romans thought that their religion was superior. (But so also the Jews did; see PS below.) It was at first used to mean "irrational religion", which is explicable from the self-concept of Roman religio. So when Cicero calls Judaism a "superstitio barbara", it must not be translated as "barbaric superstition", but as "foreign irrational religious practice". It shows that Cicero definitely thought that the religio Romana was superior, but it doesn't show that he was anti-Jewish, or that he thought that Judaism equals atheism.

Steinsaltz's remark reads like across-the-board. Truth however is that the Jews received special treatment and tolerance in Rome as a religious group, above all other foreign religions (cp. Flav. Joseph., "Jewish Antiqities" XIV.213–16 on Caesar's pro-Jewish edicts). Emperor Augustus (like Caesar) also showed much respect for Jewish customs (Philo, "Embassy to Gaius" 155–8). There was an important synagogue in Ostia, and smaller synagogues all over Rome, at least eleven in the city of Rome alone. The earliest parts of the synagogue in Ostia have been dated to the first century AD, and it was continuously built and used in later times, which is an indicator that the Jews in the diaspora might not even have been on the side of the Jewish insurgents in Palaestina. It definitely shows that they were not brutally persecuted in those times in the diaspora. Varro (quoted e.g. in Augustine, "The Harmony of the Evangelists" I.22.30) thought that the god of the Jews was Jupiter, and that it made no difference which name was used during invocation. The Roman philosopher Galen treated Jewish teachings as comparable to Greek philosophy ("The Usefulness of the Parts of the Body XI.14).

PS: Some Jews propagated the superiority of Jewish over Greek thought, e.g. Philo, who wrote that Plato borrowed from Moses. Also Flavius Josephus wrote that Greek civilization was dependent on the Jews, though inferior to Jewish practices. So I guess there were *some* Jews, who were disrespectful of the Graeco-Roman culture. And there were definitely Jewish attempts to minimize contact with the Graeco-Roman "idolators" (cp. e.g. "'Avodah Zarah — The Mishnah on Alien Worship" 1.1-4)

PPS: And please, don't tell me that I don't know anything about Roman-Jewish history. I do. It seems that Steinsaltz doesn't. Or he does, but chooses to conceal certain facts.

Hi Josh,

Intellectual rigor: I'm not entirely sure what R. Steinsaltz means by intellectual rigor, but here are some thoughts. The word "agnostic" was first used by Aldous Huxley as I posted on Clare Hoffman's Carlin thread in a proto-positivist sense, i.e., that the existence of God could be neither proven nor disproven. The positivists, of course, would go on to say that therefore discussion of God was (scientifically) meaningless.

Most atheists I've known are really agnostics in Huxley's sense. Now consider substituting "elves" for God. What atheist would say they existence of "elves" cannot be proven? What believer would say this, for that matter?

Intellectual rigor, then, would require the ability to form a coherent statement about what you do believe, not about what you don't.

"Moron Anonymouses, et al. Yes, I believe they are Christians, Catholics, and a Christian atheist, which, as we know, is not contradictory.
E Favorite has various problems with me. She is a recent atheist, who appears to have read an article or two on the "OT" (sic) and now believes herself to be an expert, whose job is to lecture R. Steinsaltz! Oddly, she has yet to post a single comment debunking the myths and fictions of her "NT" on any Christian/Catholic panelists' thread or on Susan Jacoby's.

Then there is paranoid/conspiracy theorist anon, who clearly hasn't been taking her Thorazine.

Finally, the various bullies, MC, et al.

Hard to be a Jew!!

GAVIN LANGMUIR: I don't know how much you've read about antisemitism through the Holocaust. If your background is fairly extensive Langmuir could be useful to you. He was a Protestant atheist historian of the medieval period, who wrote two important books on antisemitism: "Toward a Definition of Antisemitism" and "Religion and Antisemitism."

The reason I ask whether your background is extensive is that he takes a taxonomic approach, which is somewhat useful, IMO, if one is familiar with the history. Otherwise, it can be confusing and seem needlessly pedantic.

Here's a few atheists...

Robert Frost, Vincent Van Gogh, Ernest Hemingway, Arthur C. Clarke, Dave Matthews, Billy Joel, George Carlin, Voltaire, Mark Twain, Frank Zappa, Gene Roddenberry, George Bernard Shaw, George Burns, Groucho Marx, W.C. Fields, Leo Tolstoy, Kurt Vonnegut, James Joyce, Isaac Asimov, John Lennon, Frank Lloyd Wright, Alfred Hitchcock, Irving Berlin, George Orwell, Robert Heinlein, Oscar Wilde, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Christopher Marlowe, Noel Coward, Charlie Chaplin, H.P. Lovecraft, Woody Allen, Gillian Anderson, Marlon Brando, Dick Cavett, Jean Luc Godard, John Sayles, Jodie Foster, Mira Sorvino, Simone de Beauvoir, Gore Vidal, William Shatner, Stanley Kubrick, Ursula K. LeGuin, Ian McKellen, Burt Lancaster, Katharine Hepburn, Christopher Reeve, Max von Sydow, Ingmar Bergman, Rodney Dangerfield, Angelina Jolie, Bruce Lee, Diane Keaton, Arthur Rubenstein

"As for the emotional element of atheism – one may observe, rationally, that he doesn’t see or perceive a certain thing, but to deny its existence, at any level of vehemence, goes beyond rational thinking and into the realm of an emotional – sometimes very emotional – anti-belief. "

I disagree with the above. I see nothing emotional in failing to find evidence in someone's claims and then failing to believe those claims as a result.

Are you emotional about your lack of belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Atheism: There are no such things as gods.

I know theists like to make it seem more complex and hint at a component of unreasonable denial, in your case you call it “an element of emotion” but that’s not it at all.

No such thing as Jupiter, Zeus, Huitzilopochtli or any other supernatural universe creating being your god included. Just as the Romans believed reverently in their gods you believe in yours but both pantheons have about the same likelihood of existence.

The fact is there are a lot more atheists than you and your fellow theists would like, what’s worse is we’re getting a lot more vocal about just how deeply silly your superstitions are.

Seriously, have you read about your god in the Bible? You really think a supreme being as schizoid as that not only exists but worthy of adoration?

And you think atheists are the ones who let emotion influence their conclusions on the matter?

Really?

Hi Farnaz:

Any more thoughts about "intellectual rigor"? Btw., who are these Moron Anonymouses and this Gutless Moron, E Favorite? Why is he lecturing the rabbi?
The other Morons who blame you for standing up to bullying? Christians?

Josh

PS. Can you tell me anything about Gavin Langmuir?

MJ:

If it is you or MC who posted the article, I apologize. I never said Jihadist couldn't take care of herself. The schoolyard bully who has been slandering me is not hilarious, MC. She is a troubled and frightened soul who is spreading hatred and fear. She deserves your compassion. I am not a bully. I know that you are used to Jews taking whatever garbage is thrown at them, but, dear, those days are with us no longer.

This country is a crowded theater. We Jews live in that theatre. Deal with it.

"Anon's article, the point of which I am meant to see but don't."--

Farnaz- If you think all posts are for your edification- you aren't thinking.

The Italian article was posted for readers unfamiliar with Rabbi Adin's work with Catholics.

Farnaz, Jihadist has posted non-stop for twenty months on this forum and has taken the worst criticism of Islam with utmost grace. You can be sure nobody can stop her from posting if she really wanted to. You should be worrying about your own overreactions and inability to take criticism without issuing threats. Jihadist can take care of herself just fine. You could even learn from her.

Farnaz has posted non-stop for twenty months on this forum and has taken the worst criticism of Islam with utmost grace. You can be sure nobody can stop her from posting if she really wanted to. You should be worrying about your own overreactions and inability to take criticism without issuing threats. Jihadist can take care of herself just fine.

IMHO also spiced with schoolyard bully threats thrown once in a while for good measure. Read the Susan Jacoby's thread.

Farnaz playing the school teacher with bloggers on an international forum is quite hilarious.

Maria Janna,

At least you are ahead of Mel Gibson who had those ancients speaking Latin, which was hilarious.

Maria Janna:

Here is the best I can do: Oh, please. And you know what they were speaking. How? Through conversation? This insanity of the Christians is most irritating. Are you channeling these folks? And the sons of Herod?!

There are various reasons given for the Septuagint, but they are too detailed, too contradictory for me to go into now. The Greek and Roman influence on Catholicism is obvious. The Roman influence on Judaism?

Since you appear to be knowledgable about Christianity, though not of Judaism, I would be interested in your expounding upon Greek and Roman influences on Christian denominations. This, however, is not the place. Perhaps, you could discourse on Susan Jacoby's thread. There you would also have a knowledgeable partner, Mary Cunningham. A dialogue on this topic might prove quite enlightening.

Also, may I suggest that you email R. Steinsaltz with your questions, since he doesn't post on this thread, and they are irrelevant to his essay?

Their relevance, I assume, is to Anon's article, the point of which I am meant to see but don't.

E FAVORITE: Still awaiting your debunking NT myth, fiction on Christian/Catholic panelists' threads and on Susan Jacoby's.

I'd like to have some sources on those Roman writers who said that the Jews were atheists for not believing in the gods of the ancient pantheon. I know one anti-Jewish, rather polemic remark by Cicero ("For Flaccus" 67–69), but it's not strictly about atheism. I'm not really inclined to believe that the Romans, who had a lot of religious tolerance, would all condemn Judaism. The Jews were living all over Europe. They had been doing so even before the Romans did, since the first wave of hellenization! Afaik most of the Jews didn't even speak Hebrew, which is one of the reasons why the Septuagint had to be written, and I actually can't believe that Jews were disrespectful of the other gods. They were fully integrated, and this would naturally include religious affairs. Outside of Palaestina they mostly even adopted the local calendars instead of their own Jewish calendar. Jews fought for Rome. I mean, they even prayed for Julius Caesar at his grave! There were strong Roman-Jewish ties: the sons of Herod studied in Rome, at the Atrium Libertatis. Virgil is said to have been influenced by Judaism, and I remember reading scholars who proposed that the Roman imperial cult, which was a pre-form of Roman monotheism, was also inspired by Jewish monotheism. (I think it was Varro who was the most avid propagator of syncretizing the god-emperor and Jewish monotheism, but I'm not sure.) There had long been declared syncretisms between Jupiter, Zeus, Phoenician gods and the Jewish god, which might not have been welcomed by all Jews (especially not the Orthodox Jews, most of whom were living in Palaestina), but maybe by the hellenized Jews and surely by many Greeks and Romans. So I'd be much obliged for some info. Thx.

Btw., Anon, I read Italian, although I cannot speak it. Some phrases here trouble me and may be a function of translation. After you tell me to what this is relevant, would you post the article in Italian?

Anon:

Thank you for the article; there are many on the web. May I ask what the point is?

Here is a translation of the article, originally written by Marina Valensise, a journalist, for Il Foglio:

Adin Steinsaltz, the Rabbi who lectures on infinity to Roman Catholics

Rome. Adin Steinsaltz is a witty man. As soon as he starts to speak in the Pio IX classroom of the Pontifical Lateran University, it is evident that he has captured the audience.

Standing behind the dais, the rabbi speaks off the cuff, talking about infinity in science and theology, as required by the STOQ (Science, Technology and Ontological Quest) Project Conference, sponsored by the Templeton Foundation. He opens by quoting Voltaire: “Whoever does not believe in infinity, should simply consider human foolishness to change his mind.”

And on he goes for an hour with a “superb lecture on theology” as his Roman hosts enthusiastically say. “Science,” says Steinsaltz, “is concerned only with the measurable, be it the infinitely small, like the photon, or the infinitely large, such as the universe; it is always tied to the concepts of limits and finiteness.

Mathematics, on the other hand, is an utterly different matter: there, everything is the invention of human beings - except for the natural numbers, which are a gift from G-d. In fact, it is the only science that contemplates the concept of infinity. Even the Greeks knew it, for it was the Pythagoreans who discovered the irrational numbers, as well as a transcendental number such as the pi, whose value can be decomposed to infinity. And mathematical infinity is indeed composed of an infinite series of individual, finite points.

However, is it possible to talk of an infinity unrelated to any kind of discrete or distinct parts? It is indeed. The Torah does so when it speaks of One God. Kabbalistic literature does that, too, when, it speaks of the seventy or thousand names of God, yet defines Him as the source, the One, or that which is beyond numbers, the infinite and blessed being. This is the essence of divinity: neither material nor spiritual, but divine. It therefore follows that we cannot reach God, since we are finite beings, whereas God can reach us because, unlike the Cartesian cogito, He thinks before existing...”

The Rabbi continues his dialogue without the shortest abstract; only the sheer play of mental associations held together by the most rigorous logic. “People come to hear me speak live, not to hear me read a written text”, the rabbi explained the day before, in front of a dish of fried artichokes in the kosher restaurant of Cianci Square. This remark was the starting point for ruthless criticism of the universities which have not yet internalized Guttenberg’s invention and insist on sending professors to stand in front of the students -just as they did in the Middle Ages, when information was precious goods, to be distilled ex cathedra...

Besides being witty, Adin Steinsaltz is also a highly critical person. But if one does not know that he is the greatest living Talmudist, who has translated the Babylonian Talmud from Aramaic - a monumental task which has, within 40 years, reached the 37th tome out of 42, revitalizing a thousand-year old tradition for millions of people, so much so that today, the Steinsaltz Talmud can be found in every home in Israel - one would only see a short man with a long white beard down to his chest and the blue eyes of a good-natured gnome from an Isaac Singer story.

However, this inspired genius, advisor to Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon, and Cardinal Ratzinger’s interlocutor before he became Pope, tells of the Jew who arrived in Rome to find many well-known names: “Simon of Caifa, alias Peter, who received that enormous structure, Jesus of Nazareth, Saul of Tarsus... they all came from our People, and they, too, started, as usual, to quarrel with God”.

A Jew in the Lateran, Rabbi Steinsaltz speaks, characteristically, as heretic. The novelty, though, is that he does so without having to defend himself before a court, without fear of being sent to the stake for his passion for a forbidden book, as was the case in times past, according to his own words in his excellent book, now translated into Italian (The Essential Talmud, Cos'é il Talmud, Giuntina, Florence). Rather, he speaks as the guest of honor of Rino Fisichella, rector of the Lateran University, and of Paul Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council of Culture. This is a sign of our times.

“Anti-Semitism,” says Steinsaltz, “has always existed, even where there were no Jews; but in the past, it was not nice to admit it.” He tells about the Japanese writer who – out of ignorance - brought Begin as a gift the “Protocols of the Elders Zion”, considering it a compliment. He talks about the Islamic and fundamentalist threat, yet Ahmadinejad’s words do not upset him all that much. “I do not lose sleep at night. Attacking Israel would only make the Jewish cause more popular”.

Even if, when asked about the future of the Jewish State, he is the first to ask himself what is so Jewish in a state that, in the course of a few years is about to have more Arabs in it than Jews, Rabbi Steinsaltz has the backing of too many thousands of years to take this threat too seriously. “The history of the Jewish people is a mystery”, he says, quoting Kant, who saw Jewish history as evidence for God’s existence.

But for him, anti-Semitism too remains a mystery. Some years ago, in Russia, he was asked what is the true reason of anti-Semitism: “There are at least two,” Steinsaltz answered. “The first is that Jews believe that they are the Chosen People. The second is that anti-Semites suspect this to be true. The French, too, consider themselves the most clever people in the world, but nobody seems to take them seriously...”

Finally, though, when asked by a Catholic from Rome whether or not it is true that the Jews are indeed the Chosen People, the Rabbi replies, “I cannot say. Although, if I would believe that they are not, I cannot see how I would be a Jew.”

by Marina Valensise, for Il Foglio

Anon:

P.S. Jewish orthodoxy is divided about God/G-d. Many think that God is perfectly acceptable for reasons you would know if you were Jewish. As you see, R. Steinsaltz writes "God."

I don't like complaining, and I really don't want to write to Mr. Waters, since I can see that you are frightened and troubled, but I don't see what else I can do.

Anon:

Okay, I'm done.

"You are now on the thread of someone whom I respect deeply, not only a scholar but a fighter for civil rights."

No Jew would ask a respected Rabbi-

"What, precisely, is God?"

A Jew would ask,

What, precisely, is G-d?

Don't insult our beloved teacher.

Anon:

I cannot help you with your Islamophobia. You may have succeeded in getting Jihadist to limit her posts here, but you will never succeed with me. Further, I am not Muslim, a fact which I can prove, and if you continue to slander me, I will contact David Waters and insist that you stop.

You are now on the thread of someone whom I respect deeply, not only a scholar but a fighter for civil rights. You've gone too far, Anon. I realize you are frightened; these are frightening times, but I cannot stand by and watch you clutter this thread with garbage.

In Hebrew, Satan, (often, transliterated, HaSatan) means "the accuser."

I don't know about Mat, but I have no desire to comb through E Favorite's posts. I'm merely looking forward to her disabusing Christians/Catholics about the myth/fiction of the "NT" as she has so consistently done eith the "OT." So far, and it's getting late, I see no posts from her enlightening Christian/Catholic panelists or atheists, no posts from her urging C/C panelists to enlighten their followers.

When, I wonder, can we expect to see such posts?

Farnaz' posts on Susan Jacoby's threads and the discussion on George Carlin in Claire Hoffman's thread reveals her Islamic leanings, more specifically her Pakistani Muslim Islamic leanings.

Farnaz could enlighten Rabbi Steinsaltz about her Muslim take on Islam and its connection to Judaism. That would be completely new interpretation for a Jewish Rabbi.

On faith has been in existence since November of 2006. Anyone who want to spend time perusing my posts has plenty of material to work with.

OnFaith hasn't been in existence for years. Awaiting your missives to Christian/Catholic panelists, and Susan Jacoby bloggers on the myths and fictions in the NT.

Maybe it would have been more fruitful to follow for years, instead of months. Or better yet not to follow so closely what any particular poster has or has not been been doing at all.

Rabbi Steinsaltz:

Good essay. Thak you.

E FAVORITE:

I think Farnaz is correct. I've been following this blog for several months and I've never seen you once posting on the fabrications in the NT, let alone urging panelists to re-educate their followers.

Isn't it high time you started to do this since you say you are an "equal opportunity atheist"? You ought to be more precise, btw., unless you also plan to enlighten Muslims and adherents of other faiths. But start by enlightening Christians on the falsehood and fiction of the NT.
Why not start right now?

E Favorite-

I"am not a christian. I'm an atheist - an equal opportunity atheist. Right now I'm addressing a Jewish theologian.

You are addressing one of the foremost theologians, Jewish or otherwise, on the basis of having read a few articles, if that.

You are an atheist and so am I. However, in this culture I remain a Jew whether an atheist or not. Using the terms of this Christian culture, I will therefore refer to you as a Christian atheist, or, if you prefer, as a "christian" (sic) atheist.

If you wish to use the words OT with Christians, that is fine; however, it is offensive to Jews and has no place on this thread. See the Vatican web site which heartily (and admirably) struggles to get itself out of the OT hole it dug itself into centuries ago.

"When addressing Christian theologians I have frequently asked the same of them in reference to the NT -- and the OT."

This is simply untrue. I have been reading onFaith since December, and recall your discovery of the Tree of Life. Never once have I seen a post of yours addressing the nonsense in the NT, although I've seen many on the Tanakh. I wonder if you even know what NT myth debunking is.

The questions I've raised are a good beginning and I will repost them below. Let me help you by prefacing them with some other NT weirdness.

The Sanhedrin never met on Passover (never).

There is nothing in Paul that corresponds to any Judaic beliefs of any recorded period.

There is no evidence that Paul existed, let alone that he was converted.

In the era that Jesus supposedly lived, Israel was under siege and prophets were falling out of the trees. Why anyone would want to be concerned about him, when they were unconcerned about anyone else is hard to fathom.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Why not do the research?

Why not post to some of the Catholic/Christian panelists informing them of the nonsense of the "Q" Gospel, the inconsistencies in the "NT," the fact that aside from the highly dubious Josephus, there is no evidence, no textual, no linguistic, no archaeological that JC ever existed? Why don't you recommend readings to them showing them the ridiculousness of their beliefs?

I've given you a good beginning. You can go right now to a Christian/Catholic's thread and begin educating. Or, you can go to Susan Jacoby's thread. I wouldn't worry so much about the "OT."
Most Christians/Catholics have very little to do with it.

Worry about the NT, and worry about the miseducation of the Christians/Catholics--there are so many more of them.

Finally, you need not have the courtesy to respond to me by name. However, is that is the route you wish to take, I will follow suit and refer to you in the third person.

I am not a christian. I'm an atheist - an equal opportunity atheist. Right now I'm addressing a Jewish theologian. When addressing Christian theologians I have frequently asked the same of them in reference to the NT -- and the OT.

E Favorite:

"I'd be even happier to hear that he makes a point to educate Jews about the lack of evidence for the exodus."

I cannot imagine why Jewish education would be of such great concern to you, a Christian. Why not concern yourself more with Christian/Catholic miseducation which begins with the NT?

I'd be quite happy if all the Christian/Catholic panelists of onFaith made it a point to educate Christians about the fiction of the NT, particularly since it has been detrimental to the health and welfare of so many other peoples, most particularly to Jews.

That is why I so look forward to your ridding these Christian panelists of their delusions.

E Favorite:

"The Tree of Life" is not the sine qua non of Judaism. Why it would be in his biography is something I cannot fathom. He has more than enough for his c.v.

The more important question:

Why not post to some of the Catholic/Christian panelists informing them of the nonsense of the "Q" Gospel, the inconsistencies in the "NT," the fact that aside from the highly dubious Josephus, there is no evidence, no textual, no linguistic, no archaeological that JC ever existed? Why don't you recommend readings to them showing them the ridiculousness of their beliefs? Not a single one, on this panel, holds credentials equivalent to R. Steinsaltz. They could better use your instruction and edification.

I'll scan these panelists' sites from time to time, hoping to find your comments disabusing them of their silly notions and spreading of make believe.

I disagree that it takes intellectual rigor to be an atheist. I think lack of belief is a very simple thing.

I made no comment on the rabbi's academic training because it's unrelated to his comments on atheism.

I'm happy to hear that he was instrumental in the new Tree of Life. I'd be even happier to hear that he makes a point to educate Jews about the lack of evidence for the exodus.

R. Steinsaltz:

I wonder if you might more define "intellectual rigor" in more detail. I also think that a prior definition is in order. What, precisely, is God?

E Favorite:

Another point: You overlooked the part of the rabbi's essay in which he referred to the "intellectual rigor" that atheism requires. Do you have this, since, thus far it hasn't been evident to me? You have read the essays in a single book, an article in WaPo, and are now an expert on the Tanakh. R. Steinsaltz has written nearly one hundred books, some of which include observations not only on biblical archeology but on other forms of biblical scholarship about which, thus far, you appear to know nothing and have shown no interest. What on earth makes you believe that R. Steinsaltz is a literalist? Why do I not think he needs you to inform him about Exodus?

On another thread, I recommended readings to you and suggested you look up his biography. On Jacoby's current thread someone else posted it.

In the interim, why not post to some of the Catholic/Christian panelists informing them of the nonsense of the "Q" Gospel, the inconsistencies in the "NT," the fact that aside from the highly dubious Josephus, there is no evidence, no textual, no linguistic, no archaeological that JC ever existed? Why don't you recommend readings to them showing them the ridiculousness of their beliefs? Not a single one, on this panel, holds credentials equivalent to R. Steinsaltz. They could better use your instruction and edification.

E Favorite:

FYI, R. Steinsaltz was consulted on "The Tree of Life." It's always good to know to whom your are posting to or ranting at.

And who are you, Rabbi - to determine what makes a true atheist? Is this some rationale you just made up? Did you discuss it with atheists? Study it somewhere?

To me it sounds like the type of pronouncement clergy make all the time, along the lines of "I said it; I have a direct line to God; I must be right."

From my perspective, being an atheist doesn't require any vehemence at all. Some people base it on simple observation - no evidence for God; no rational reason for believing in an invisible supernatural being in the sky. Some base it on knowledge of science, some base it on studying the ancient stories that form our religions and knowing that these are myths, not facts. As a theologian, you know that too. You know there's no evidence for the exodus. Why don't you tell your congregation? I mean really tell them. Have them turn to the page in the "Tree of Life" where it explains biblical archeology.

What makes me vehement is how this evidence-free, supernatural, myth-based system is forced on impressionable children and then continuously fed to reasonable adults who would never believe it otherwise. You have some responsibility for that.

"As anti-matter is only matter arranged in a slightly different order, anti-belief is almost the same kind of belief, even though it has minuses instead of pluses."

Very interesting, Rabbi. Perhaps, this accounts for the militancy of some atheists, although I suspect that a good deal more of it is explained by the harassment of religionists and their ongoing attempts to legislate their views, convert others, and infiltrate the curriculum.

Mein Shine-a TOTTA, voos mochstay?

huggs & Kisses to All SABRAS! & All potential Joktanian SABRAiates!

Duces Hashem Gimmoch! Neech ich!