AOS:

really, you are wasting your energy being so angry. i am not your enemy. idiots are your enemy. i am not an idiot. neither are you, i dare say, but it is extremely rude, not to say pointless and counterproductive, to insult and condemn people that don’t fit what seems to be an extremely narrow view of what constitutes intelligence, reason and good sense.

Ahh yes the “I am smarter than you because I understand philosophy” claim, a claim made by many a supernaturalist in an attempt to ‘claim’ the intellectual high ground

no, that’s not what i’m saying. i’m saying that that’s not how logic works and, despite what you may think, no attempt to entirely exclude non-material considerations from philosophical debate has ever worked, with the result that non-dogmatic philosophers have had to concede that both opinion and point of view have their place, just as experimental method and the various types of logic have their place.

“what’s it all about?” are not really in the evidence-based domain.”

music on a CD is both a set of 1s and 0s as well as a reflection of the inner world of the soul. there is no “evidence” that a piece of music is “good”, just as there is no “evidence” that love is anything more than chemical activity in the brain. if you want to exclude every other consideration, that is up to you, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that you have the One True Answer, when it is that sort of thinking you presumably claim to oppose.

Well it bothers me and seeing as I am a scientist I would dispute your arbitrary claim of “about half the worlds scientists”

as you are a scientist, you will presumably understand the importance of statistical methods. the fact that you are a scientist doesn’t mean that all scientists therefore agree with you.

every single scientist I have spoken to in the last few years have All expressed concern not only at the level of lunacy being shown by the various religious cults but by the acceptance of the religious that all this lunacy is acceptable, extreme yes, but still acceptable

every single open-minded religious person i have spoken to in the last few years have all expressed concern not only at the level of lunacy being shown by many religious groups but also at the difficulty of getting people to accept that moderate religious groups have to work to eliminate the acceptance of such things. hence my writing for the spittoon.

intellectually they seem unable to accept that “the fault dear brutus lays not solely with the lunatic stars but in the scriptures themselves”

isn’t that the “this is one possibility, so therefore it’s correct” fallacy? the problem is not the scriptures. the problem is the way they are interpreted by idiots. if you can stop people being idiots (the same applies to atheists in possession of, say, biological weapons, which was my point, about the moral neutrality of technology) then you’re really getting somewhere. your reasoning is faulty.

So No condoms for Africa is what, an Atheist thing?

so, because those guys do something stupid, you think you can be rude to me?

tell me, what are you implying when you say the “non-religious and germ warfare?

germ warfare was developed via the scientific method. are you seriously suggesting that an atheist regime would be too enlightened to use such a thing? my point is about moral sense, not about the inherent superiority of religion. obviously there are moral atheists. what i am saying is that any weapon, once developed, is morally neutral. the absence of religion is not a guarantee that moral sense will be more advanced.

Some people always wish to complicate things

perhaps, but some things are in fact complicated.

Take the so called Holy scriptures for example, why all the trying to find out what they “really” mean, why not just read the words and say, “boy the people who wrote this bullshit must have been on some kind of dark age acid” because when you read them, these words, that is what they come over as, simply the writings of lunatic dark age fantasists, on acid, well they do to me anyway.

the same argument could be made for many types of poetry, music and even science textbooks, if written in another language, or requiring a level of knowledge beyond the basic. once again, this is faulty reasoning.

Ahh yes, the double barreled I will see no evil and hear no evil.

not at all. i take responsibility for my statements and actions and expect other people to do the same, with a modicum of courtesy of course.

The Grand Finale, an insulting curse on my house, how very, very predictable.

i’m not insulting you, i’m merely pointing out the irony of how you are coming across – just like the sort of people you claim to oppose.

if you are really such an enlightened being, perhaps you ought to see how mocking people (however ineffectually) is not really going to support that. it’s an unproductive, unhelpful way to behave.

let’s call this one a day.

judy:

The Chasam Sofer wasn’t in effect as oppositional to all change and innovation as you suggest.

that’s not actually what i’m suggesting. i am suggesting that he is adduced as the authority for the sort of points of view that want to forbid any change. the teshuvah you cite is just the sort of thing i want to know about, because of the way people misuse authorities to support their own points of view. maimonides is a case in point.

Secondly, I know that the Lubavitch movement regards itself as following the Chasam Sofer’s path (and thinks its development and working approach is fully in conformity with it).

i am sure you are right. nonetheless, habad is also fundamentally based on the kabbalistic thought of the tanya and, at its most recondite, it is fundamentally hostile to the “non-kosher” world, it finds it terrifying in its “impurity”. obviously at a pshat level they feel they have to go out and rescue everyone, but it is basically a similar view to the islamist dar al-islam and dar al-harb. mitzvah tanks? tzivos HaShem? i’m not necessarily dissing the chatam sofer, nor am i dissing the incredible work done by lubavitch, but the inner world that drives this i find worrying to a degree.

From that, I’ve learned to be far less ready to jump to conclusions of the sort that people usually jump to when discussing those they consider too observant and inward-looking compared to what they feel are the limits of the Jewish perspectives and standpoints they will welcome in their lives and outlooks.

i understand your point of view and i share it, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t things going on there that i thoroughly disapprove of. i do move in some quite traditional circles and have more exposure to the haredi world than you probably think, this is not the criticism of someone who is unfamiliar with the workings of those communities. i am looking at the theological endgame and trying to understand the messages from the inside.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Firstly, he derived his stance from “There is nothing new under the sun” and interpreted how that should be applied.

I used to think he was just a block to all change. Then I was shown an amazing responsa he wrote to a consultation about whether a man who wanted to train to do professional art work should be allowed to follow a mainstream secular course of art training (which of course involved study and copying of the most blatantly “graven images”, representations of nudity etc all of which at that time was driven by Graeco-Roman and Christian Renaissance art. You couldn’t have got more “treif”. Inter alia the consultation was whether this man should be allowed to attend but should withdraw from whatever was indecent etc etc.

The Chasam Sofer’s response was that this was determined by the man’s need to earn a living in a situation where qualifications were required (ie Austro-Hungarian Empire). Therefore, not only should he definitely take the course but should not withdraw from anything that might significantly affect his chance of obtaining the best possible level of qualification. It was an amazing response (and I was riveted by reading it.)

Secondly, I know that the Lubavitch movement regards itself as following the Chasam Sofer’s path (and thinks its development and working approach is fully in conformity with it). So if you think about the levels of Lubavitch innovation re outreach, sending out Jewish couples into a totally unkosher and hostile environment to reach out to lost Jews, you can see that for people who are from that world he’s very far from deserving the reputation he has amongst those of us not learned in the literature and scholarship of the world he wrote in.

From that, I’ve learned to be far less ready to jump to conclusions of the sort that people usually jump to when discussing those they consider too observant and inward-looking compared to what they feel are the limits of the Jewish perspectives and standpoints they will welcome in their lives and outlooks.

I missed that one, so you are saying that germ warfare is an Atheist thing? Nanotechnology is what, another Atheist thing? Over consumption? So it’s the Atheists who are over-populating the planet?

So No condoms for Africa is what, an Atheist thing?

Nanotechnology is going to do what exactly, release an army of Atheist nano-robots to cleanse the brains of the righteous ones?

Germ warfare? That is supposed to imply what exactly? As a Spittoon person I am certain that you are not trying to suggest that like some of the more clinically insane religious fruitcakes you think the aids virus was a man made experiment gone wrong or, as the certifiably insane imbecilic religious fruitcakes think, it was “gods punishment of the gays” Some religious lunatics do think this, but as you are a spittoon person I am certain that you don’t believe this nonsense, so tell me, what are you implying when you say the “non-religious and germ warfare?

“reductionist viewpoints”

Some people always wish to complicate things, cloud the issues with psychobabble, the worst of which is religious psychobabble, why is that? When actions or events or even words are simple to understand why do some people attempt to confuse things, why do they always look for hidden meanings, secret messages, what the issue “really” means? Take the so called Holy scriptures for example, why all the trying to find out what they “really” mean, why not just read the words and say, “boy the people who wrote this bullshit must have been on some kind of dark age acid” because when you read them, these words, that is what they come over as, simply the writings of lunatic dark age fantasists, on acid, well they do to me anyway.

As you are a Spittoon person and as I really like the Spittoon site I will desist from ‘picking’ on you, but please, don’t assume that Atheists are or to be more precise, this Atheist is, stupid.

Ahh yes the “I am smarter than you because I understand philosophy” claim, a claim made by many a supernaturalist in an attempt to ‘claim’ the intellectual high ground, Just incase you missed it I did mention that I don’t consider the protestations of clerics as being evidence, that also includes the “thoughts” of professional Philosophers because you may not realize this but a philosophers “thoughts” are, well, err, hmm, yes, err, well “Thoughts” actually, they don’t constitute evidence, merely wishful thinking.

“what’s it all about?” are not really in the evidence-based domain.”

How very convenient for you and your fellow ‘delusionist’s.’

“this doesn’t seem to bother about half the world’s scientists”

Well it bothers me and seeing as I am a scientist I would dispute your arbitrary claim of “about half the worlds scientists” every single scientist I have spoken to in the last few years have All expressed concern not only at the level of lunacy being shown by the various religious cults but by the acceptance of the religious that all this lunacy is acceptable, extreme yes, but still acceptable, intellectually they seem unable to accept that “the fault dear brutus lays not solely with the lunatic stars but in the scriptures themselves”

“and it doesn’t bother me either”

To repeat “Well it bothers me”

“do yourself a favour and stop trying to convert people who are no threat to you”

Ahh yes, the double barreled I will see no evil and hear no evil. A few hundred years ago I would have march straight down to the woodpile for such blasphemy would I not, in fact come to think of it I still would be in certain parts of the world, would I not? Stop trying to convert people now coming from a religious person that really is ironic.

“you are acting just like the worst type of inbred jihadi redneck.”

The Grand Finale, an insulting curse on my house, how very, very predictable.

You believe what you wish my philosophical friend but as I have already said until you and your ilk can offer more than the usual stifle the enquiry bullshit “explanations” then I will take every opportunity to mock you.

Peace, but not at any cost.

The Chasam Sofer, hugely influenced Hungarian Jewry. And I would say that a defining element of both Chasidic and non-Chasidic Hungarian Orthodoxy is a rejection and suspicion of all innovation to Jewish tradition, a view that was central to the Chasam Sofer’s teachings.

i suspected that this would be at the bottom of it.

While Hungarian Jews have often been at the forefront of the anti-Zionist world view, they are not the only ones. The Litvisher religious world was also mostly anti-Zionist, as can be seen by the writings of Rabbi Elchonan Wasserman zt’l, the Chazon Ish zt’l, Rabbi Dessler zt’l etc.

yes, this is why mizrachi was such a challenge.

German orthodoxy, the Torah im derech eretz school of thought, was also anti-Zionist. (until it began to change into Modern Orthodoxy) Clearly the philosophy that opposed Zionism, was not the product of any one geographic region.

reform was also, originally, anti-zionist. socialist jewish groups also had their fair share of anti-zionism and continue to be prime movers to this day. it just goes to show that the idea that there has ever been cross-communal consensus on anything is just so much wishful thinking.

anaximander:

clearly, you are quite angry about the failure of religious people to be convinced by, as you put it, “the facts”. equally clearly, a basic grounding in philosophy would show you that such questions as “what’s it all about?” are not really in the evidence-based domain. this doesn’t seem to bother about half the world’s scientists and it doesn’t bother me either. you fail to do your argument any justice by lumping us all in together without regard to the real diversity of opinion. do yourself a favour and stop trying to convert people who are no threat to you – you are acting just like the worst type of inbred jihadi redneck.

b’shalom

bananabrain

The Chasam Sofer, hugely influenced Hungarian Jewry. And I would say that a defining element of both Chasidic and non-Chasidic Hungarian Orthodoxy is a rejection and suspicion of all innovation to Jewish tradition, a view that was central to the Chasam Sofer’s teachings.

Certainly Satmar and other groups such as Munkacs reflect the influence of the Chasam Sofer.

Also the founder of the Eida HaHaredis, was also of Hungarian (non-Chasidic) background Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zt’l.

While Hungarian Jews have often been at the forefront of the anti-Zionist world view, they are not the only ones. The Litvisher religious world was also mostly anti-Zionist, as can be seen by the writings of Rabbi Elchonan Wasserman zt’l, the Chazon Ish zt’l, Rabbi Dessler zt’l etc. German orthodoxy, the Torah im derech eretz school of thought, was also anti-Zionist. (until it began to change into Modern Orthodoxy)

Clearly the philosophy that opposed Zionism, was not the product of any one geographic region.

For the religious there are no accidents, it’s all fate, Gods ‘will’, his master plan and the religious don’t believe in “natural causes” it’s supernatural causes that guide their thinking, that’s the problem.

Look, the people who wrote these so called “holy scriptures” were probably the bin laden type fundamentalists of their day, delusional, irrational, defective brained nut-cases but without the advantage of modern day learning, you know all the proven scientific evidence we have these days to explain things such as thunder and lightening for instance.

It is very, very, very simple, show me the verifiable evidence, dare I say it, the PROOF, any PROOF, that these “holy scriptures” are true and are not the fantasies of ancient fundamentalists and I will gladly kneel in submission to this all powerful alien entity.

Oh yes and as I have expressed, on more than one occasion, I don’t consider sweat stained sheets, images on toast or the protestations of theological “scholars” as evidence.

Millions of Humans are now at risk from the delusions of the religious lunatic fraternity and as such I consider it my duty as a none religion believing Human to do, what little I can, to help to fend off this onslaught of religious insanity.

You see the problem I have with the religious is this, it has now become blatantly obvious, even to the most obtuse intellects, that the TRUTH doesn’t seem to work, the EVIDENCE doesn’t seem to work, not even the logical presentation of the scientific FACTS seems to work, it seems that there is no convincing them that their fantasy has evolved from a mere childlike harmless belief, such as believing in father christmas, into a very real and dangerous threat to the well being of our species, so all I am left with is either violence or mockery, I abhor violence so the only weapon left to me is mockery.

If this upsets the religious then good, as far as I am concerned it’s about time the religious got a taste of their own medicine because it upsets me when I see members of my species still clinging to this insane childlike nonsense.

Prove it, go on, prove it, surely it can’t be that difficult a task, I mean we have so much scientific and technical knowledge these days surely you, the religious, can offer better evidence than some badly written fairy tale “scriptures” from the days of goat shit sandwiches and camel piss expresso’s.

PROVE IT. Not much to ask really is it?

b’shalom

bananabrain