Yes, exactly. But still, the REAL question is why would people think the JEWISH RELIGION is evil? Hating Jews is easy to understand. As you said, just being different is enough reason. But to think the religion itself is evil? Again, no one ever forced anyone to become a Jew. Judaism was never forced on anyone in any way at any time. This is exactly what I would think the definition of an "evil religion" would be. So I really am curious why those who voted that Judaism is "evil" did so. Evil in what way? Not the people, I understand that people hate Jews for being different. But what makes the RELIGION "EVIL"? Anyone have an answer as to why they voted "Judaism"? Peace, RS
What is the source of information for these statements? Is there any documentation to support these assumptions? Not a challenge. Just a question. Peace, RS PS:An interesting comment overheard: The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a nativity scene in Washington D.C. this Christmas, not for any religious or constitutional reason, but because they have not been able to find three wise men and a virgin in the nation's capitol. There was no problem, however, in finding enough asses to fill the stable.
If religion is such a problem for some people, we could always regress to USSR era godless socialism. I'm sure a lot of tree-hugging liberal arts students would love this. No more god, religion, prayer or sabbath. Then we could regress to running around stabbing each other trying to steal the next man's possessions. Why not? Once you throw out religion you begin the process of eroding morality. Can you even have morality in a society without the pretense of religion? The fact that well over 85% of the world is religious is a significant sign to me that religion exists for a very strong reason. Even if you are an atheist, you should ask yourself why social evolution has placed such a strong emphasis on having religion in cultures and societies throughout the world. Naturally there is no proof for a god, but I do believe that a proof is unnecessary since it is known through personal observation. Just the very fact that there is ANYTHING at all suggests that something created it. In fact, that is irrefutable. Show me one thing in this universe that wasn't created by something else. Error 404, I believe the hatred of judaism is directly associated with a hatred towards jews by many people. One of the foremost prerequisites for hatred is fear. One of the causes of fear is a lack of understanding and information. Naturally, most people who hate are ignorant and uneducated.
Evidently, you did not witness my childhood. Getting back to your question, I'd bet that the guys who picked Judaism as their poll choice did not analyze the question as deeply as you did. They hate Jews more than the other groups, and chose accordingly- without really caring to understand what was actually asked.
Islam and Christianity have their roots in Judaism, so if you think either of those are evil... there's a kind of logic there I guess. Atheists learn a sense of morality the same way everyone else does, it is taught in childhood, and generally based on the common sense idea that your own needs are no more important than anyone else's. Religion has no monopoly on morality. Creation implies a creator only if one assumes the universe was created. Obviously if one imagines there is no god, there was no creation, but only some mechanism that set the universe in motion. The idea that there is a creator only begs the question of what created the creator, or set him in motion.
That's a ridiculous conclusion. I can take someone or something that represents or preaches a positive message, and I can start playing with it or adding onto it until I have created something with a mixed bag of positive and negative attributes. Or I can take something that is generally positive but with a few weaknesses or negatives and I can magnify and expand the weaknesses until I have a much worse product. Look at the Nation of Islam. They take a few positive messages (no drinking, self-respect and pride, self-sufficient, etc) and mix it with bigotry and hate. Of course, the Nation didn't really develop from, nor take their positive messages from, any positive sources, but if it had derived their good attributes from a good source, would that make the whole "religion" good. Absolutely not!! Islam is generally the most intolerant of the 3 religions, even though many decent Muslims don't practice it in intolerant ways.
Appealing to authority is usually NOT a logical fallacy at all. Experts are needed and legitimate as long as they are legitimate experts in the field being debated, and especially if what is being debated is either very technical or if the area of disagreement is establishing a definition. If you don't like his definition, then simply say that you don't like it, but that you will accept it as the premise of his argument. Otherwise, you are changing the nature of the argument and turning it into an absurd, petty, 'tastes great, less filling" debate! Also, just as name calling does not prove anything, continually writing in huge letters proves absolutely nothing, it is tacky and rude, and it also shows poor etiquette! Since you like to pop psychoanalyze axeman, I'm going to ask you a question. Are you starved for attention right now? Are you feeling powerless and ignored or something? Otherwise, please stop making it hard and annoying to read and please stop taking up excessive amounts of space for no reason. Thank you in advance!
Notice that I already CLEARLY explained that appealing to authority is NOT always a fallacy and included a detailed description of when it ISNT which APPLIES to my appeal, AND HE STILL clings to assertion that its fallacious Clearly Missed the Boat understands when it is not fallacious, as do I, but you need to educate yourself further on this fallacy. Bzzzzzzzzzzt!!! Sorry 777, my appeal is perfectly valid. If we were discussing some very specific terms used in space travel, and I used a more technical definition which the space agencies of the world, including NASA clearly define, is well understood, and generally accepted, and I appealed to these authorities, IT WOULD BE VALID. They are EXPERTS in this domain, and have the authority to define these technical terms. 777, just doesn't want to admit he is so clearly wrong on this. His level of intellectual dishonesty is at all time highs right now. A-Theism - WITHOUT THEISM. The definition is practically self-evident and he STILL rejects it Philosophers, the atheist public, atheistic texts, famous atheistic writers, philosophy books, college philosophy professors, overwhelmingly identify with the definition I use, BUT 777 REJECTS it Could this be any MORE absurd? Nope. This begs the question.... ***WHAT*** would you accept as proof that my definition of atheism is the correct one??? Anything???? Name it. If you cant, then we know your simply full of crap. You have made it glaringly clear that no matter how obviously wrong you are on even a small position, that you are completely incapable of conceding it. Im talking to a brick wall. You prove it with every additional post trying to defend your INCORRECT definition of atheism. peace axeman
"Following your logic that only atheist have the proper definition of atheism, then only theist have the proper definition of theism." If the majority of theists, theistic authors, and the philosophical community, agreed on the condition, then THAT WOULD BE THE DEFINITION. "There may be clubs and groups of atheists who like to write their own definitions of their beliefs, but have a belief of non belief is forever a belief." Maybe. But I have yet to come across one as an atheist. These clubs would be the small minority and they do not have the authority to change the definition of ATHEISM for the majority of the atheistic community, philosophical community, and learning communities (colleges, etc). "A plant is an atheist. That is as absurd." Calling it absurd does not make it so. Here you clearly show us that you simply dont know what atheism is. ITS A LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD. Period. Does a plant believe in god? NO. So its an atheist. Is a plant CAPABLE of believing anything? NO. So it MUST be an atheist since it cant believe in god. "Oh, and you continue to avoid countering my arguments, but simply sit back on definition of and from "authority." " I have done no such thing. You simply FAIL to realize that my appeal was NOT fallacious and perfectly valid. This has been explained by me and Missed the Boat, and if you asked any critical thinking college professor, he would tell you the same. YOUR ERROR is that you continue to claim this is fallacious when it obviously is NOT. "It is logically impossible to have a concept of God and at the same time have a position of non belief in the concept of God that has been accepted. " You have a logical error here. Having a CONCEPT of God is NOT a requirement for a position of non-belief. If a man were raised on a desert island, and NEVER heard of god, he is not capable of having a concept of god. And yet... HE LACKS THEISTIC belief, ***WHICH IS **** the definition of atheism. He is therefore an ATHEIST. " It can be rejected as non valid and real, it can be accepted as valid and real, or one can make a conscious and active decision to neither reject or accept the concept as valid and real for. In every case though, a mental process that involves belief systems takes place. A choice and a decision is made. It involves the belief process to come to a conclusion, thus belief is involved even in the process of non belief." Wrong again. If you have NO knowledge of god, then no DECISION in possible. Further, a decision is also NOT required to be an atheist. If FOR WHATEVER REASON, you lack BELIEF in god, you are by definition an ATHEIST. Period. "I disagree that incapacity of belief in God of any entity is necessarily the proper definition of an atheist." Strawman. I never said it was. I said that a simply lack of belief in god makes you an atheist. Wether or not you have the capacity to believe is simply not relevant. "Again, ask any reasonable man if a plant is an atheist, and they will think you mad, as capacity of belief in necessary to claim active non belief, or even conscious passive non belief. Where there is choice, there is consciousness." FALSE. Can you prove this? Nope. Lets be more specific here. A reasonable man who KNOWS the definition of atheism would immediately agree that a plant MUST BE an atheist, since it is NOT capable of believing in god. A reasonable man IGNORANT of the definition of atheism, may agree with you, but only because he doesnt know what atheism is, just like you. "Suggesting that entities without consciousness sufficient to chose a belief system are "practicing atheism" is non sensible. " Thats because practicing atheism is about as silly as saying people who dont play soccer practice a-soccerism. How do you "practice" something which is defined by that which you do NOT do??? Your not making any sense here. "An atheist, by all reasonable understanding is a person who practices the belief of atheism," FALSE FALSE FALSE. You already made the same error. ATHEISM is NOT a belief. Its a lack of belief. Your claim of "reasonable understanding" is also blatantly wrong, because anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS what atheism IS, would never make such a claim. You may claim that the AVERAGE PERSON does not UNDERSTAND what atheism IS, and therefore would make this claim because if his IGNORANCE. But there is no way you can claim that someone who knows the definition of ATHEISM would reasonably make this claim. "The concept of atheism can exist without anyone practicing atheism, but an atheist does not exist as an atheist until that atheist practices atheism. It is the practice of atheism that makes one an atheist, not the other way around. Atheism is a practice of the atheist, in the same way theism is the practice of the theist, communism is the practice of the communist, elitism is the practice of the elitist, etc." Bolt already destroyed your bad "word logic", with your ism's. Once again... ATHEISM is not something which is practiced. I dont "practice" atheism. What is there to practice?? Nothing. Again... a man on a desert island that never heard of god is an ATHEIST. So what is he practicing??? You claim that an atheist is someone who practices atheism. This sentence doesnt make any sense. You cant practice the "lack of a belief". "In case you didn't know this, most people don't believe their house plants practice atheism." Oooooh... so now you KNOW what "most people" believe? Have you read the minds of MOST people on earth to determine this? Most people never PONDERED if a plant is an atheist. And what if they DIDNT believe their house plant was an atheist? Does that make them correct? Nope. Weak weak weak argument here. "I suspect that if you go around telling everyone that your lawn practices atheism because your lawn is an atheist, they might just think you are a bit loony." Thats because its stupid to claim ANYTHING or ANYONE practices atheism. Further... their reaction doesnt mean its true. Your totally confused 777. Let me put it into SIMPLE terms for you. In the NEXT post. peace axeman