What is the point?

[cnorman18]

In response to a PM from a friend:

I'm losing interest in the forum, X, and for a number of reasons. First, and probably foremost, I'm not about defending "theism" in general. I'm a Jew, and I speak for Judaism--and not for Christianity, especially the fundamentalist sort.

I'm a polite kind of guy, and it's difficult to continue to avoid observing openly that most of the Christians here are schnooks. I'm incredibly, extremely, horribly tired of being lumped in with them, and even more tired of having to educate every damn atheist and non-theist that comes down the pike from the ground up on why Judaism is different, and to what extent--and, even more, of having to overcome the huge hump, for them, of the bare fact of belief in a God when that aspect of my religion is almost peripheral.

As you know, I don't play the prove-there's-a-God game, but that seems to be the only game anybody wants to play here. I'd like to get past that question, but the atheists won't let me and the Christians, frankly, aren't generally worth my time since that question of bare belief is about all we agree on. I'm agnostic on the question of an afterlife, for instance, and to most of them, there's no other point to religion.

I'm not saying you're doing this or ever have, X, but one of the aspects of the forum that I'm really beginning to despise is the unexamined assumption on the part of virtually all atheists--present company excepted--that atheism is the inevitable and unavoidable conclusion of any mature and intelligent mind. It's rather like the assumption in the political world that anyone who is not a flaming leftwinger is a benighted moron. It's tiresome, it's an enormous pain in the butt to overcome (because it's a prejudice and not a reasoned conclusion), and it's BORING. Trying to find an atheist on this forum who is even willing to consider the possibility that belief in God is not, at some level, evidence of mental impairment or immaturity is even harder than finding an intelligent and articulate theist. How do you debate somebody who takes it as an inarguable given that you are an idiot? How do you discuss something as complex and nuanced as Jewish ethics, history and theology with someone who dismisses that whole universe of thought as a childish and insignificant belief in "invisible super beings" or equivalent to a belief in leprechauns and unicorns?

I have had some very frustrating debate experiences on the board, and few if any rewarding ones. Just when I think we're making some progress, I find myself, once again, put in the same box as the fundies merely because I believe in God, and I have to start from scratch with yet another poster. A few dozen exchanges (and hours of writing) later, I find that layers of wrong (and in any other context, bigoted) assumptions are still firmly in place.

You think fundamentalists are hard to reason with? Try convincing a militant atheist that there is or ever has been any value or truth to religion at all. Not all the bigots and haters are on the theist side here, but try convincing anyone on the other side of that.

I realize the presence of so many fundamentalists makes my job even harder, but from my point of view, it just makes my job pointless. I'd like to make the case that there's such a thing as intelligent and rational religious belief; but the atheists think that plainly impossible, and the fundies are hard at work proving them right. Why bother?

It's been so long since I've seen a thread where I couldn't predict the conversation ten exchanges into the future, I don't remember what it's like. Also: My last five or six cogent, on-point and intelligent contributions to various threads have been utterly ignored by all parties, as if they were never posted. Again, what's the point?

I would LOVE to talk about Judaism and all the things that make it unique and admirable. What are my chances of being able to do that if, every single time, I have to deal with "but how do you know there's a God in the first place?" and the discussion never, ever, moves off that question? I'd rather catch up on my sleep.

Maybe I'll post this as a new thread. Watch what happens if I do:

"But how do you know/can you prove/establish as fact/show evidence that there is a God in the first place?"

Zzzzz...

[cnorman18]

And then, of course, tnere is tne problem of threads being totally hijacked and turned into debates on wholly unrelated subjects, because someone wishes to redirect the discussion toward his own personal hobbyhorse instead of the topic of the thread.

Thanks heaps, Nick.

And while we're at it, you have a lot of nerve asking if I'm willing to "not judge" Christianity. I never have; my critical remarks here were, and have always been, directed at individual Christians and never at tne faith itself. You, on the other hand, seem to feel qualified to make pronouncements about "Christendom" and "degraded Judaism." speaking of hypocrisy, you might want to pull that log out of your own eye before looking for a nonexistent speck in mine.

It has been widely speculated that the congressional resolution qe are discussing here had very little to do with actual concern about the attempted genocide of Armenians carried out by the Turks (which, for the record, absolutely did take place and stands as one of the most egregiously brutal and evil crimes against humanity in history), and a very great deal to do with a cynical attempt to embarrass the Bush administration, poison our diplomatic relationship with Turkey, and frankly to sabotage the war effort. Opposition to that measure may therefore have nothing to do with denial of genocide and everything to with opposition to the cynical and coldblooded use of it for partisan political purposes.

Oh, well. So much for my petty concerns. What was this thread about again?

[Nick_A]

Norm

So your gripe is with certain people for some reason calling themselves Christian and not Christianity. We agree.

Tell the Armenians that the only reason they are concerned with recognition of the Armenian genocide is to embarrass the Bush administration.

As you've read, I specifically wrote that since I didn't want to derail your thread, I started another on the Armenian Genocide for Goat and whoever else to continue on. I'd love to read how the Beliefnet advocates defend their genocide denial but not on your thread which I agree is not right.

[cnorman18]

Norm

So your gripe is with certain people for some reason calling themselves Christian and not Christianity. We agree.

Tell the Armenians that the only reason they are concerned with recognition of the Armenian genocide is to embarrass the Bush administration.

I was referring to the leftwing
Democrats who introduced that measure in the US Congress.

Obviously.

Thanks for your acknowledgment that it's wrong to hijack a thread. Seems to have happened anyway, though. Tne OP is now as dead as Harry Truman.

[Nick_A]

Norm

So your gripe is with certain people for some reason calling themselves Christian and not Christianity. We agree.

Tell the Armenians that the only reason they are concerned with recognition of the Armenian genocide is to embarrass the Bush administration.

I was referring to the leftwing
Democrats who introduced that measure in the US Congress.

Obviously.

Thanks for your acknowledgment that it's wrong to hijack a thread. Seems to have happened anyway, though. Tne OP is now as dead as Harry Truman.

You should invite those you have a gripe against to discuss it. I just initially was agreeing with you that there is a difference bgetween the q

[Nick_A]

Goat

That blog is from outside and not a part of management. Secondly, he doesn't realize that the Turks don't want Iran to take over Iraq nor do they want to miss out on the 14 billion dollars of trade going their way. They will huff and puff but it will just subside.

This mindset, as has been proven with appeasement, only becomes taken advantage of. It cannot solve anything because everyone knows that the heart is being replaced by fear. Once politics openly suppresses the moral good it is like a cancer that destroys the whole.

What Beliefnet did was to claim that such letters as by Dr. Michael Siegel posted on the Armenian Genocide thread I just created must be deleted along with the whole subject because it is "insulting" and "disruptive" to a controlling agenda there. Being disruptive and insulting is against the RoC. Hitler couldn't have invented better logic to explain and defend genocide denial and suppress evidence.

How they've acted in comparison to what they assert as their aim is a complete disgrace.

Yes, it is from outside. However, by posting it on their site, they are showing their approval of it.

I see you are 'lets see what we can do to deny the evidence, and make unsupported claims'.

If you say that the Beliefnet people deny the Armenian holocaust, since that is a rather strong accusation, back it up with their own words.

I gave evidence to show they are against the political statement about it, but that they accept it happened. There is a difference you know (well, you should, it doesn't appear you actually DO). Now, unless you can back up your accusation with hard evidence, and not just someone making an ad hominem attack against them, I will have to assume you do not know what you are talking about.

You misrepresented Foxman's position, as shown by his quotes. Let's see if you can back up your accusations. Show us evidence that their position is the way you claim it is.

The claim is supported by the deletions of the words of fine professional men in defense of recognition on the grounds that they are "disruptive" and "insulting." These fine words of defense can only be insulting and disruptive to those supporting genocide denail.

If you read how these fine Jewish professionals denounce Foxman, perhaps it is you that misrepresents his position.

Go on to the link I created for the new thread, read the evidence and comment there. The LA times opinion page was deleted as was the words of Dr. Michael Siegel. I have saved other such testimonies. They are only insulting and disruptive to genocide deniers. If you delete them, you are supporting genocide denial. Beliefnet deleted them and support genocide denial through their actions.

[Goat]

The claim is supported by the deletions of the words of fine professional men in defense of recognition on the grounds that they are "disruptive" and "insulting." These fine words of defense can only be insulting and disruptive to those supporting genocide denail.

If you read how these fine Jewish professionals denounce Foxman, perhaps it is you that misrepresents his position.

Go on to the link I created for the new thread, read the evidence and comment there. The LA times opinion page was deleted as was the words of Dr. Michael Siegel. I have saved other such testimonies. They are only insulting and disruptive to genocide deniers. If you delete them, you are supporting genocide denial. Beliefnet deleted them and support genocide denial through their actions.

Yes, I can see where many Jewish people would disagree with Foxman. However, you still misrepresent his position. Your 'if they don't agree with my position on this one issue , they are bigots' is rather bigoted itself. I happen to disagree with him too, but frankly, your position is not realistic.

[PC1]

Hey cnorman18.

You probably don't even recognize me, I'm relatively new here but I've read a lot of your threads and posts because of my interest in the Jewish opinion of the matters we discuss here. I find it really valuable to have a "third opinion" around here from a practicing Jew. The classic atheist vs. Christian stuff can get old and tedious. I really hope you decide to stick around. It's nice to have someone as classy, intelligent, straight-forward, etc. as yourself around here.

As for the types around here with more extreme opinions... I personally try to work around them. I try to make an effort to be as moderate as I can. One thing that I've found is that extremism is rampant no matter where you go on the internet, and DC has actually been the most extremist-free forum I've seen yet. It's far from perfect, but if you compare it to another religion forum on the internet, based on my experience, it makes DC seem like the Oprah Winfrey fan club forum or something (my point being the people here are civil). Anyways, I hope you decide to stick around.


Edit:
Re-reading your OP, I'd like to add that I'm also sick of the "prove God or don't waste my time" mentality around here. It's kept me out of numerous threads. The "prove God" stuff always ends in stalemate and is a massive waste of time. Like I say, I'd LOVE to hear more about your position and Judaism as a whole.

[cnorman18]

Hey cnorman18.

You probably don't even recognize me, I'm relatively new here but I've read a lot of your threads and posts because of my interest in the Jewish opinion of the matters we discuss here. I find it really valuable to have a "third opinion" around here from a practicing Jew. The classic atheist vs. Christian stuff can get old and tedious. I really hope you decide to stick around. It's nice to have someone as classy, intelligent, straight-forward, etc. as yourself around here.

As for the types around here with more extreme opinions... I personally try to work around them. I try to make an effort to be as moderate as I can. One thing that I've found is that extremism is rampant no matter where you go on the internet, and DC has actually been the most extremist-free forum I've seen yet. It's far from perfect, but if you compare it to another religion forum on the internet, based on my experience, it makes DC seem like the Oprah Winfrey fan club forum or something (my point being the people here are civil). Anyways, I hope you decide to stick around.


Edit:
Re-reading your OP, I'd like to add that I'm also sick of the "prove God or don't waste my time" mentality around here. It's kept me out of numerous threads. The "prove God" stuff always ends in stalemate and is a massive waste of time. Like I say, I'd LOVE to hear more about your position and Judaism as a whole.

Hey, thanks for the kind words and for putting it back into perspective. You're right, of course: this is a great forum, and I really don't have any complaints about civility or extremism.

I first started posting on the old Netscape boards. A wilder and woolier collection of extremists of every stripe, from Nazis (real ones) to Palestinian terror supporters to anarchists, not to mention drunks, dopers, dorks, paranoids, perverts, propagandists, and psychos, cannot be imagined. Civility? Hah. Threats up to and including murder were routine, and so were gross, obscene insults. The moderators were a matter for discussion, similar to God; some claimed that they existed, but no one ever produced any evidence for them. One day the entire forum simply vanished.

No question about my leaving. I'm just bored, I'm not abandoning the place. I just don't see a lot of threads that I'm interested in. Stuff about Jesus, for instance. I have a kind of Mel Brooks position on him: "Nice boy. Thin..."

The fact is, a lot of the things that seem to be huge issues around here just don't matter to Jews. "Salvation"? "Creationism"? "Grace"? Sorry, not our table.

As for "Prove God or don't waste my time"--first tell me how I could do that. If there's no way, stop wasting my time with a fake argument.

I've been asking for months now for someone to tell me how an ordinary person could prove the existence of God here on this forum. What I get are quibbles and excuses: "Well, let's define God first..." Sorry. That's a dodge, and it never, ever ends. Any commonly held definition of God will do. "Well, God could make..." Sorry again; He doesn't post here. Once a guy said, "Objective evidence." "Like what?" I asked. No answer.

If you can't explain what an answer would look like, a question has no meaning. It's just a noise that proves nothing at all.

It annoys the hell out of me when someone assumes or pretends that the nonexistence of God is a scientifically proven fact. It just isn't. That something unprovable remains unproven establishes what, exactly? Oh, that's right; nothing.

To all those who don't like this line of logical and objectively rational reasoning, it's easy to prove me wrong: just tell me how I can prove to you that God exists. Easy, no?

If you can't do that, it's intellectually dishonest to keep asking the question. Period, full stop.

[Zzyzx]

.

I've been asking for months now for someone to tell me how an ordinary person could prove the existence of God here on this forum.

It can’t be done on the forum or in life. Gods are not provable or disprovable.

Some choose to believe others do not. Perhaps the question should be, “Why should anyone accept the position promoted by those who proselytize?”

Many or most Theists (present company excepted) ARE here promoting their beliefs in supernaturalism (or proselytizing) and proclaiming their assumed superiority over those who have different beliefs. Many or most Non-Theists are here disputing the claims made for supernaturalism and for religious elitism.

Since unquestioning belief in “gods” is central to most religions, it is rational for those who promote or proselytize those religions to be challenged to demonstrate that their CLAIMS are true. If a person says, “God made it rain”, it is valid for a Non-Theist to challenge the claim.

If one claims that a dead body came back to life as part of a sales or promotion effort, that CLAIM can legitimately be challenged – without any mention of “gods” UNLESS a Theist raises the “goddidit” defense to attempt to “explain” supposed supernatural events or attempts to suggest that the dead body what that of a “god”.

It is NOT the same to challenge claims as it is to challenge existence of a deity.

Cnorman is highly regarded because he does NOT proselytize and does NOT make claims to know about gods – quite the opposite of fundamentalist members who profess great knowledge of gods and a great desire to convert others to their beliefs.

[cnorman18]

.

I've been asking for months now for someone to tell me how an ordinary person could prove the existence of God here on this forum.

It can’t be done on the forum or in life. Gods are not provable or disprovable.

Precisely my point.

Some choose to believe others do not. Perhaps the question should be, “Why should anyone accept the position promoted by those who proselytize?”

Many or most Theists (present company excepted) ARE here promoting their beliefs in supernaturalism (or proselytizing) and proclaiming their assumed superiority over those who have different beliefs.

Even when I was a Christian, I thought it incredibly rude to attempt to dictate (or even advise) the proper religious beliefs for others. What decision could be more personal?

That said, I don't think that everyone who engages in proselytization necessarily believes in his own personal superiority to others. Some obviously do, which of course is amazingly ironic, considering the very high value placed on humility by the Christian faith. There are many, though, who I think sincerely believe only in the superiority of their beliefs, not of themselves. That's still rude, but at least it isn't grossly egotistical and counterproductive.

Many or most Non-Theists are here disputing the claims made for supernaturalism and for religious elitism.

In fairness, I have to note that there are also some who are intent on flaunting their own intellectual and moral superiority to the poor ignorant morons who believe in the allegedly "vengeful, brutal" God of the Bible, or in the childish equivalent of invisible fairies and leprechauns.

If we're objecting to egoistic arrogance that is contemptuous of other points of view, neither side has a corner on that here.

Since unquestioning belief in “gods” is central to most religions, it is rational for those who promote or proselytize those religions to be challenged to demonstrate that their CLAIMS are true. If a person says, “God made it rain”, it is valid for a Non-Theist to challenge the claim.

Sure. But my objection is to the demand that God's existence must be proven before any further discussion of religion is permitted.

I can no longer count the number of times when I have been attempting to explain the differing approaches or attitudes of Judaism as distinguished from Christianity, when the discussion was derailed by the question, "But how do you know there is a God anyway?"

That is a question asked only by atheists. Get over it.

Believers are rather far past considering that question, and I think I can speak for most theists when I say that we feel no particular compulsion to address it because it is a concern of others.

If you're in a discussion about what kind of car to buy, how annoying and irrelevant would it be to keep having to explain "But why do you want to drive anyway?" Yes, it's rather a basic question; that doesn't change the fact that from the point of view of one who answered it years ago, it's a stupid, simple-minded, and boring question, and a huge waste of time.

If one claims that a dead body came back to life as part of a sales or promotion effort, that CLAIM can legitimately be challenged – without any mention of “gods” UNLESS a Theist raises the “goddidit” defense to attempt to “explain” supposed supernatural events or attempts to suggest that the dead body what that of a “god”.

Well, Jews don't go in for miracles much, at least not since the Exodus. I don't think I can argue with that. The Resurrection is, in particular, of very little interest to us.

It is NOT the same to challenge claims as it is to challenge existence of a deity.

Granted, with the added observation that when supernatural events are presented as proof of God's existence, the reasoning is about as circular as it gets; we know there's a God because He did (X), and we know God did (X) because only God could do that.

I'd also note that it has been attempted, many more times than once, to define my belief in God as an objective truth-claim and to demand that I present objective evidence for it before the discussion can go on. This, in spite of the fact that the nature of that evidence remains, to date, conveniently undefined. That is an illegitimate argument, and it should be recognized as such.

Cnorman is highly regarded because he does NOT proselytize and does NOT make claims to know about gods – quite the opposite of fundamentalist members who profess great knowledge of gods and a great desire to convert others to their beliefs.

Quite the contrary: if anyone ever PMed me to tell me they were interested in converting to Judaism, I would say to them the same things that were said to me: "Why do you want to do this? Do you have any idea how hard this is going to be and how long it's going to take? Do you realize that there are a great many people who will hate your guts just for being Jewish? Do you know how hard it's going to be to live your life as a practicing Jew? Do you understand the responsibility you will bear, that all our people will be judged by what you do? Do you understand that you will be related to and obligated to support and stand with all other Jews, all over the world? Do you really want to take on all of this? This is much more than just a set of beliefs. You're joining a family, and adopting a culture anad a way of life, and very much more."