Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2016, 12:49 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 05:36 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 05:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  How are his characterizations of the bible childish and ridiculous, since they accurately describe the Yahweh of the Old Testament? Consider

I just think he could choose to be more mature about it. If I was in Dawkin's shoes, I'd approach the problem of communicating my ideas with a 'you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar' attitude. I think putting people on the defensive -to the degree which I think Dawkins does- is counterproductive to getting people to let their guard down and listen to a different viewpoint.

Yes. I have often observed that in many arguments/discussions/debates between theists and atheists, both sides take the attitude of "How can you be so stupid as not to see that I'm obviously right?", and this immediately puts the other person on the defensive. Insulting the opponent right off the bat is not a good way to win him over.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
25-01-2016, 02:02 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
I was looking at Paul Johnson's History of the Jews yesterday (I plan to read this in the near future, but haven't actually started it yet), and came across something that had never occurred to me.

Johnson speculates about how much of the Hebrew Bible is historical and how much is mythical. Back when I was a Christian, I used to think that the first 11 chapters of Genesis were clearly mythical, and that it might be somewhat historical starting with Abram/Abraham. Modern textual criticism pushes the start of the historical period to a much later date -- maybe some of Judges is historical, but we're not really on firm footing until David and Solomon (and I suppose there are some who doubt that even they were real people).

Here's the new idea: Johnson speculates that the German textual critics of the 19th century (Wellhausen and others) were anti-Semitic, and that this made them more likely to pass off much of the Old Testament as myth rather than history. I've always thought of these guys as hardheaded skeptics in search of the truth, but I guess anyone can "have an agenda". Johnson seems willing to at least consider that people like the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel) and Moses may have really existed. Note that Johnson himself is not Jewish. He's a British Roman Catholic, and writes as a historian rather than a theologian. I have previously read his History of Christianity (a "warts and all" account), and am looking forward to this one.

And now a question for Aliza: Is there any consensus among Jews as to how much of the Bible is historical? Passover, for instance, is ostensibly based on real events as described in Exodus. How many Jews believe that those events actually happened? How many think that the story in Exodus is just a story to explain a tradition that arose some other way? I tend to believe the latter, but then I'm an atheist. What do the believers believe?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 02:12 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
For evolution and sciencey stuff, I love Dawkins. But I've got to say on religious matters, I wish he'd just stop.

He would do far more to the cause of atheism by sticking to what he really knows a fuck ton about, evolutionary biology.

The problem I've seen all too many times is that people dismiss him because of what he says about religion -- which is not really his area. Religious people wouldn't have to glob onto his errors, or misspoken ideas if he just stuck to what he knows.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
25-01-2016, 03:10 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(25-01-2016 02:02 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I was looking at Paul Johnson's History of the Jews yesterday (I plan to read this in the near future, but haven't actually started it yet), and came across something that had never occurred to me.

Johnson speculates about how much of the Hebrew Bible is historical and how much is mythical. Back when I was a Christian, I used to think that the first 11 chapters of Genesis were clearly mythical, and that it might be somewhat historical starting with Abram/Abraham. Modern textual criticism pushes the start of the historical period to a much later date -- maybe some of Judges is historical, but we're not really on firm footing until David and Solomon (and I suppose there are some who doubt that even they were real people).

Here's the new idea: Johnson speculates that the German textual critics of the 19th century (Wellhausen and others) were anti-Semitic, and that this made them more likely to pass off much of the Old Testament as myth rather than history. I've always thought of these guys as hardheaded skeptics in search of the truth, but I guess anyone can "have an agenda". Johnson seems willing to at least consider that people like the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel) and Moses may have really existed. Note that Johnson himself is not Jewish. He's a British Roman Catholic, and writes as a historian rather than a theologian. I have previously read his History of Christianity (a "warts and all" account), and am looking forward to this one.

And now a question for Aliza: Is there any consensus among Jews as to how much of the Bible is historical? Passover, for instance, is ostensibly based on real events as described in Exodus. How many Jews believe that those events actually happened? How many think that the story in Exodus is just a story to explain a tradition that arose some other way? I tend to believe the latter, but then I'm an atheist. What do the believers believe?

You may like to visit this site. Loads of good information to be found.

of course one must remain skeptical. As can be seen in this article.

However the basic history stories, such as the years in the desert etc have been proven false by archeology.

You can find a lot by using various archeology sites. A particular hobby of mine.

Good luck.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 03:31 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(25-01-2016 03:10 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 02:02 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I was looking at Paul Johnson's History of the Jews yesterday (I plan to read this in the near future, but haven't actually started it yet), and came across something that had never occurred to me.

Johnson speculates about how much of the Hebrew Bible is historical and how much is mythical. Back when I was a Christian, I used to think that the first 11 chapters of Genesis were clearly mythical, and that it might be somewhat historical starting with Abram/Abraham. Modern textual criticism pushes the start of the historical period to a much later date -- maybe some of Judges is historical, but we're not really on firm footing until David and Solomon (and I suppose there are some who doubt that even they were real people).

Here's the new idea: Johnson speculates that the German textual critics of the 19th century (Wellhausen and others) were anti-Semitic, and that this made them more likely to pass off much of the Old Testament as myth rather than history. I've always thought of these guys as hardheaded skeptics in search of the truth, but I guess anyone can "have an agenda". Johnson seems willing to at least consider that people like the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel) and Moses may have really existed. Note that Johnson himself is not Jewish. He's a British Roman Catholic, and writes as a historian rather than a theologian. I have previously read his History of Christianity (a "warts and all" account), and am looking forward to this one.

And now a question for Aliza: Is there any consensus among Jews as to how much of the Bible is historical? Passover, for instance, is ostensibly based on real events as described in Exodus. How many Jews believe that those events actually happened? How many think that the story in Exodus is just a story to explain a tradition that arose some other way? I tend to believe the latter, but then I'm an atheist. What do the believers believe?

You may like to visit this site. Loads of good information to be found.

of course one must remain skeptical. As can be seen in this article.

However the basic history stories, such as the years in the desert etc have been proven false by archeology.

You can find a lot by using various archeology sites. A particular hobby of mine.

Good luck.

I find it amusing that Q Continuum likes to cite archeology as supporting a literal reading of the Bible, when it clearly does the opposite!

Anyway, I know that there is no archeological evidence of a mass exodus from Egypt as described in Exodus, and that we would expect to find such evidence if the event had actually occurred -- and that's why I believe that this is a mythical story, written to justify a tradition that arose for other reasons.

However, my main interest here is curiosity as to what Jews believe about their own history, and why. Jews in general, and Aliza in particular, strike me as more reasonable and less dogmatic than some Christians.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 06:52 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(25-01-2016 03:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Anyway, I know that there is no archeological evidence of a mass exodus from Egypt as described in Exodus, and that we would expect to find such evidence if the event had actually occurred -- and that's why I believe that this is a mythical story, written to justify a tradition that arose for other reasons.

So, funny (to me at least) storry about this.

I'm Jewish and went to Hebrew School when I was a kid. I remember my first year we learned all about Moses and the story of Passover. We all know the story thanks to the Charlton Heston movie, about how Moses parted the Red Sea, all the Hebrews crossed over, and then the Egyptians chasing them were all drowned after God, through Moses, closed the waters again.

So, my teacher is telling us this whole story and I raised my hand and asked if it was really true. She said "of course it's true". I asked if anyone went diving into the water to find remains of chariots and what not. She said they would all be gone after thousands of years. But, the pyramids are still there so surely there must be some evidence of all these people drowning in the Red Sea? She had no answer and told me to stop asking questions

That's when I knew the whole thing was bullshit. I was 7 years old and I just could not wrap my head around the idea that there was no evidence of this event. Didn't make sense to me.

As for Dawkins, I think calling him an anti-semite because he calls into question the Old Testament is ridiculous and agree with Aliza that it diminishes the use of the word. There is real anti-semitism, and real racism, in the world. When we start throwing those charges around to anyone who doesn't agree with us, we seriously diminish the argument against those who really do mean it that way. It's silly and childish.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like BnW's post
26-01-2016, 11:07 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(25-01-2016 02:02 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  And now a question for Aliza: Is there any consensus among Jews as to how much of the Bible is historical? Passover, for instance, is ostensibly based on real events as described in Exodus. How many Jews believe that those events actually happened? How many think that the story in Exodus is just a story to explain a tradition that arose some other way? I tend to believe the latter, but then I'm an atheist. What do the believers believe?

"Believers!" That sounds so Christian.

The Orthodox Jewish community makes up about 10% of the Jewish population, and they overwhelmingly believe that the story of Passover is 100% real and that it happened exactly as mentioned in the Torah, and as clarified in the Talmud.

The rest of the Jewish population may or may not follow Talmudic traditions, but you will find that the perceived authenticity of the story diminishes when the Talmud is removed from the equation. Some people in these more secular movements believe that the stories could be true, some hope they’re true but expect that they’re just fables, and others refuse to accept any such notion that these stories are to be taken literally at all.

(25-01-2016 03:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Anyway, I know that there is no archeological evidence of a mass exodus from Egypt as described in Exodus, and that we would expect to find such evidence if the event had actually occurred -- and that's why I believe that this is a mythical story, written to justify a tradition that arose for other reasons.

Archeological evidence doesn't take the Talmudic descriptions of the story of Exodus into account, so the evidence does not properly address Jewish objections.

My own rabbi holds a master’s degree from MIT. Other Rabbinic scholars who I learn from carry various degrees from MIT, Harvard, UCLA, Cornell, Yale, and from among other prestigious educational institutions. These are not stupid people, and the trend shows a consistent pattern of highly educated Jewish individuals who examine the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion. Something in the Talmud seems to render current archeological findings (or lack thereof) as unimpressive to the orthodox community. This is not a matter of stupidity. It is a matter of preexisting information that archeological data doesn’t happen to address.

(25-01-2016 03:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  However, my main interest here is curiosity as to what Jews believe about their own history, and why. Jews in general, and Aliza in particular, strike me as more reasonable and less dogmatic than some Christians.

Judaism can be very dogmatic if you stumble into the wrong community. But even then, we're not dogmatic in the sense that a Christian is dogmatic. Our theology does not instruct us to spread our views to non-Jews, and we bend over backward to excuse what we perceive to be Jews who are observing the religion incorrectly. Our heritage tells us we’re all cells in the same body, so of course, you want to treat your body well.

There isn’t any such perception that non-Jews are inferior, or that anyone is going to go to hell for failing to be Jewish. Our religious mission isn’t to convert people to Judaism, it’s to try to be a shining example to other groups of people.
So there is no incentive for us to be dogmatic, and every incentive for us to work to get along with other people and just try to be a good group of community-minded people.

The reason that you see so many rational Jews is because we’re well-educated, tolerant, and we’re taught from a very young age to examine problems from multiple perspectives and to question and challenge absolutely everything. Education, intelligence, morality and success are very important cornerstones to Jewish culture. Additionally, Jewish practice places an emphasis on action, and not belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2016, 11:41 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 06:28 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...h-God.html
...

For those interested in the discussion referenced in the Telegraph article ...

From Sept 2012, btw.

The relevant bit is at around 22mins.




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
27-01-2016, 05:40 AM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(26-01-2016 11:41 PM)DLJ Wrote:  For those interested in the discussion referenced in the Telegraph article ...

From Sept 2012, btw.

The relevant bit is at around 22mins.




Thanks!

Bonus points for Dawkins. People can call him rude and cocky all they want, but his reaction is what every rational human being's reaction would be. Yes, it is ridiculous to call that excerpt anti-semitic (and then back off slowly and forget you actually used the word "anti-semitic").

He said it himself right there, quite clearly. He can see why it would be offensive to Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. He wasn't trying to attack Jews specifically and there's no basis for anti-semitism here. The Rabbi's claim is a blatant case of both an ad hominem and a strawman, which worked wonders in appealing to the audience's emotions.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like undergroundp's post
27-01-2016, 07:31 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2016 07:38 AM by Chas.)
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(26-01-2016 11:07 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Archeological evidence doesn't take the Talmudic descriptions of the story of Exodus into account, so the evidence does not properly address Jewish objections.

That is a very odd statement. Consider Evidence is evidence. Present the evidence to support whatever these Talmudic descriptions are. Without evidence for them, they can be summarily dismissed.

Quote:My own rabbi holds a master’s degree from MIT. Other Rabbinic scholars who I learn from carry various degrees from MIT, Harvard, UCLA, Cornell, Yale, and from among other prestigious educational institutions. These are not stupid people, and the trend shows a consistent pattern of highly educated Jewish individuals who examine the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion. Something in the Talmud seems to render current archeological findings (or lack thereof) as unimpressive to the orthodox community. This is not a matter of stupidity. It is a matter of preexisting information that archeological data doesn’t happen to address.

That sounds like confirmation bias, not critical thinking.

Here is an interesting article by a rabbi.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: