Unlike children, monkeys do not perform unnecessary actions on the way to food, even if they are taught to do so, is this trait the source of the tendency to perform religious commandments that lack any logical explanation?
The human is "allowed" from the chimpanzee - cancer and autism
"Do you want to put on a tefillin?" the young haberch asked me, his long, curly sideburns moving lightly in the wind.
"why?" I asked him.
"It brings health." The young man explained to me seriously, his eyes sincere.
"But religious Jews put on tefillin every day, and they get sick just as often as secular ones," I insisted.
"Uncle, let go of scientific claims and all that." The second nephew joined the conversation, the nephew I never knew existed. "Your grandfather put on tefillin. His father put on tefillin. His father's father also put on tefillin. Do you really think they would do that for nothing?"
"Wonder," I wondered. Is it really possible that they would just do it? Do people invest so much effort - to get up for morning prayer and put on tefillin - every morning of their lives, as well as for minachah and evening prayer? Would they continue to do this even without seeing the results of their labor? Would they have continued to carry out these actions, which today we see as completely useless, just because - ``My father put on tefillin'', and only to do as father does?
The answer, as it turned out in recent years in scientific experiments, is completely positive. And not only that, but contrary to the well-known saying - "monkey follows man," in this case the humans are actually better at imitations than the monkeys.
In 2005, a pair of scientists named Victoria Horner and Andrew Witten decided to test how willing chimpanzees are to imitate unnecessary and useless actions on the way to getting food. The researchers placed a banana inside a black box, put young chimpanzees into the room with the box and showed them how to get the food out. The program for opening the box, as demonstrated to the chimpanzees, was unnecessarily complicated: before opening the box door, the demonstrator tapped the top of the box with a stick several times and moved the lock back and forth. Only after completing the unnecessarily complicated course of action did he open the door and take out the food.
When the chimpanzees had to take the treats out of the box by themselves, two-thirds of all the participants in the experiment repeated the same actions: they tapped the top of the box with a stick, moved the lock back and forth, and only then opened the door. It's hard to blame them, because when the box was black they couldn't know that the steps they were taking were completely unnecessary.
The next step was to replace the box with a transparent box. In this case, the chimps could see that the scientists' actions were unnecessary, and when put to the test this time, none of them bothered to repeat the unnecessary actions. They didn't tap the box with a stick or anything, they didn't rattle the lock. They all went straight to the transparent door, opened it and received their prize, without a word or a rustle.
Chimpanzees, then, do not tend to repeat actions they understand to be useless. But what about humans? That same year, another team of scientists from the University of Wisconsin tried to repeat the experiment, but this time testing how 63 children around the age of four would respond to the same tests.
The beginning of the experiment was more like a single presentation. One of the researchers stood in front of the children, showing them how he opens transparent toy boxes and pulls out the tempting toys inside. The same researcher intentionally incorporated useless actions during the opening - for example, tapping the side of the box with a feather before opening it. But did the children understand that these were indeed unnecessary actions? To make sure, a questionnaire was passed among the children, in which they were asked to identify the unnecessary and ``stupid'' actions, as the phrase goes, that the researcher performed on the way to opening the boxes. After answering the questionnaire, the children received feedback on their answers, it was explained to them what the useless actions were, and they received praise for the actions they identified as such.
So far so good. But as soon as the children were left alone in the room, and were asked to open the boxes, a strange thing happened. The absolute majority of the children - 94% - opened the boxes while tapping them with feathers and repeating any other irrelevant action the researcher did. They knew that the actions were completely unnecessary - they received an explanation of this after answering the questionnaire - and yet they insisted on carrying out the same senseless steps, based only on the action of the responsible adult who opened the boxes in his strange way at the beginning of the day.
The chimpanzees, when standing in the same situation as remembered, gave up any unnecessary action on the way to the food.
What does the experiment mean? From the moment the children saw how the experimenter worked, they chose to imitate him even though it was clear to them that his actions were illogical and did not contribute to achieving the desired result. Most likely those children felt ridiculous at that moment, but they chose to stick to imitating the adults. The reason for this probably lies in the plan that evolution outlined in our minds since the time humans lived in the wild, and any disobedience to an adult could lead to the death of the child and the entire tribe. Under such conditions, there is no room for mistakes. Children were forced to imitate the actions of adults - crawl, avoid the fire, bury their needs in the ground - just to survive another day. The children who quickly learned to imitate the adults, were the ones who survived to the greatest extent and when they grew up they passed their genes on to their offspring, and so to this day.
This is, of course, an important feature for survival, which still makes sure that children do not jump off the roof, do not put their fingers in electricity and do not leave the doors of the house open. But aside from the important everyday qualities that children acquire, useless actions have also taken root (or at least those whose usefulness is not reflected in everyday life). These actions were inherently religious in nature: putting on tefillin, fasting on Yom Kippur or the month of Ramadan, and so on. It seems that in these cases the actions are not only useless in themselves, but also rob the person of energy that could have been used for other needs!
But here an interesting element enters the picture, which increases the need for useless actions, since they preserve social cohesion. If many people in the same company perform the same set of unnecessary actions, then whoever does not perform them is considered a stranger and an outsider. Only the children and the adults who perform all the unnecessary actions on Burin are considered full partners in society. This is how unnecessary actions became the basis of religion and fashion.
Such were the things I thought about and wondered about, and the priests were kind enough to leave me in my thoughts. I was just returning to blinking my eyes and shaking my head to symbolize my return to the world of the living, my nameless nephew reminded me,
"So are you ready to put on tefillin, like the religion of Moses and Israel, the religion of your ancestors and your ancestors?"
I thought about it for another moment, and then I decided to answer as a true Jew, with my own question.
"Tell me," I asked him. "How do you actually know that Moses put on a tefillin?"
He blinked. "Well, because what, he's Moshe! Doesn't Moshe put on a tefillin?" Then he blinked again, realized what he said and started laughing out loud. I smiled too.
"Maybe there is still hope for the human race," I said to myself, and immediately went to Castro-Man to buy me the most expensive and fashionable shoes for the wedding.
Thanks to Antar, who brought the study in question to my attention.
Link:
The hidden structure of overimitation. Derek E. Lyons, Andrew G. Young, and Frank C. Keil. PNAS _ December 11, 2007 _ vol. 104 _ no. 50 _ 19751–19756
Horner V, Whiten A (2005) Anim Cognit 8:164–181.
215 תגובות
The article is wrong. Scientific studies have found a connection between religion and health. Religious people get less heart disease.
Link to a doctoral thesis that researched the issue, and it supports previous studies:
http://idea.library.drexel.edu/bitstream/1860/522/1/Wilkins_Victoria.pdf
I actually come to a different conclusion from the experiment
The monkeys and the animals the main thing in their life is the food, they are only looking for that and will try to do everything to get it. The urge to eat in a monkey is much stronger than in a 4-year-old child, so he doesn't think too much and just tries to get the candy, I claim that even if all these methods of action were necessary, the monkey's initial instinct was still to get the food in the easiest way, when It wouldn't have worked, he would have done what he saw.
A 4-year-old boy whose main motive has long been not food, his mind is already sufficiently developed and exposed to many areas.
They were fascinated by all the magic operations on the box, and let their imagination take them to a place where they believe such operations help, maybe there is magic here? Can a monkey understand what magic is anyway?
Besides, maybe it's easier for 4-year-old children to trust older people.
If a chimpanzee performed the process and showed a younger chimpanzee, what would happen?
are two beautiful lines of thought that should be taken into account.
As in science you have to think about everything, here I have the feeling that conclusions are drawn straight away.
I was not convinced.
Jewish religion in favor of education?
After all, many of the leaders of the Jewish religion fought and are fighting against education.
Many of them claimed that education is an incurable disease and other similar phrases.
Of course, Isaac, etc., ignore the fact that the Jewish religion (meaning the men who created it) is completely opposed to the education of 50% of the Jewish population, if they are Jews born with a female reproductive system.
The reasons are of course - an obsessive and absolute need for control. After all, knowledge is power. The one who knows (knows) less, obeys more.
Terrible insolence. Discussing religion and its approach to education. But they ignore everything related to 50% of the population in question (the Jewish population*. And please don't give excuses for positions based on religion and other nonsense.
Those who were at home all day and did not study - went crazy. Just like if you take a woman and imprison her at home, without any source of information - she will go crazy.
What do holidays matter to the patriarchy?
People want holidays, need holidays and enjoy the holidays because they do them good, a change in relation to everyday life, something to remember and something to look forward to. It was Dana's advance, it will probably stay that way forever. and better this way.
There are holidays for Jews, Christians and there were also for the ancient Greeks, the ancient Chinese and the Mayans, and there are for today's Indians and tribes from Lower Papua.
The main holidays, please note, are related to the changes of the year, the transition of the seasons and their agricultural context. In all places they are a basis for meals, family gatherings, a break from work and a few more.
So what's wrong with holidays per se?
This array of arguments is no different from the religious-Jewish array: the whole world stands for Judaism.
So that's it, he's not.
There is no point in it, except for the pleasure of the stupid mind.
Of course, preserving the customs of a certain culture preserves it (or part of it)..by the very nature of the conservation laws.
But the more customs involved, the higher the differentiation involved..and then the chance of a "Holocaust" on that differentiated culture is much higher..due to the reluctance of the rest from that culture that does not consider universal values, etc.
And of course the group only imagines that it is keeping the same customs, but in fact it is slowly accepting other customs and values, interpretations and nuances. Apparently the "source" is not enough for the developed mind that requires depth.
Preservation of Jewish customs (or other patriarchal customs), often used to preserve the patriarchy and nothing else. Of course, you also just adopt customs that seem nice and sometimes find particularly pressing excuses to continue observing the same rituals. But as long as it doesn't completely disconnect from the source, it's still patriarchy.
Of course, people with a need for belonging will more quickly reach the belonging rituals that already exist and will not invent new ones.
The holidays are a bad thing as long as they do not have the meaning of changing and improving values. Holidays aim to establish the same thing over and over again and they create existential despair. As if everything is the same and nothing will ever change.
It won't change.. until a few missiles fall on them by surprise against the Psalms.
But even after that, the survivors will claim that it is a miracle and that Judaism is forever. lol
Eyal:
Your question (between one side and the other) was answered in my 15th response
"The chimpanzees, when standing in the same situation as remembered, gave up any unnecessary action on the way to food.
What does the experiment mean? From the moment the children saw how the experimenter worked, they chose to imitate him even though it was clear to them that his actions were illogical and did not contribute to achieving the desired result. Most likely those children felt ridiculous at that moment, but they chose to stick to imitating the adults. The reason for this probably lies in the plan that evolution outlined in our minds since the time when humans lived in the wild, and any disobedience to an adult could lead to the death of the child and the entire tribe. Under such conditions, there is no room for mistakes. Children were forced to imitate the actions of adults - to crawl, to avoid the fire, to bury their needs in the ground - just to survive another day. The children who quickly learned to imitate the adults were the ones who survived to the greatest extent and when they grew up they passed their genes on to their offspring, and so to this day."
Some things :
If the chimpanzees perform fewer non-essential actions, then apparently, in the race of evolution, they should have won. After all, while the human descendants were engaged in imitating actions, some of which, even in the cave age, were non-essential (for example, dancing), the chimpanzees (or their ancestors) engaged in only necessary actions and did not steal From themselves energy over nonsense.
On the other hand
If imitation is so necessary for existence - "and any disobedience to an adult could lead to the death of the child and the entire tribe." - how did the chimpanzees get to this point?. They had to disappear.
Regarding the experiment:
The experiment carried out by the chimpanzees included obtaining the food - for the chimpanzees this is a pure existential action (for humans it is also a social activity). The whole goal for the chimpanzee is to get the food. On the other hand, the experiment performed on the children was with play toys, so it is possible that they perceived all the unnecessary and preliminary actions as part of the game. Regarding the explanation we gave them - it is possible that the age of four is not enough to understand. Why didn't they try to present to them a favorite snack whose achievement in its presentation included several non-essential actions?
RAM:
Even if a person needs a mystery (and it is provided), he does not need a lie and religion is a collection of lies and laws, some of which are terrible and terrifying in the eyes of any conscientious person.
To put it on the same level as science is simply a disgrace.
All of man's features developed during evolution and are all derived from his chemical and physical structure.
The physical mechanisms behind a growing part of it become more and more clear as time goes by and at the same time - your prophecy that the attempt will not succeed is becoming more and more disproven every day.
A world where science investigates everything and does not sanctify the mystery is a much more interesting world than the dark world of those who believe in the mystery.
In this regard, you are invited to read Dent's book - Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Dawkins' book - Unweaving the Rainbow.
It also won't hurt if you read the last part of my response in the following link:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/meta-beuty-2911082/#comment-144121
I start from the premise that man is not a rational being. It has a very strong rational component and it needs a rationale in order to exist, learn, understand, earn a living, communicate. This is true.
In addition to this, there are parts of a person that are beyond rationality. A person has a very strong instinct towards death. There are forces operating within him that cause him, a person, to act many times contrary to logic. He has a strong lust for power, control, money, sex. These are things that Harzio rejects (Why even bet all your money? Harzio will ask. Why did you beat him? Why did you turn right when it was clear that it would lead to an accident? Why did you shoot this woman and her two children after pushing her husband into a gas chamber? Why did you marry him if he beat you ?) These are excellent questions of the rationale, and he remains, in my opinion, quite frustrated by the fact that there is no answer to them.
What can be said for that? Because they are not real human beings, and they rule the world, and Hitler told me, and they bring diseases? This is an answer that Herzio will not accept, but it has a separate self-existence within man.
Man can observe his own irrationality, admire it and express it at the same time.
In general, I define the person as follows:
A creature that includes a contradiction in itself. Or: a being that can contain a contradiction, and not only can, but contains.
The contradiction we include within ourselves is an existential, fundamental contradiction. The spirit of death pulsates in us with great force. Every day people do actions that negate life (whether it is an action for self-negation, or whether it is an action designed to negate the life of another), and every day people do actions for the sake of life, existence, learning, joy and progress.
to a creature called a human being the most significant, wonderful, breathtaking achievements, huge scientific achievements, wonderful buildings, airplanes, submarines, spaceships, satellites, the Internet, wonderful physical/spiritual achievements (sports, for example), breathtaking artistic achievements (one hundred years of solitude , a poem by Bukowski, a painting by Dali), and at the same time (I would emphasize if I knew how) this creature reaches the abyss of abominations: every day (I would also emphasize this) a part of humans murders, pollutes, spoils, rapes, steals, robs , drives too fast, eats too much, vomits the food he has eaten, deprives himself of food, beats his children, drinks to the point of unconsciousness, drugs himself to death or close to it, has unprotected sex (even if he has a venereal disease and if he knows the that), watches a lot of TV, drinks a strawberry drink, and on and on.
It is clear to you that not all the actions described here are of equal value, but it is important to remember that they are all done every day by many people.
I started from the assumption that humans are not rational and now I claim it. Humans have a different mode of action, and it is the one that allows them to grow. Suffering and evil together with good and pleasure produce such a great waterfall of tension that it shines brightly in our souls, whatever they may be.
The attempt of scientists, Michael for example, to spread their wings over all areas of human activity, including religion, is an attempt whose failure is guaranteed. The same goes for the clergy's attempt to convince scientists or people who are opposed to religion to put on a tefillin to kiss a mezuzah and believe in the Creator of the world because that is what the Torah says. This is also an unnecessary attempt. After all, both teams have an arsenal of answers and questions, and all that remains is to pull out the right argument at the right time
(If you found a clock you would think that... or: no Hasidic in Breslav invented the... and how is it possible that it is written that the rabbit ruminates).
What I am saying is that the rational-irrational tension is faithfully represented in the world by members of both camps. The religious is a representation of the non-rational (putting on tefillin is really, really, not rational.). The scientific is the representation of the rational.
Sometimes they meet: you shall not kill, says the religion beautifully. You shall not steal. These are imperatives that fit well with the ratio.
On the other hand, we find, for example, Kekula, who cracked the structure of the benzene molecule, beautifully describes how he sat in front of the fireplace in his home, very troubled by the problem he encountered: what kind of molecule is this. Suddenly a hallucination appeared in his mind - a snake looked at him mischievously and bit his own tail. Then Kekula woke up and realized that the structure of the molecule he was studying is circular. Here, the representative of science tells how he uses clearly irrational qualities, in order to advance, understand, deepen research.
You are welcome to try and convince each other. It's not that interesting.
You are invited to observe this thing called man, to see how much he needs mystery (a word built on the root S.T.R.) in order to exist. A person from whom the mystery has been taken away is no longer a person. He is either dead or an angel.
Michael sees in his utopia one language, no countries, no religions. He does not understand the importance of multiplication.
But he is smart and therefore calls it utopia.
Interestingly, the messianic utopia sees exactly the same thing: one simple and all-inclusive unity.
Forgive me if I took too long, or if I failed to convey my words clearly.
Gidi Neve:
Newton and Descartes were people who believed that the world they lived in had not yet advanced enough to allow anything else.
In those times everyone was religious.
Einstein, on the other hand, was not religious and this is simply a lie that is commonly spread to mislead the public.
On the contrary! Einstein - not only was he not religious, but he did not believe in the existence of God who intervenes in what is happening in the world.
He said these things explicitly and even resented the attempts to distort his words to present him as a believer.
For example - here is a quote from his words:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it. [Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
The idea of a place in heaven is obscured by the knowledge that the soul simply does not continue to exist after death.
Yes! like it or not This is news we know.
Regarding the "Happiness Index" I can add two things:
One is that if you take a group of children and hypnotize them in their childhood and convince them that they are chairs and that sitting on them is really fun, then - if you do sit on them - they will be the happiest in the chair.
Therefore - happiness is not exactly the measure by which the quality of a way of life should be judged.
The second is that I once read in a newspaper (I don't remember exactly when and where) that a survey was conducted in the Gaza Strip on the prevalence of post-traumatic syndrome caused by the constant conflict among children.
It turned out that the prevalence of this syndrome was much higher in the children from religious families.
Gidi - according to science there is no such thing as heaven and there is no such thing as a soul.
Nice article.. but in my opinion he misses an important point here.
What is the definition of useful? Can everything be measured materially/quantitatively?
After all, it is known that a person's happiness is a completely subjective experience, and that humans, in general, are not a particularly rational animal... Faith, by its very definition, is not something that can be scientifically proven, or even contradicted (for evidence, many of the greatest scientists and philosophers, for example Newton, Einstein and Descartes were believing people). Is it possible to scientifically contradict the fact that putting on tefillin will buy you a place in heaven?
In short, not everything is matter, logic and numbers, there are also useful actions that are not measured as such.
Hello, I am a completely ultra-Orthodox person, wearing a tefillin, keeping kosher, etc.
From this point I came to shed light on the matter A: The claim made by the respected writer is the main claim that many religions rely on, the commandments create a cohesive society with its own way and who would cross this way of life of the religious which undoubtedly has benefits in family life and education, and I am not talking about all currents The religions, although on most of them, must accept the mitzvot of the Torah as something binding and if so beneficial! And this concerns a mitzvah such as putting on tefillin, but there are many mitzvahs that also have logical reasons and clear benefits. Many tried to explain the benefits, such as Maimonides Mendelson Harshar Hirsch and up until now, people who understood the benefit of the mitzvah in the National Likud and the mutual guarantee caused by it took the trouble to settle the Torah On the logic b: What made it difficult for Roy was how do you know that a certain person put on a tefillin correctly. There are things that you don't know and really not everyone does them But by and large there is a clear knowledge of who is obligated to the religious codes. You can enter into a discussion for many years about each mitzva whether it is good or not and discuss each mitzva in detail, but this is not the place here. One who does like his father will be stronger in a certain thing and things his father exists he will not do at all N.B. Of course, there are also religious people who say my father did like Roy's nephew, but from his brothers it is hard for everyone to be guilty of anecdotalism because this nephew belongs to a group in the society of the imitators which by the way exists in every society there are also seculars who do not know why they are secular and they wait for intelligent people even in ultra-Orthodox society this is not the case To summarize: Imitation is related to the level of intelligence of a person in old age (at a young age to me it is related to evolutionism, so I did not understand at all how (Roi makes a connection between the legality of religious adults and the legality of children) the ultra-Orthodox are not legalists but understand a clear benefit from among the ultra-Orthodox and humanity as a whole. The benefits of the Afi religion that they did not understand and did not believe
Sorry, it's right rituals are occupying more and more place in humans' life but none here asks TO WHOM THOSE RITUALS SERV?…
Die in the name of God is not possible since there's no God except in schizophrenic delusions, so why dying? I think it's for some religious leaders' comfort...
Above all, there are power, sex & money. Religious leaders DO NOT believe in God. They're too bright (for leading thousands of human sheep) for believing in nonsense like the concept of God.
It's true apes don't have religion. Niether do cows and crocodiles.
Zuriel,
In response to your claim, I will quote the answer given to one of Dawkins's readers, who claimed that Dawkins (an evolutionary biologist by training) cannot criticize religion without a detailed analysis of scholarly reference books in theology. The sarcastic answer was posted by P.Z. Myers on his website Pharyngula, in the excellent translation of Adi Marcuse-Hess:
"I have considered Mr. Dawkins's brash accusations, which are maddening at the utter lack of serious scholarship on his part. It is obvious and obvious that he has not read Count Rodrigo of Sibilia's detailed discussions of the gourmet and exquisite leather cuts of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give the slightest thought to Bellini's artwork, About the Shining River of the Emperor's Feathered Hat We know of entire schools of thought devoted to the connection Scholarly essays on the beauty of the emperor's clothes, and every important newspaper has a section dedicated to imperial fashion...
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical musings and rudely accuses the emperor of being naked... As long as Dawkins has not undergone basic training in the shops of Paris and Milan, as long as he does not know the difference between curly muslin and baggy pants, we must pretend as if he did not publicly condemn the emperor's taste. His training in biology may have given him the ability to recognize dwindling genitalia when he saw one, but it didn't teach him to value fake textiles."
With the blessing of Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
I meant what I wrote and not any other possible interpretation. To deny its existence is to believe that it has no right to exist. That's what you did.
To warn of danger/damage is completely legitimate.
Well anyway I think we closed it in the second discussion.
Ofer:
What do you mean by "denying its existence"?
Is warning about the danger (and in fact danger is a delicate expression because it expresses potential harm while religion is constantly causing us real harm) in your eyes "negating its existence"?
After all, that's all people here do - warn - and therefore it is implied from your words that in your opinion it is permissible to cause harm, but it is forbidden to express opposition to those who cause the harm.
The fact is that there is much danger in religion.
This does not mean that its existence can be denied.
Amichai:
Thank you for your words.
I also sometimes feel that it is a blessing in disguise, what's more, it's not easy emotionally, to repeat things I've said dozens of times only for the benefit of people whose exhaustion is their way of dealing with logic and being a target for the poison darts of people whose poison darts are the only thing in their arsenal of arguments.
Occasionally, however, I also enjoy myself.
This happens when someone changes their mind or when someone makes an argument that I haven't come across yet (it hasn't happened in a long time but one of the funniest cases, for me, was when a guy named Barel asked how evolution managed to develop bilateral symmetry in all animals - see Here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-basics-0004092/#comment-207406
).
The truth is that the irrelevant argument is the way many people operate - not just religious ones (and you are welcome to look at the strange arguments I recently had to have with Nadav) and sometimes I just feel like leaving all these companies to wallow in their nonsense because I really have a lot of interesting things to do.
Lately I've been really debating and maybe I'll get, in the end, your advice.
To Zuriel - regarding your response to Roy. Religion is not a science and years of specialization in religion does not give an advantage over one day's study. The principle of all religions is quite simple - believe that some invisible being created the world as it is today. Alas, if in order to be able to explain that the religion is wrong, we would have to study every religion for a lifetime. And we only have one lifetime to enjoy it. Most of us have an above average knowledge of Judaism, and above and beyond what is required to understand that it is, like all religions, a kind of convenient approximation of the knowledge that was correct at the time of its development.
Roy, peace and blessings
As I have seen, you have a lot of knowledge in various fields of science and even one of the most significant achievements for a scientist is the doctorate degree. Successfully .
But in my humble opinion, it is not appropriate for a scientist and a person of opinion to express such a firm and even unequivocal opinion on a subject that does not have much knowledge in the field. And as I noticed from your letter, it is evident that you really do not have enough in-depth knowledge to reject or make statements on the subject of religion. That's why there is a well-known Sage article "A caveat to the wisdom of silence."
Just don't forget that there are thousands of people who devoted and still devote the same years that you devote to the study and research of science and even more so, to the study and study of Judaism and those in contrast to you found no interest in making firm statements, despite the years of study while raising greater difficulties and doubts than your own.
Michael
I respect you, not to say "admire", for your knowledge, your sharpness of mind, your razor-sharp logic and your infinite patience
Finally to answer again and again to every religious person who rushes to flood the site, every time an article or study is published
It seems to them that they are violating their absolute beliefs or contradicting the explanations and excuses they learned from their rabbis with authority on the ancient "Holy Scriptures".
I previously read your explanations, regarding your principled approach, on the importance of giving a response to vain talk based on
Different and strange beliefs, which are often published on our website, but in my opinion it is a waste of time and a blessing to cancel.
Carl Sagan in his book "Broca's Mind" (or as he spelled his name in this book Carl Sagan) devoted an entire chapter
As a response to Volikovsky's book "Worlds Collide". I'm sure you know the book.
In this book Volikovsky tries to explain miracles and all kinds of "supernatural" phenomena in the Tanakh stories, such as some of the plagues
Egypt, the tearing of the Red Sea, the manna in the desert, the sun in Gibeon Dom, etc., by the activity of meteors, comets that passed through our regions and the effects of supernovae. He wrote Humfer from the position of someone who knew based on facts
science. Humper became so popular and widespread in the US that many scientists believed that Volikovsky was causing
Public damage, and does not allow the general public to distinguish between scientific facts and statements, and nonsense
pseudo-scientific.
Against this background, Carl Sagan responded in his book to Volikovsky's claims, refuting them one by one. in fact
Make them dirt and ashes while bringing an appendix of examples of astronomical and geophysical calculations.
It is important for readers to know that the late Carl Sagan was a renowned astrophysicist and one of the most prolific explainers of science.
To his credit are a large number of great books and a great TV series "Cosmos" which he presented himself, for those who remember.
After the publication of the book, Carl Sagan was asked, why he does not react in the same way to all the calico publications, he answered
To quote roughly, for the purpose of making all the astronomical calculations I had to spend a lot of time at the expense of my scientific work,
If I tried to respond, I wouldn't have any time left for any pseudo-scientific nonsense published in the US
For my really important scientific work!
The second thing we learned from our friend on the "Freedom" website. They are much more experienced in arguing with phantic believers.
They expressed their opinion more than once, because there is no point in an ongoing argument with a stubborn believer. The conversation is going on two parallel tracks and there is no possibility of reaching an agreement. The religious claim that science cannot say anything about
on supernatural phenomena. We claim that their reliance on ancient writings and old traditions has no merit
validity and that it is impossible to bring a verse from the sources as proof. The debate very quickly becomes circular, the same reasoning
Returning in different variations with plenty of parables and statements of faith. The conversation devolves into mutual insults
without any positive result.
From my experience, I can say that in my (not short) lifetime, I had several debates-conversations with ultra-Orthodox sects.
Different. Usually the conversation opens with mutual jokes about each other. This can be done in a good spirit.
After that, you can move forward little by little while creating a certain trust. It is important to define each statement well and constantly summarize the points of agreement. In this situation, in my experience, the moment comes quite quickly when the Haredi announces that he is not ready
to continue the conversation. Usually the excuse is that he is not knowledgeable or qualified to discuss such issues.
Rabbis and rabbis stop the conversation on the pretext that I am not learned enough to discuss sublime topics
Such that first I go to study for a few years in a yeshiva, or then they will willingly continue the discussion. Thank you!!
Most of the time the discussion stops with the beginners asking questions about the Ten Commandments, especially the first commandment.
In such cases, I usually end the conversation with the ultra-Orthodox with the words, "At the point where you stop asking questions,
I'm just starting to ask the important questions" and those who understand will understand!
You must have understood what I meant, Michael. But if you still don't want to leave religious comments unanswered
Adequately, I suggest you and the website management prepare a standard response that says something along the lines of "Your response
Full of religious arguments that are not related to what is said in the article and do not belong to the spirit of the site. If you want to understand the
For the principles of scientific discussion, see the links." And here links to a series of articles explaining the
The principles of science and logic.
Of course, the site management can formulate as standard a response as it sees fit.
This response must be given every time you raise a response in the discussions with reasons or religious claims, without entering
for individual responses to the arguments themselves.
Over time, the religious commenters will realize that there is no point in continuing to bother the site by writing on the basis of their faith.
Nor will they be able to claim that they are not ready to publish their responses.
I admit that sometimes these debates are amusing, but usually they are full of excessive self-confidence, trust, arrogance
Arrogance and preaching. They have no place on the knowledge site!!!
And you, Michael, keep your endless energy for real scientific discussions. Please don't break, it's always fun to read
you,
Be healthy and happy new year
Ofer:
What is this nonsense?
How many times do I have to write that these are different things and that the different religions are a set of rules and that faith is something completely different.
enough!
I have no strength for people who insist with all their might not to understand.
I know very well what the definition of prejudice and cleverness was the only way to deal with your accusation. I do not have any prejudice according to the definition you are trying to attach to me - that is, an unfounded prejudice.
There isn't and that's it and it's simply impudence on your part to even hint at it.
The quote you brought from my speech is not my definition of the current religious person.
I wonder what made you think that.
I have explained thousands of times, but I get the impression that even thousands more times you will not help her: what is dangerous in my view is the collection of memes of the religion. It is much more dangerous than the fools who believe in it at a given moment because it will also affect the fools of future generations.
There are many different types of pecs and there are also quite a few of them that meet this definition, but even matching some of it is very problematic.
Tell me: do you live in Israel? Do you see what happens every day in Jerusalem? Do you occasionally recall the fact that the ultra-orthodox evade military service? And what about the fact that I carry the burden of their livelihood? And what about the fact that there is no public transportation on Shabbat?
Religious coercion is celebrated and religious crime is celebrated and some secular "beautiful soul" comes along and sees fit to preach morality to me.
This is a common denominator of all religions, especially the monotheistic ones.
All of them cause wars, all of them fight progress and science, all of them are based on lies and all of them lead all their believers (and here I am talking about the characteristics of the existing religious) to lie - both about their faith and everything related to the basis of this faith.
All of them bring a huge part of their believers to prefer the laws of religion over the laws of the state, all of them are against democracy and all of them have some "good-natured" secularists who come to their defense.
pleasantness:
Sorry, but the argument with you is no longer at a level I am able to descend to.
Don't know what Pascal's wager is. I would be happy if you would wait for me.
"If it turns out for you that the Christians confirm what is written in the Torah"?! - After all, all of Christianity is based on the Bible (=the Old Testament) and the Christian continuation which is the New Testament.
And about getting involved with half the world - don't worry:
Besides 2 billion Christians, the Muslims number a similar number, and Mormons (who are actually also Christians) number another 12 million, and in general - why go far?
- It is enough for you to keep up to date with the number of religious people in our tiny country, which is increasing, and you will realize how many people you are getting into trouble with... 🙂
Have you heard of Pascal's Wager? - What he forgot to take into account is that if there is a God: what kind of God is it? the christian? The Jew? Islamic? Maybe even Zeus, or husband? And what if bad or Jupiter (Zeus who changed the look)?
You understand Noam: from this it follows that it is better not to believe in God - it is the safest, that way at least you are neutral... 🙂
And another thing Michael said:
Was I not clear enough? Please show me where I wrote that there can be no disputes.
Of course there can be disputes. fact that there is. And yet this does not move me from aspiring to resolve them. I argued that disputes in Judaism are not a good thing. And they do arise from mistakes, but human mistakes are not intentional mistakes.
My hope this time - that I understood. Understood?
Michael:
If Josiah wrote the Torah - then I hosted aliens in my house and also saw a flying pink unicorn and as an addition also a flying spaghetti monster.
And another thing Michael, if it turns out to you that the Christians confirm what is written in the Torah - what will you do then? Would you say that all Christians are wrong? And Alec, my dear, you will be in trouble with half the world!
In any case, until I get an answer, I will try to eat everything you fed me: frogs, frogs, and rabbits that (don't) produce greens.
I'm not talking to you about religion. but on faith. For you these are issues that cannot be separated. For me they are.
And you know very well what the definition of "prejudice" is, there is no need to be clever.
"When someone lies to me with a determined forehead and tries to impose all kinds of strange customs on me and calls for the murder of people who have done him no harm, he should first be admitted to the prison and only then try to wonder about our jar to know how to prevent this phenomenon"
Is this your definition of the current religious person?
Ofer:
Do you think that those who believe attribute to their belief a high probability without any scientific proof?
It is interesting that you find it appropriate to tell this to someone who has said here more than once that there is no such thing as "scientific proof" of a theory and that all science is based on refutations and confirmations.
The only proofs that exist in science are the proofs of the incorrectness of a theory - that is - the refutations.
I am actually saying that attributing phenomena that are dictated by known laws of nature to God is a wrong act that does not explain anything and does not allow reliance on this "explanation" for the purpose of solving problems that humanity encounters.
That's just the point.
No one has any need for "no explanation" as an explanation and when this "no explanation" is also a basis for parasitism, dishonesty, wars and abuse - it must be eradicated.
All opinions expressed by someone are prejudices.
Simply, since I'm not a prophet, I haven't formed my future views yet.
I am open to being convinced by logical reasons and I do not attach any importance to the fact that someone - in their lack of understanding - calls my views "prejudiced" and thinks that I will shy away from it.
I formed the opinions I have based on the findings I see.
If you direct me to contradictory facts and logical reasoning - your words will make sense.
Otherwise there is really no point in discussing it.
Michael, sorry I'm responding a little too late, but still, and I'll try to be brief.
What I think is that those who believe attribute to their belief a high probability without any scientific proof. Yes just like the flying spaghetti monster. A person who believes raises the probability by attributing phenomena whose nature is unknown to God. You are not the one to say that it is not true because you have no other explanation.
I don't know where else I said anything about the human soul except the last comment. What you said here about murder, etc. shows that you are a little less than objective on the subject because of prejudices and big generalizations.
If you are interested, respond. But it seems to me that it will not really lead us to a better place.
Thank you very much for the discussion.
pleasantness:
It's not holding the stick at both ends.
If there was no Mount Sinai status - how does the book Pinocchio exist? Just like there is the Torah! Someone wrote it.
In the case of the Torah it is probably Josiah.
What is your problem?
And you agree that there are disputes about the Torah even though you claim that there can be no disputes.
I am interested in whether there is a limit to the irrationality that religion can cause people.
Michael:
You can't hold the rope at both ends: both freeze at Mount Sinai and try to explain the Torah as you see fit? If there was no Mount Sinai status - how is there a Torah?
Regarding the claim that in reality everyone sees both as a distortion - maybe you can only be justified in this. that indeed each swallows the other. But is that your pride? That's why the Temple was destroyed! And then we went into the cursed exile that almost completely crushed us and our Torah. Maybe Michael, if you had been blessed with the glory of the days that were at the time of the Temple, maybe then you would have spoken differently!
grin? Yes! I'm grinning too! 🙂 🙂 🙂
This is the rule: when the world is funny then we laugh!1!1! :)))))))))
pleasantness:
"I didn't say that scientists shouldn't be busy in their field."
You actually said.
Remind you?
Read in response 170 what you said in section 6 and you will see that it contradicts what you are saying now.
That's why I don't relax. Lies don't calm me down.
You may not think that Shabbat violators and homosexuals should be punished by stoning, but these are the religious laws and it is written in black and white
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/5101.htm#s14
In general, the leaders of all the religious currents have already announced their intention to establish a Halacha state here. The difference is only in the method of achieving the goal but not in the goal itself.
Be that as it may, you cannot describe as a good thing a system of laws that so many people are carried away by to do evil deeds without enough.
Didn't God realize that this is what the confusion of being foreign would cause?
what? Is he retarded?
Your rebuttals to my claims are not rebuttals at all and it is obvious that you do not know what a rebuttal is.
In relation to section 1 and the "distortion" of things - how do you determine who is the distorted one when there are "wise men" (the quotation marks are intentional) on both sides?
Each of the parties will say that the other is the distorted one and the dispute remains a dispute and we know that this is the result on the ground so don't bother me with explanations why it can't be.
Come and let me tell you about the giving of the Torah:
The giving of the Torah took place when Josiah planted the book in the Temple during the renovation work they did there.
Moses was not and was not created.
You claim otherwise?
based on what?
In the book of XNUMX Kings - chapter XNUMX, it is written that during the renovation works that were carried out in the Temple during the days of Josiah, a Torah scroll was found in the Temple and everyone was surprised because no one knew the laws written in it and apparently no one followed them either.
Josiah (who I think planted the book there to give the people laws that would allow him to rule them) tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and asked God for mercy, explaining that the laws were not kept because no one knew about them.
God forgave him and said that the punishment for the deeds will not come in his days.
Now - tell me:
If no one in Josiah's time knew about the Torah and didn't know its mitzvot - from where is it known that before Josiah they knew the things?
Just because it's written in a book?
After all, anyone can write a book that says that God gave it many years ago.
Therefore, Noam, what was to be proved, remains to be proved.
You also have to prove that you even understand what a proof is (because as far as I can see, you've actually proven that you don't understand what a proof is).
Hema: You tired me.
I will not continue reading the barbara.
I saw that you wrote another comment trying to sell me that what happened with deafness in Israel in 1966 did not happen (even though it appears even in Bar Ilan's Shu'at) and I can only laugh at that as well.
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm just saying what my mind tells me. I didn't get a mandate from anyone to represent any ideology. Good night to all the precious scientists from gold and pearls!
white blood:
This still needs to be checked, but it is possible that Muslims rely on Judaism. It is possible that the Muslims themselves confirm the status of Mount Sinai. I again qualify my words and say "maybe". In this case - two million are joined by one and a half billion. parable
More: I'm telling you the truth, after hearing that there are people who keep themselves sane and claim to have seen aliens and even talked to them, I'm already afraid that a pink unicorn also exists in reality. Joking of course...
white blood:
First of all: the difference between you and Rabbi Eliashiv is: 1. He is certified by the rabbinate, you are not. 2. He uses professional tools that he acquired for interpretation and you use non-professional tools. Regarding publicity - it is true that the public tends to enjoy following famous people, but this does not guarantee Nothing as you rightly commented. I recommend you not to be famous. Regarding the disputes - my suggestion is that you read what I wrote in response 176.
Second thing: You are right that at a given moment I do not know who is close to God. But you will agree with me that the chief rabbis are close friends. It is possible to find out who is a fake Kabbalist and who is truly righteous. But the clarification takes time.
Three: No white blood, no! Halachah as a house of praise because of their humility! And there are fixed rules in Judaism on how to judge Halacha - among other things, as you said: Halacha as in Terai.
Another thing: I disagree with you about the time of the disputes. There were very few disputes before Hillel and Shamai. And yes - my ears heard what Shafi spoke - classism is a disaster. Because of her the Second Temple was destroyed.
Regarding the Messiah - I aspire that the period of change that will come will come in an orderly manner and not in the chaos of God. By the way - why won't you survive the attack of the meteor? It's worth waiting for what comes next... I'm waiting! Every day that comes! 🙂
Dear Noam, if numbers are what you want, then get the following figure:
the two statements:
1. "I testify that there is no one but God"
2. "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God"
Muttering, guess how many - a billion and a half people on this planet. Not two million.
So if a testimony of one and a half billion isn't enough to disprove a testimony of two million, I don't know what is.
And second thing:
There is no evidence of two million people! All that exists is an ancient text, unconfirmed by any other external source, which claims that there were two million (or six hundred thousand, but what does it matter) people who were present at the giving of the Torah.
There were never two million people who claimed such a thing, but only written about them.
If you want, you can open a blog, we will write there: "Once there were 300 million people who saw the invisible pink unicorn" - and this will be acceptable evidence of a new belief in the invisible pink unicorn.
Best regards
white blood
Michael:
Moses who wrote the Torah was the greatest of the prophets. And certainly one of the greatest in the world at that time. No, he was not a simple person.
Regarding the deafness - this has not been decided as a halacha. Once again you don't learn a lesson? It is the Halacha that determines, not the Gemara. Have you forgotten who was given the authority to interpret the Torah? Because of lack of knowledge do you slander the Torah in public? Where is the logic?
Well then what I wanted to write but don't think that's all I know. I could write more. But, this month, the month of mercy and forgiveness, so I thought it would be better to go my way.
Michael:
First of all I can reassure you: I do not disturb any scientist in his work. Everyone has a free choice. And I have no intention of interfering with the scientist in his work: so you are allowed to look at the rabbit however you like, and you are allowed to travel to Iraq or any country you want to check the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris. Of course you are allowed to be an astronomer.
I didn't say that scientists shouldn't be busy in their field.
I understand your anger against the violence they want to use against the offenders you mentioned - but I actually don't think so. Did you mention testimony and sages? So in my community and my sages - they don't think like that. There are ultra-Orthodox groups with an extreme ideology who do think that way. I am not one of them and I regret that there are people who think that all of the above should be stonewalled. (By the way, those extremist groups hate me too and would be happy to get rid of me too. Hard facts)
Michael, you state that there are 2 reasons for the formation of disputes: 1. That they try to infer things from the Torah that are not in it, and anyone can draw the conclusions wherever they want.
2. The Torah was written by men who were no wiser than their generation.
We will break down the reasons one by one:
1. In yeshivas they teach that there is a need for extreme caution and humility when approaching to explain the Torah and not everyone can interpret the Torah as he pleases and they teach how to draw conclusions in an honest way - from this it follows that whoever interprets as he pleases distorts the Torah. -and-and-t. In addition, and I think you've already heard this at some point - not everyone can interpret the Torah - for that you need to have authority - and precisely a Rabbi. (Nowadays you have to pass tests of the Chief Rabbinate).
It is true that there are those who try to explain the Torah in a way that they see fit, and since everyone can draw the conclusions wherever they want, then it is no wonder that their Torah is distorted.
2. We received the Torah at Mount Sinai. It is divine and not man-made. It's a simple thing and I didn't have to write it.
What did you mean Michael - that the two tablets that Moses received at Mount Sinai he built on his own? Or maybe Moses wrote the Torah? Yes, he invented it but did not invent it. God dictated the words to him. And this fact prevents me from having to invent arguments to reconcile the Torah with reality.
Well, what——-was——–to prove!!!
The reason for the disputes in Judaism is different. But first of all, it would be good in my opinion if I go ahead and quote the Gemara (Yerushalmi) in tractate Hagiga: "In the beginning there was no dispute in Israel but only about the ordination, and Shammai and Hillel stood up and made them four. The students of Beit Shammai and the students of Beit Hillel burned together, and they did not serve their rabbis all they needed, And there were many divisions in Israel, and they were divided into two sects - those that purify and those that purify Let a cousin come."
And now for the exact explanation of what "they were not used for all their needs" - this explanation comes from one of the greats of Judaism who wrote a book to save the dignity of the humiliated Jewish religion - Rambam. It will be long, but for the sake of removing doubt and for the sake of putting the problems on the table and solving them I will quote:
Maimonides in his preface to the Mishnah: "But whoever thinks that the laws that are divided in this way are acceptable from the mouth of Moses, and thinks that the dispute in them fell through a mistake in the laws or a forgetfulness, or because one of them received a true acceptance and the other made a mistake in accepting it or forgot, or did not hear from his rabbi everything that was necessary to hear, and he will bring proof of this what is said: "The disciples of Shammai and Hillel, who were not used by any consumer, burned it, there was a great deal of controversy in Israel, and the Torah was made As two Torahs" - this is a very obscene thing, and it is the words of someone who has no sense.
This matter is clarified, that any two people, being equal in intelligence and study and knowledge of the principles from which they will draw explanations, will not fall into disagreement between them in their interpretation under any circumstances. And if you fall, you will be few. Just as it was not found that Shamai and Hillel were divided except by single laws. And this, because the opinions of both were close to each other in everything they put forth in the way of opinion, and the principals also devoted to it, as the principals devoted to it.
But when the disciples' zeal for wisdom waned, and their opinion weakened in relation to the opinion of Hillel and their rabbis, a disagreement arose between them in the study of many things. The fact that you considered each and every one of them was according to his mind and what he had in hand is one of the main things. And they shouldn't be blamed anyway, just as we wouldn't force two sages who argue carefully, to argue with the wisdom of Yehoshua and Phinehas.
And we have no doubt in the same way about what they differed on, since they are not like Shammai and Hillel, or like someone who is above them, that the Almighty did not command in his work on this matter, but commanded to hear from the sages of what generation there will be, as he said, "God the judge who will be in those days" .
And on these roads the controversy fell. Not because they were wrong in the laws, and that one is telling the truth and the other is a lie. And this matter is very clear to everyone who looks at it, and what is precious and great is the main thing in the mitzvot."
So, Michael - if the words of the great scholar, Maimonides, the sun of the world, are meaningless in your eyes, then it's really a shame.
The next step in simplifying the equation is: the assertion that disagreement is a bad thing. Disagreement in any subject in the world (even in science) is bad and disagreement in the Torah is very bad! Only then will we begin to try and resolve the disputes.
I understood from your words that you have an understanding of the main induction of Judaism: the entire nation of Israel saw Moses receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai. In my opinion, basing on the testimony of millions of people is acceptable to me.
pleasantness:
I am also happy that the discussion remains on an intellectual level and does not descend to the height of the grass, as happens in many cases. There will be many like him in Israel.
In our case:
A.
I know the argument that there is one truth in spite of everything, even though we cannot grasp it in our short-sightedness. But this argument has no legs. It's very easy to say that, but you can say that about anything and it means nothing.
The Torah (which is written and written) contradicts itself throughout, it is inconsistent and irregular. In principle: it is not possible to understand any message from it, because it is multi-faceted. The halacha that has been decided and established is actually an interpretation, in fact - interpretations, many interpretations.
And if we are dealing with interpretations - everyone interprets according to his own opinion and understanding, so it is natural that there will be differences of opinion.
And they said about Rabbi Meir that he knew how to bring one hundred and fifty proofs from the Torah why a runner is kosher (!) and then another three hundred proofs (from the same Torah!) why he is unclean.
And every person can interpret and extract evidence from the Torah for whatever he wants. I can also (if I try hard enough) bring you proof from the Torah that it is a great commandment to eat Domino's pizza with chorizos at a meal on Seder night. The difference is between me and Rabbi Eliashiv, for example, is that the (religious) public does not recognize me and will not accept my words. But if I were a public figure, or someone important enough - miraculously pork would become kosher!
Bottom line: the Torah does not understand what it wants from itself.
2.
Are there rabbis who are close to God? And this - how do you know? Who told you, they? their students? their community?
Take for example the Baal Shem Tov, who lived three hundred years ago: for him, he was the closest person to God on this planet. But on the part of the Lithuanians he was... boycotted!
Hasidism was considered heresy at the time, and this at a time when they (the Hasids) thought they were the chosen and worthy sect in the eyes of God, more than all the other strays.
And this brings me back to the previous section: all of this depends on the public: whether they accept and believe in that figure (rabbi) / whether not.
From here - you choose which idol you want to worship, and this is your personal choice, it does not indicate anything about reality.
3.
Regarding the ruling of the Halacha as Beit Hillel - I think that the meaning of the fact that they allowed the Beit Shamai Rishonim the right to speak, means that they heard what they had to say, and took their words into account, and only then expressed their opinion. In other words: "Halacha as the last".
4.
The disputes in Israel preceded Hillel and Shammai.
During the time of the Second Temple there were about a million Samaritan believers in Israel (unbelievers in the Torah of the 7th century), and what about the Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees (from whom the dedicated movement), and then the Christian sect, etc., etc. - understand: the Torah is just another book from which you can understand what you want God would not allow so many interpretations, if he dictated the laws.
"If every sect thinks that all justice is with them - then it is no wonder that they finally reach the state of the power of the arm" - your ears will hear what your mouth is saying.
5.
It's a shame that you don't study the profession that interests you, and instead choose to study what "God commanded"...
And to conclude: there is no obligation to accept the opinions of the authorized, they also do not understand correctly, but they are definitely the ones who create the disputes in Israel.
And if, in your opinion, it is "necessary" to accept their opinion: I accept the opinion of Rabbi Yaron Yadan, the qualified and learned scholar who studied and changed and punished and Kfar.
incidentally:
The Messiah who will end the disputes in the world, and solve the wars, has to be someone really big and strong. I would say... a giant meteor or some good nuclear winter...
Michael Rothschild:
The intention is that science should not take seriously and investigate whimsical arguments, but only empirical arguments.
lion:
Of course, the fact that it is Jewish law is also easy to check.
"The deaf and the foolish and the little one, wears clothes and not shirts. And if the Jew wants to drive out the plow with another who will do it, then it is a drive" (Aven Ha'azar Siman Keev, section XNUMX).
lion:
The issue is checked.
1966 - the year in which the incident took place, far preceded the age of the Internet.
This was published in rabbinic rulings, part XNUMX, page expired (as it is also written on the Da'at Emet website
http://www.daatemet.org.il/questions/index.cfm?MESSAGEID=1984
)
You can also find it at Bar Ilan University - in the Shuat project.
In general, there are no lies on the "Deat Emet" website.
There can be mistakes there but not mistakes that are gross to the point of fibrok.
Raped deafness - Michael, you know that my views are the same as yours, but in this case I believe that there is an incorrect report here. If such a thing were to happen, we would read about it in all the newspapers. Today, instead of a yabom (marriage of a childless widow - to her brother-in-law), a ceremony called chalitza is performed (this is an option from the Torah, not a correction by sages). I followed the link on this matter that you left in one of your comments to the Daat Emet site and commented on it. We'll see how they react. For the avoidance of doubt - I do not see any logic, neither in Beebom nor in Halitza.
pleasantness:
Your words make no sense to me.
The fact is that there are disputes among the "sages" and each sect has its "sages".
It can't be fixed by saying it's bad.
You need to understand what this is due to.
It's actually clear what this stems from.
This is due to the fact that they try to infer from the Torah things that are not in it and anyone can draw the conclusions wherever they want.
This is due to the fact that the Torah was written by people who did not know more than the rest of their contemporaries, therefore one has to invent all kinds of arguments to reconcile their mistakes with reality and everyone can argue differently.
Shouldn't science relate to things in faith?
Who are you to limit my scientific activity?!
If you believe that the rabbit rummages - does that take away my right to look at the rabbit and see that it is nonsense?
If you believe that the Euphrates and the Tigris originate from a common source - am I not allowed to go there and check what is really happening?
If there were those who believed that Apollo drags the sun in his chariot in an orbit around the plane of the earth - does that mean that I am not allowed to discover that the earth is a sphere and that the sun is not dragged by any chariot and certainly not Apollo's and in general its orbit is not around the earth?
I also claim that not only science should be freed from religion but also morality.
If you believe that homosexuals or Sabbath-breakers should be stoned, I think that not only am I allowed to oppose these strange statements, but I must fight against them even with the strength of my arm.
If you believe that a widow whose husband died without producing offspring should be raped by her sister-in-law - I must also oppose that in every possible way.
white blood:
First I wanted to say that I really appreciate your honesty, your truth and the courage to admit and say: "I don't know" when you don't know anything. Indeed this is the glory of man.
And now I will return to our matter:
1. I'm glad you gave me a chance to explain a fundamental error: although there are 70 faces to the Torah, but the truth is one! We are the minority who understand that there are many contradictions in the Torah, but from an absolute point of view the truth is one! And because we fail to reconcile the apparent contradictions, there are many disputes! Disagreement is not a good thing!
2. You ignore what I said that there are sages who are closer to God. That's why I listen to them more and I'm less considerate of endless opposing opinions. There is a hierarchy in Judaism. Set your eyes and heart on this fact!
3. I already knew the connection between a ruling like Beit Hillel and humility. But I still did not understand from your words why humility was used as a central factor in the ruling of the Halacha.
4. Rabbi Gamliel was very afraid of the situation of "everyone trusts his rabbi", of the situation of sectarianism. And so that the Torah would not be made as two Torahs, he decided to rule! "When the sages entered the vineyard in Yavneh, they said: A time will come when a person will seek something from the words of the Torah and will not find it, from the mouth of scribes and will not find it, as it is said: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord... They will wander seeking the word of the Lord and will not find it." . (Tosefta, Evidence XNUMX).
It is written in the tractate Sanhedrin, page 2, page 2: "The students of Shamai and Hillel, who were not used by any consumer, burned him - there was much discord in Israel and the Torah became like two Torahs." You see, controversy is a bad thing that needs to be resolved. If every sect thinks that all justice is with them - then it is no wonder that they finally reach the situation of the power of the arm, as you mentioned.
By the way, it is recounted in several cases in the Gemara that the sages ruled according to the rule: "All Dalims are men" - so there really is an opinion that interprets: this is the strength of the arm. But there is also another opinion that interprets: Gods in claims. Whoever brings stronger claims to the court will win!
5. How did I come to talk about the core issues? Because you wrote in response 74: "You should know that the basis of Talmud studies in yeshivot is not rooted in love for wisdom" - and I do agree with that and the evidence: I study what the Ministry of Education commands me to do, not because I love wisdom, and I study Torah not because I love wisdom but Because that is what God commanded. I am learning two things that commanded me, although not the same source of authority, but still authority.
6. I reinforce your words: science should not refer to arguments that come from faith - any faith.
In conclusion, it is indeed possible to understand the words of the Torah in many ways, but it is mandatory to accept the decrees of the qualified to interpret the Torah. Only they understand correctly. Although, I admit and confess that we have not yet arrived at the absolute truth. And even when there is a disagreement, everyone should listen to their rabbi, but also respect and not stab the other rabbi.
P.S. Don't worry, there won't always be disputes when there are people: in the future, a messiah will come, the same one you talked about and will resolve all disputes. There will be no glory that will be exalted from him. Oh yes, I forgot another small detail: the wars will stop.
pleasantness:
1.
"Indeed there are seventy faces to the Torah" = there is not one truth, there are seventy! (Seventy? - I wish! More in the direction of the number of the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai)
2.
"Indeed, the Gemara is a night of Deuteronomy - it is not a final product. The final product is the Halacha. It is forbidden to learn Halacha from the Gemara"
First of all, you do learn Halacha from the Gemara! Only not today, because after so many years after it was signed, rulings based on it were added, so we immediately jump to the end and not to the source - the Gemara, because many of its words are not relevant to modern life due to the changes that have taken place in the world since then.
If anything, then it is correct to say that it is forbidden to learn Halacha from the Mishnah, on which the Gemara is based, and as they say: "We do not live from the Mishnah."
Secondly, the final halacha is also not uniform and consolidated. The Shelchan Aruch is based on three judges (Rambam, Rif and Rash) who often disagree with each other, and he decided by a majority (two against one). If that is not enough, it is enough to open the Shelchan Aruch itself and become aware of the number of opinions ( Rama v. Beit Yosef, Peri Magadim, Baal Tori, etc., etc.)
And so it is all the way. Even today, Rabbi Ovadia disagrees with Rabbi Yosef Chaim, and the Lithuanians live from the mouth of the "genius" of Vilna, etc. because there is no end to the discussion: "three Jews - four opinions", "as long as there are people there will be disputes" ("wars" in the original)
3.
"Certification does not guarantee anything. You also need help "from above". [...] "What is certain is that certification gives a relative advantage."
This is what I said, that the more knowledge a person has, the more he will fall into the true intention, because he has a background. But there are still countless different and opposing opinions that are based on the same verses, only with a different interpretation. = Go back to section 1.
4.
How do you really dare to pronounce Halacha if "such and such are the living words of God"?! Very simple: everyone trusts their rabbi.
What does humility have to do with it? I think it means that Beit Hillel first gave legitimacy and the right to speak to Beit Shamai, and only if their words did not agree with their opinion (of Beit Hillel) did they disagree with them. But I'm not sure about that, I need to find out.
In any case, in situations of urgency, the power of the arm increased, and thus the judgment of the House of Assessors was decided in eighteen places:
"Rabbi Yehoshua Oniya says: The students of Beit Shammai stood up to them from below and were killing the students of Beit Hillel. Tani: Six of them went up and the rest stood on top of them with swords and spears" (Yerushalmi, Shabbat).
5.
What do I suggest in case we don't know how to decide?
I suggest you go to the "Deat Emet" website and stand up for the horrible mistake called "Torah", then I'm sure we'll know how to decide.
6.
You are getting off topic.
We talked about studying Torah in yeshivot and suddenly you jumped into studying the core subjects. And only God understands the connection.
7.
"And I still maintain that the study of shameful, inferior and stupid issues - as you define - helps to actually promote the universe and its march in a good direction"
On this I only have to quote my father's words in his response (151):
"Science should not refer to arguments that come from faith - any faith"
Best regards
white blood
Noam:
Sexual arousal has long been measured.
A lot is also known about non-sexual love (like that hormone whose name does not come to mind at the moment but its level in the woman's blood increases during breastfeeding)
Yes indeed.
The important point in my view is that brain research is approaching, and perhaps has already reached, a situation where it can measure pure physical characteristics, which have a single-valued expression for various feelings, which until now were thought to be "a matter of the spirit" and not something that can be scientifically measured.
Many have asked me in the past "Do you think it is possible to scientifically measure "love", and the question is of course intended to "prove" that there are things that are beyond science, and that cannot be measured.
I believe that the day is not far off, and indeed it will be possible to measure "love" in a scientific way (may be embarrassing...)
Noam:
Just grammar on the tip of Yod:
Red color is not a single wavelength but a group of combinations of wavelengths in certain ratios between them, which excite the gauges in certain excitation ratios.
In fact there are many combinations of wavelengths that instill a "red" feeling.
It doesn't make it any less defined but just more complex.
By the way - knowing how to create all the color combinations on the computer screen shows that you know very well what the combinations of wavelengths are that create the different color sensations.
Readers should know that there are also "smell printers" that know how to produce the different smells that a person can smell.
Smell is a much more complex sense than taste in which there is only a very limited number of ingredients.
If I remember correctly all the basic tastes we feel are bitter, sweet, salty, sour and umami.
The sensation of spiciness, by the way, is not a taste but a burning sensation and it comes through the temperature sensors and not through those of taste.
Eran,
Red color is precisely defined by wavelength.
The result of the interaction between the particular wavelength and the receptors in the eye and the brain, gives an experience we call the color red.
Until now, the tendency was to think that this is a subjective experience, but it seems to me that the day will not be far away, and it will be possible to accurately measure the brain activity in specific areas, when the "red color" experience takes place.
When we get to that, it will be possible to accurately describe the color red with another method: brain activity.
Therefore the answer to your question is "in principle yes, it is possible to scientifically describe red color and also the taste of mango, although it may take a little more time".
The same goes for all the experiences that you currently think, mistakenly in my opinion, that are "beyond science"
Earn c
1. Since our ancient sources are not punctuated, I will punctuate the verse according to my understanding
A man of his faith! will live
2. Before you demand to stop giving examples, you better demand that all religious expositors stop
give a complement as an explanation. I have yet to come across a religious preacher who doesn't back up his argument with parables, which usually is
, although they are sometimes beautiful, they have no validity.
3. Usually, when trying to exhaust Judaism in one sentence, it is not correct to quote Rabbi Akiva who said
Love your neighbor as yourself. This is a requirement that is not practical in practice and it is precisely the Christians who have pretensions
act upon it. They call Christianity the "religion of love", but we all know what love has flowed from Christianity
in most years of its history. Judaism, whenever it was in a position of power, was extremely deadly,
See the acts of the Levites in the desert, the book of Joshua or the end of the book of Esther. Of course, all acts of killing have a halachic justification.
You should also bring the correct quote to the essence of Judaism, which is what old Hillel said about one leg.
You will not do what is hateful to your friend." This rule can also be accepted by secularists, humanists, and atheists.
The trouble is that the ultra-Orthodox in our country do not follow this rule, towards the seculars in Israel and towards the Zionist state
Hatred of their souls. But don't worry, this also has a halachic explanation. Because the seculars do not establish mitzvot according to
The interpretation and customs of the ultra-Orthodox, they should not be considered a "friend" and it is permissible to live at their expense and deceive them, for
Our Holy Torah. And came to Zion Goel!.
white blood:
1. There are indeed seven faces to the Torah.
2. Indeed, the Gemara is a night of words - it is not a final product. The final product is the Halacha. It is forbidden to learn Halacha from the Gemara. (I mean: it is forbidden to open a Gemara for nothing and act according to what is written).
3. Certification does not guarantee anything. We also need help "from above". You know, the Holy Spirit. Not an easy step to achieve. (But, and here comes the "great sorrow" - there are those who have risen like the great scribes: Rambam and Rabbi Yosef Karo (author of the "Shulchan Aruch") - some of the sages have reached a very high level of understanding. What did they base their ruling on? On the Gemara! You know, there is a hierarchy in Judaism: there is a Rosh Yeshiva and there is a deputy Rosh Yeshiva. There is a chief rabbi and there is an infant teacher. You must agree that the words of the chief rabbi are more correct than the words of the infant teacher.) What is certain is that the certification gives a relative advantage.
4. And you know what, at the time there was a big dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai and even though "these and those are the words of the living God" - the Halacha was decided in most cases as Beit Hillel. So first of all: Wait, how do you even dare to pronounce Halacha if all the opinions are right? Say, must be because they were smarter? Not exactly. The stated reason was: because of their humility. Tell me, white blood, what is the connection between humility and ruling in Halacha? What advantage does humility give?
5. So what do you suggest, in case we don't know how to decide: flip a coin? And maybe "sit and don't do" is better? What do you think?
6. Indeed the study does not stem from a love of wisdom, fact: I do not study the books of Aristotle, Freud, Socrates, Plato and the list is long. I study only what the Ministry of Education requires me to do.
7. And I still maintain that the study of shameful, poor and stupid issues - as you defined - helps to actually promote the universe and its march in a good direction.
Eran. C:
Your words have nothing to do with reality.
There is no connection between the representation in the brain of the input of the senses and belief.
Belief is a high probability attribution.
It is not an input of the senses but the result of a conscious analysis of the findings.
There are people who have been brainwashed - whether by false findings, whether by threats, or by promises - so that they believe nonsense or are afraid to say that they do not believe in it.
All people agree on the color red, but every person who adheres to one religion or another is sure that most people adhere to the wrong religion - that is - there is no agreement here (which is not surprising because once you decide to ignore reality you can reach any conclusion you want).
So I say two things:
If someone says that he believes in nonsense then out of respect for his intelligence I tend to believe that he does not really believe in this nonsense but that for these and other reasons he simply prefers to claim it.
Both for those who pretend to be believers and for the few who really lack a screw, there is no room for tolerance as soon as they threaten my life or my ability to live it fairly and reasonably. As I have already said - secular coercion is simply another one of the religious lies. There is no such thing. But religious coercion exists and exists and I have no intention of putting up with you.
There is no reason for my children to risk their lives while the parasites "kill" themselves in the tent of Torah.
There is no reason for me to fund their parasitism.
There is no reason for me to agree to their nonsense in almost every aspect of my life.
And of course - there is no reason for me to accept their delusional claims about reality.
Michael,
Can you describe the color red? (without giving examples like a flower etc...?)
define what is the taste of mango? (not what pores in the mouth work or what molecules are in the mango)
There are things that we cannot explain scientifically because they are beyond our understanding and understanding.
It's the same when you try to define faith, and that's why there is the sentence "A man and his faith shall live."
My belief is: and love your neighbor as yourself 🙂
Eran. C:
You wait for the savior's call instead of admitting the truth.
emir:
Let's continue:
"Regarding chapter 22 in the book of 2 Kings - it is not even worthy of reference. I can also determine what I want, however I want, without having anything to do with anything."
indeed! Both in this nonsensical sentence and in others you repeat and prove that you can determine what you want without having anything to do with anything.
The only mistake in your words is in the word "also" which does not belong to the matter, but it is a mistake that dwarfs everything else.
How many comments can one article get 🙂
A lot of noise without ringing…
emir:
With each reading, I find more nonsense in your words that I didn't notice before:
"Religious sites are not busy all day attacking the secular"
Is there any bigger bullshit than that?
The religious sites only deal with this and it is not a secular site that started talking about a full cart and an empty cart.
The only difference in this area is that the ultra-Orthodox websites do not allow secular people to express themselves on them, whereas on this website you get the opportunity to pour your nonsense to your heart's content as long as you maintain a discussion culture.
It is the constant censorship on ultra-Orthodox websites that points to feelings of inferiority (and in fact a complete knowledge of inferiority, which is why they fear that the readers will even hear the voice of reason).
So we express our opinion. This is not paranoia, but a defense against violent coercion that the religious do not let go of and try to exacerbate it as much as they can.
When we express our opinion - at least we don't lie!
"That's why I have no choice but to respond and defend the Jewish religion, which is often humiliated here."
Do you have no choice?
That says it all!
In fact, you admit that the choice to change your "belief" and accept reality as it is, you are not counting at all!
There is a difference between "humiliating" something and "describing its humiliation".
emir:
One more thing about the twisting about the Euphrates and the Tigris - a twisting that reminds of theirs:
Here is what is written in the Bible:
And a river came out of Eden to water the garden and from there it separated and had four heads... and the name of the third river Hidkel is the one that goes before Assyria and the Rabbi River Ai is a cow (Genesis 10; 14-XNUMX)
Of course it's not at all like your fusion gibberish.
emir:
I forgot to keep my promise and get back to the point why you insist on embarrassing yourself over and over again.
The answer can be found, for example, in the following link and its sequels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iANFTp5d4&feature=PlayList&p=7719F45B548EB588&index=1
emir:
I jumped to comment on the first lie in your comment and didn't notice the others.
Do you want an ancient religion/tradition from Judaism?
please!
Take Hinduism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism
I don't know why you insist on being confused again and again (actually, on second thought, I do know and I'll come back to it).
The chatter about eating feces as increasing rumination is not much different from the claim that eating plants that grew thanks to the fertilizer they received from feces is also increasing rumination (well! a little more creativity and we can claim that all animals increase rumination).
Euphrates and Tigris do not come from a common source.
All streams flow to the sea and therefore all merge.
Their merging is not their origin but their end - you liar.
Regarding religious coercion, you have already been answered, but seriously: Am I not forced not to travel by bus on Shabbat or Yom Kippur?
Aren't I forced to finance the rabbinate in all kinds of strange ways (like the issue of kosher stamps)?
Isn't the rabbinate imposed on me every time I want to marry, divorce or die?
Now you are invited to read a story about a deaf person who was forced to rape her by the religious establishment - literally:
http://www.daatemet.org.il/questions/index.cfm?MESSAGEID=2028
And regarding the reverse coercion?
Why lie such blatant lies?
What exactly are you being forced to do?
Of course you are forced not to murder me (and many of your friends, maybe you too, have a lot of difficulty with this).
Of course, you are forced to accept the horrifying reality that I breathe the same air, and therefore every breath you take must also contain a nitrogen atom that was once in my lungs.
But no action is forced upon you that contradicts your vanity beliefs. is nothing!
emir:
I just saw your last comment.
Apparently it was blocked for a while because of the many misleading links.
You are amazed at the ignorance but the ignorance is yours.
But before the ignorance, let's stand up to the lie.
Why do you choose only fish and not rabbit or cow and tiger?
These are equally scientific experiments, except that there you know that the Torah has already been disproved, while in the fish you delude yourself that you have a good answer.
That's why I'm also sure that just as the proof with the rabbit, with the cow and the Tigris, etc. didn't move you from your nonsense, so the refutation of your whole fish claim won't change anything.
And now for the actual claim:
First of all - the name of the fish does not mean anything in this regard.
Are you really the top of a tree or are you still human?
Regarding the existence of a fin - the information comes from highly qualified sources and you are welcome to read the letter from the Smithsonian Museum at the following link:
http://www.daatemet.org.il/images/smithsonian_letter_re_monopterus_cuchia.jpg
Do you think the Smithsonian experts are ignorant?
The subject was tested in front of hundreds (hundreds!) of experts and they all confirmed: this fish has no fin.
Another funny thing is that you know it.
Come and point me to one rabbi (one!) who declared the fish kosher.
Friends:
Most of us are of the same opinion, but since the last part of the debate is "kicking a dead horse", I would like for a moment to turn the spotlight on mistakes that I think people on my side of the debate made in this part, knowing that the "difficulties" have already been answered well enough and the only option that Amir left to himself It is to join me on a bike ride on Shabbat or to admit that not only his faith is a lie, but also his promise to leave it under certain conditions (which I proved to him are true) - is also a lie.
Roy:
In the induction claim there is something that should not be underestimated and it is its first stage. If there was truth in it, the proof itself would be much more convincing.
The induction step itself is not so problematic for several reasons:
1. Our parents are usually indeed our parents and children leaving the way of their parents is not usually based on the claim that they are not their parents.
2. Children's faith is usually for adults - not just for parents. This is part of the asymmetry in the relationship between parent and child. I have no doubt that a parent loves his children much more than a child loves his parents. That is why the Torah found it appropriate to command "Honor your father and your mother" and did not command "Honor your children." The commandment to command is precisely one of the memes necessary for the preservation of the whole and it was not ingrained in us through evolution. There was no need for a mitzvah that was not commanded - both because it was ingrained in us by evolution and because it probably does not contribute to the transmission of the collection of memes.
3. Belief in the step of induction is altogether reasonable. There is really much more reason to believe the claim that all adults claim than the claim that only your parents claim, and as you said - most of us do not rebel against our parents' claim that they are indeed our parents, and this is evidence that both you and I accept the way of relying on the words of adults as a way that is mostly good (and actually - hey After all, if it hadn't been good, evolution wouldn't have drowned it in the first place).
Therefore, the weakness of the argument is precisely in the proof of the first step (that is, in mathematical terms, in the proof of the claim for 1 = N and not in the proof of the deduction from correctness for N to correctness for 1 + N).
This is the reason why the appearance in the Bible of the story of the destruction of the Temple and the "discovery" of the Torah in it is really lucky.
Without this chapter in the Bible it would still be possible to argue that something like this happened (and that's what I did before I knew about the chapter) but there is nothing like conclusive proof that the claim for 1 = N is simply a flat out lie.
sympathetic:
The claim of the flying pigs is indeed funny, but you have to admit that the knowledge that there is no fish in the sea (which at the time was almost impossible to look into and even today is much more hidden from the air) with certain properties (which, on the whole, are not unreasonable! It's almost like claiming that there is no blue-colored fish in the sea) was Much more impressive - if it were true - than knowing the fact that every person receives confirmation of it every day - that there are no flying pigs (what's more, there are flying mammals and we just decided to call them "bats" and not "pigs").
Again - the proof that the claim is simply wrong is an excellent argument that has no demagoguery in it.
Higgs:
I have to admit that I really wonder about you.
Finally, Amir Q - I am still waiting for your answer. will you join me on the trip I am ready to come pick you up in my car to the starting point and if you don't have a bike - even bring a pair for you.
Amir Sh.
Science should not refer to arguments that come from faith - any faith, you are sensitive because it seems to you that because the site is in Hebrew it is fighting against the Jewish religious faith but ignores all the articles against mysticism, astrology, etc.
No compulsion? joke of the year
It is advisable to spend one day in a big city abroad compared to a big city in Israel and you will see a hundred differences, almost all of which stem from one religious whim or another. Just a few examples - compare the prices in supermarkets of basic food products and see how much we pay for a hundred kosher stamps on each product, Try to arrive on Friday at 12 at night by bus to or from entertainment,
As for the testimonies of the giving of the Torah, it is interesting that no one heard of them for about a thousand years until Josiah came and united the traditions of the tribes of Israel and Judah, which until then were close but separate nations.
Ohad:
It really automatically connects to what Lord McElwain said:
"Flying machines heavier than air are not possible" - and of course he was wrong. And if he was wrong, you are probably wrong too!
Here is scientific proof that flying pink pigs exist:
http://radyananda.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flyingpig.jpg
And if that's not proof, get this:
http://stage.co.il/s/537305501
ransom!
The spaghetti monster will return you with a complete answer. God bless you
pleasantness:
1.
It is possible to understand the words of the Torah in many ways, and their words are: "Seventy."
face to the Torah".
The entire Gemara is a night of unsettled things and disputes that arise from understanding
Different in the interpretation of the verses and even the words (of the conditions) themselves.
It is true that the more a person understands the subject, the more naturally he is "aimed at the opinion of the Gemara" because he has the background, but still "just as their faces are different, so are their opinions" and their experience is different and their background is different and their knowledge is different, therefore their conclusions are also different, and as a result their rulings are also different.
And to reconcile all the contradictions, they found a great solution for them: "These and these are the living words of God" and the problem is over, or alternatively "Tashvi will explain difficulties and questions", or there is simply no decision.
There is nothing to argue about it at all - the disputes arise from a different understanding (of the same verses), so even certification does not guarantee anything.
2.
When I said that there is no point in the essence and content of the study, I meant that the study does not stem from love for wisdom, but rather from obedience to the mitzvot of Torah study = the essence of the study / the essence of the study.
And that the study does not teach anything useful or factually valid, but only irrelevant laws = the content of the study. They are not relevant because their entire basis is fundamentally wrong (the existence of God, the giving of the Torah, the Mitzvot and all the other delusions)
Do you enjoy studying? - to health!
Not only you enjoy the study, there are many others like you. And I admit that studying Gemara can be addictive in certain cases, but still its basis and essence are vanity (simply factually incorrect).
3.
It is clear that when a person believes that God commands him to fulfill his mitzvot at any given moment of the day, then his way of going to the bathroom is also included under this, because this is also an action that God "instructs" how to perform in a halachic manner according to his will. But this is exactly what I am talking about: the whole essence is wrong, there was no Mount Sinai status and God did not reveal himself to Moses and the Israelites, and the whole idea and worldview is based on imagination. Therefore, the grammars of poverty regarding the "laws of the Throne House" are completely unnecessary, and in addition also shameful and poor.
As I said, it is not a question of anatomy, biology, physiology, etc., but only a halachic ruling: how does God in His honor and Himself require you to wipe your anus!
(Doesn't that seem a bit dumb to you?)
I hope you are not offended by my words, it is not personal. I'm just trying to clarify the magnitude of the absurdity of the matter, not to tease.
And here you also received a reference to your words!
Best regards
white blood
"Furthermore, Judaism is the only scientific religion. We have a promise in tradition, expressed by God, that it is not possible for a fish with scales but without fins. If such a fish is found (of course, it is not a genetically modified fish but a fish that exists naturally) - we will know that the promise It is false and therefore the whole tradition is false, and hence Judaism upholds Popper's principle of refutation and is therefore scientific."
Amir, God revealed himself to me today and asked me to found a new religion and include you as the first believer.
As scientific proof that meets the criterion of refutation I attach the express divine promise given to me that there can be no pink flying pigs. Until these are discovered, you are asked to obey my words.
Additional details from the revelation (all of which were provided along with the above proof and are therefore automatically verified) will be provided later.
Michael Rothschild: I am amazed at the ignorance.
Check the meaning of the name Monopterus cuchia
The meaning of the name is one fin. pterus - fin or wing, from the term pteron
mono – I'm sure you know what that means.
See the subfamily name:
http://www.aquaticdictionary.com/dictionary/define.asp?term=Monopterus%20cuchia
ray-finned fishes
Read here:
http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=5337
"A rudimentary dorsal fin originates a little anterior to vertical from anus"
Oops, the fish has a fin. Truthful are liars. What a novelty.
You came to curse, you came out blessing, thank you.
By the way, I didn't have the desire and time to read 140 comments. That's why I immediately responded.
Religious websites aren't busy all day attacking the secular. Your obsession with inciting against the religious suggests feelings of inferiority. If the religious are such idiots, and the Jewish religion is so pathetic, why treat them at all? And in article after article? You should check again where it comes from This impulse. Do you really think that there is an organization of religious people who want to convert you who are responding here on the site? Are you that paranoid?
Regarding the traditions that survived longer than Judaism. give me one Anti-Semitism is not a tradition, and even if it were, it has not survived longer than Judaism - at most it will survive like Judaism, since by definition it will cease to exist when there are no more Jews.
Go find one more culture where a first grader can read a text written in his own language before 2000
sleep. Like a Jewish child can go to the Book Hall and read the Qumran scrolls. The Chinese don't have anything like that either.
As for chapter 22 in the book of 2 Kings - it is not even worthy of reference. I too can determine what I want however I want without having anything to do with anything.
It is known that the rabbit eats its feces and thus passes the food it eats through a second digestion - therefore it is certainly not a problem that it says "increases rumination". The Euphrates and the Tigris merge together, so that their place of origin is indeed shared.
What mitzvot exactly does the Jewish religion impose on you? I'm dying to hear what mitzvahs you keep (however I'll have some weapons to defend against you). And in any case, even if they "force" you, does that give you the right to "force" me?
It is similar to the victim's brother who in response murders the murderer. So blood revenge is actually democratic?
To Roy Cezana, it's nice how you quote me but don't address my claims. Tell me something else Roy, if 50 soldiers testify that IDF soldiers murdered a Palestinian, and they all agree on the details and their description is the same, you still won't believe them? And what if there are two million such soldiers? If there were two million people today describing the same description of aliens Coming from the outside world, there won't be a single person who can say “there's not enough evidence.” If two million pairs of eyes aren't enough, nothing is enough.
I love science and enjoy science, but unfortunately this site has declared war on my beliefs. Therefore, I have no choice but to respond and defend the Jewish religion, which is frequently humiliated here. You are unable to contain the hatred, and every fifth article it spews out at you. Too bad.
Higgs, your disdain for brains raises questions.
Roy Tsezana:
Leave the unnecessary religious debate.
The article itself puts science and common sense to shame.
Mature people who have fixed opinions and for whom things have hidden meanings and intentions, take children and monkeys
and attach meanings and intentions to their behavior according to the staged experiment.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The child's mind does not contain all this nonsense you are trying to foist upon him just as the monkey's mind does not contain other intentions.
Young human brains must work differently from monkey brains. Go and attach meanings to it by experiment
This is one big piece of bullshit.
The debate about religion and the meanings associated with it fills only the adults who have become infected with one fix approach or another.
There is a debate between those who live in one movie and in one imagination and those who live in other imaginations, so what?
exciting. A response to the article that demonstrates so well the main idea of the article:
"The testimony of the parents is reliable, and therefore, by induction, the testimony we received today is reliable. If you claim that the testimony of parents is not reliable, you can take our entire legal system and throw it in the trash. Haven't I convinced you? So it's time for you to doubt that your father is your father, right?" For mother, grandfather, grandmother, aunt, etc. How do you know that your parents are indeed your parents? Did you do a DNA test? No, they told you. And you believe them. That's why we believe our parents, and that's why we believe in the truth of the Torah."
Why do you need logic, anyway? You can rely on what mom and dad told you when you were a kid, and then use every twist of logic to justify what was instilled in you when you were little.
------
my new blog - Another science
Amir Q:
here! I decided to do you a favor.
It is true that the hare and the Euphrates and the Tigris also refute the claim of the Torah's truth, but you may not know this.
On the other hand - regarding the issue of fish scales, you said yourself that Judaism would fall if its claim on this matter was disproved.
Well, read here:
http://www.daatemet.org.il/articles/article.cfm?article_id=14
Want to join me on a bike ride next Saturday?
Amir Q:
I have to admit that the need to say things over and over again just because IDFs use the attrition method and don't take into account what was said is really annoying.
But, as you said, we do things for an ideal and my ideal is an enlightened world that looks at reality in the eyes, is not based on lies and does not pit people against each other just because they learned other nonsense from their parents.
That's why I'm still willing to repeat the things and I'm not retiring to pursuits that will benefit me more personally and save me the nerves.
What is your ideal?
Preservation of Judaism?
I repeat and copy especially for you (because you chose to ignore) part of my first response in this discussion (response 15):
"One of the memes that is inserted into the head of the baby that was born is the confusion between man and "nation".
After all, every sane person understands that being a Jew is a danger to souls, but nevertheless these two wave at the survival of the Jewish people.
They do not understand that the "Jewish people" survived at the expense of their sons!
The people survived and their sons were destroyed!
Those who were not Jews two thousand years ago produced many more descendants than those who were Jews.
This whole myth of the survival of the Jewish people is also ridiculous for other reasons, but these reasons are less important.
One of them is that it is simply not true, that is, there are traditions that have survived even longer than Judaism.
By the way, one of the traditions he discovered almost as old as Judaism is the tradition of anti-Semitism.
This is a tradition that will probably survive no less than Judaism and that, in principle, is probably much less dangerous for those who hold it (although no less detached from reality)"
Regarding the lie with the 2 million man and the induction - please tell me: have you read the Bible?
Have you ever read chapter XNUMX of XNUMX Kings?
If so, you surely know that in the days of Josiah no one knew the Torah and its commandments.
That's why the whole tower you built is collapsing!
It's no wonder because a lie has no legs.
Much has already been written about the "scientific" joke of Judaism and you are welcome to read rebuttals to all your claims in this matter on the "Deat Emet" website.
Just an example: how scientific is the claim that the rabbit (which does not ruminate) ruminates?
How scientific is the claim that the Euphrates and the Tigris (which are hundreds of kilometers apart) come from a common source?
As part of the sect that imposes its customs on the entire public - don't preach morality to those who are outraged by it.
It is similar to the killer complaining about the noise made by the victim shouting "Save him!".
The comparison of a useless action that chimpanzees do and putting on tefillin is demagogic and insulting.
After all, this is exactly what distinguishes humans from animals - belief in an ideal. Even an atheist liberal (assuming he is not a hypocrite but really an idealist) is ready to perform actions that have no visible profit, such as opposing regime crimes. Does it necessarily change anything? Not if the regime is strong enough (for example - China). It is likely that he will not just waste his energy and time, but will be thrown into prison, thus paying a heavy price. Is he also worse than a chimpanzee?
An animal does not think of a goal, it will not sacrifice itself for an ideal. Adam yes.
Regarding the Jewish people - there is no other people that survived 2000 years in exile. point.
Nothing will help you, all your hatred for religion will not change this fact. Lith Man Deplig said that without maintaining the tradition such a reality would not exist. The closest proof is the assimilated US Jewry. The number of Jews in the US today is almost the same as the number of Jews in 1948 (4.5-5 million then and 5.1 million today). So the reformers are actually an example that works against you.
Beyond that, the proof of the correctness of the Torah is simple. 2 million people claimed divine revelation, at that moment. and passed it on to their descendants ever since. Every claim to divine revelation since the dawn of history has only been for one person, or a group so small it doesn't matter. There is no longer any religion that claims collective revelation.
The parents' testimony is reliable, and therefore, by induction, the testimony we received today is reliable.
If you claim parental testimony is unreliable, you can take our entire legal system and throw it in the trash. Didn't I convince you? So it's time for you to doubt that your father is your father, the same goes for your mother, grandfather, grandmother, aunt, etc. How do you know that your parents are indeed your parents? Did you take a DNA test? No, they told you. And you believe them.
That's why we believe our parents, and that's why we believe in the truth of the Torah.
Beyond that, Judaism is the only scientific religion. We have a promise in tradition, expressed by God, that it is not possible for a fish to have scales but no fins. If such a fish is found (of course it is not a genetically modified fish but a fish that exists naturally) - we will know that the promise is false and therefore the whole tradition is false. And hence Judaism upholds Popper's principle of refutation and is therefore scientific.
Beyond that the Jewish tradition has proven itself to be extremely useful throughout history. Shabbat - a huge sociological idea adopted by all nations (perhaps except the Japanese who are known to be simply workaholics). Washing hands before eating and after using the toilet - clear hygiene that saved Jews from diseases even before anyone knew about bacteria. Kosher slaughter, prohibition of eating vermin and thus avoiding harmful parasites etc. etc.
Just as the modern world imitates and imitates Judaism today, in the end the modern world will also adopt more principles, such as chastity for example - otherwise there is no chance for any family unit (50% of divorces in Western culture... isn't this related to sexual permissiveness?). Keeping Nida - a great solution for refreshing and reviving the feeling of falling in love in marriage, etc., etc.
In any case, even if you do not believe that Judaism is fundamentally correct, you should not intentionally hurt the feelings of believers unnecessarily. Every liberal who is not a hypocrite (unfortunately most of them are hypocrites) should know this. This is called pluralism.
However, it is well known that liberals in general and atheist liberals in particular have turned "liberalism" into a stick to dig into. And they will take advantage of every opportunity to insult, insult, tease and incite against "religion" and the "religious". And if there is a scientific article that can be demagogically used for this vile purpose, then that is fine.
white blood:
1. There is a possibility to understand the words of our sages, but you need to get a certification for that, rather, I would be happy if you get a certification! It is not possible for every hawk and every hawk to spout interpretations as much as he can.
2. How did you conclude that there is no taste or smell in the actual study - I do enjoy the study and even make money! I will not compare this pleasure to any pleasure in the world!
3. Know that dealing with issues such as: Is it permissible to wipe the anus with a stone larger than the size of an olive - this is simply settling the world. And if you don't like it - then it's your problem and not because of you we will cancel the study on this issue.
And I have already learned less pleasant issues than these.
And here you got a reference to you personally and a reference to begin with not by mistake 🙂 🙂 🙂
If I hadn't written this comment, someone else could have mistakenly referred to the one above me
You have no answers about the proofs of Torah Israel, therefore you use poor demagoguery!
What you use is DMG! , there is no other word for the funny comments on religion!
Ofer:
It is not always possible to conduct a controlled experiment.
In this case, we are satisfied with observing the reality as it is and was formed and try to point to evidence.
For the existence of God there is not even such evidence (not least for the existence of God described by the religion for which there are even refutations).
That's why I put God on the same shelf of hallucinations along with the flying spaghetti monster.
People simply invented it without being able to point to a single instance where it caused the world to act contrary to the laws of nature.
Therefore this is an insignificant claim.
The definition of the word "to believe" is "to attribute a high probability" and therefore no one believes in something without attributing a high probability to it.
If someone assigns something a high probability for no reason, he is simply crazy.
Since there aren't many crazy people I fully agree with Dennett that those who claim to believe in God are simply lying.
The truth is that it can be scientifically proven but I'm sure they won't agree.
Today there are quite reliable methods that allow you to tell if someone is lying by using the simulation of their brain while they make various claims.
The comparison between the crowd of independent thinking people who have all come to similar conclusions regarding religion and the religiously brainwashed crowd is simply shameful. I have no other word to describe it.
Of course I don't tend to disagree with a person whose opinion I agree with.
You have to be crazy for that too.
I don't know why you keep talking about deciphering the human soul.
When someone lies to me with a determined forehead and tries to force all kinds of strange customs on me and calls for the murder of people who have done him no harm, he should first be admitted to the prison and only then try to wonder about our situation in order to know how to prevent this phenomenon.
The fact that someone can argue differently than me does not mean that our arguments are valid.
The expression "eat shit because billions of billions of flies can't be wrong" is well known.
I accept claims that agree with the findings and reject claims that contradict the findings. I have no interest in statistics on the opinions of others who decided to ignore the findings and certainly I will not decide to reject the truth I witnessed and believe a lie just because there is someone or even many who like to lie.
I agree with you on the statement about the laws of nature. Thank you for the clarification.
In my opinion it is impossible to conduct an experiment on this idea for the simple reason that God's "activity" is not constant and does not repeat itself in a systematic way or in the form of a law that happens all the time. And so to show you a specific form in which God affects reality that can then be tested by experiment, is not possible.
And after what I just said, I don't see why the claim is not significant. It simply cannot be proven scientifically. At least for now.
If you believe with high probability only what can be scientifically proven is legitimate. Some people don't. And in my opinion, this is also a legitimate decision, and it is no less logical than your decision.
Regarding the links you gave, first of all thank you very much, I took a look at them to see what they were about. I learned from them. But actually what I see is people talking and saying their opinion. and give all kinds of arguments that can be refuted or changed with questions that I cannot ask them. The problem is that their audience is fundamentally biased in their favor, so they won't ask the questions. Or actually they won't think about the questions. Just like religious people who listen to their rabbi. Well maybe not exactly like religious.. but roughly.
Talking about the religious people is, in my opinion, a pointless debate. For every person you bring who says this way, I can, theoretically, bring a person who says otherwise. No one there is proving anything. This is about the human soul which, with all due respect, no one has yet fully deciphered.
Ofer:
I already hinted at the answer to your first question in the previous reply.
It's a matter of reward and punishment. A promise of a high salary is equivalent to a threat of serious punishment.
If you want a very serious expansion on the matter, you are welcome to view the following link:
http://www.panther2000.com/media/yaronyadan/lecture_20071107_google.htm
You should also watch this link and its sequels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iANFTp5d4&feature=PlayList&p=7719F45B548EB588&index=1
Regarding changes in the laws of nature - we have no example of a law of nature that has ever changed.
You are simply confusing the laws of nature with our knowledge of them.
We learn all the time and our knowledge of the laws of nature improves but the laws of nature remain constant.
This is indeed only an assumption of science, but as mentioned - this assumption has never been disproved.
Science is our only way to discover the truth.
We make assumptions about the world and test them experimentally. If the experiment matches our predictions - our faith in the assumptions is strengthened. If it does not match - we reject the discounts.
We simply have no other way of knowing what is true and what is not.
All scientific theories are tested this way all the time.
Let's look at the assumption that God influences the happenings in nature.
Can you point to even one example of an experiment that confirms this assumption?
Can you even suggest such an experiment?
For a claim to be meaningful it has to say something about reality.
No meaning can be attributed to any claim if reality looks the same whether it exists or not.
Therefore - if the claim of God's existence is significant - you have to show in what way he affects reality beyond the laws of nature.
If you point to such a method, it will be possible to test it experimentally and disprove the claim. If not - it means that your claim is simply meaningless.
To Roy:
I already received a link a few days ago to the 'Deat Emet' website (from Michael Rothschild and many thanks to him)
And I recommend to anyone who wants to find out for themselves. There is a lot to see there, but it is also worth recommending
For those interested in answers to the claims and leave the choice of what to leave in the hands of the intelligent reader
And what to fight. Just type in the search engines 'Deat Emet'.
I will ask you a question that will show you and me if I have reached the end of your mind. What do you think about the phenomenon of converts? (I'm not talking about the many converts who are in prisons in Israel) No one trained them to think this way and until that moment when they decided to repent they lived a life without fear of punishment (I personally believe that even after this decision they continued to live a life without fear of punishment). They decided to believe something based on what? Threats? fear? I'm not sure, and neither can you be.
Just a side question, do you believe in the validity of the laws of nature? After all, they are changed every few hundred years. Fix them. Or do you believe right now until someone proves otherwise?
"You must ask yourself what God can influence when all the behavior of the world is subject to the laws of nature"
The sentence sums up the eternal debate here on the science website and elsewhere.
You assume in advance that the behavior of the world is subject to the laws of nature alone while others assume that it is not.
And even if we go your way and assume so. The questions How were these laws of nature determined? Why
Are the atoms composed of these and those particles, and not otherwise? And all in all, these are questions that maybe only I ask, because I admit, I don't have a broad education related to these issues. And maybe not.
Ofer:
When someone claims to know that X is indeed expressing a belief with high probability.
This is not only related to the case of God's existence but to everything.
The problem is that, contrary to the way of nature, believers in God believe without any evidence and without having any justification for their claim.
If they claimed that they imagine the possibility of God being there - well - but they claim that they "know" this and I simply do not believe that they really know this. Note - I use the word "know" in the same sense that you use it and in other words - I do not believe that they attribute a high probability to it. I simply think that they have been trained to make the claim and act on it with threats that originate not in belief in a high probability but in a high expectation of punishment.
I hope you understood my words as I wrote them, but for the avoidance of doubt, I will detail:
Suppose you think the probability of X is 0.00001
Let's say that believing in X requires you to act in Y way and any other way, X claims, will cause you to lose everything while taking Y way will ensure that you get 1000.
Let's say that in your opinion, way Z is actually better than way Y.
You know your limitations and know that path Z does not guarantee you everything you can get in the world but, with a high probability (say, 0.9) it guarantees you that you will get a lot (say, 10000)
Let's say, now, that you do the profit and loss account.
If you go on path X then with probability 0.00001 you will get 1000000000 and therefore the expectancy (the product of the two) is 10000
If you go the Z way then the expected profit is, according to the same calculation method, only 9000
So you choose to follow path Y even though you attribute a very low probability to it just because of the ratio of risk/chance.
Now we will introduce one of the religious frauds into the picture and say that part of the definition of path Y is to claim that you really believe in X (and if you don't claim this then you are not taking Y and therefore you do not profit).
This makes you claim that you believe in X even though in reality you only assign it a probability of 0.00001
In other words - it makes you lie.
Regarding your definition of God:
How is control defined?
In my opinion, control involves the ability to influence and even determine what will happen.
If this is also your opinion, you must ask yourself what God can influence when all the behavior of the world is subject to the laws of nature.
The answer is, of course, nothing.
In other words, the kind of belief in God you suggest requires disbelief in the validity of natural laws.
Complete,
Below is Lior's answer on the source issue. It turns out that there was indeed a mistake in the exact source, and thank you for checking.
Beginning of quote:
"The leopard is bold because it is a bastard like the mule, which [the leopard] is the son of a wild boar and a lioness. For during the heat of the lioness, the female puts her head in the thickets of the forest and growls and demands the male, and the boar hears her voice and kills her... and because it is a bastard, it has boldness."
Indeed, unfortunately I was mistaken in the original. The source of the words is Rabbi Shimon bar Tzemach Duran (Rashbatz) in the book "Magen Avot", on the article "Be a goat like a leopard". These are things he said *on* Tractate Avot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 23, and not things that appear in the Mishnah itself.
End of quote.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
When someone claims that X is true, in our case they are claiming that they believe it to be true. If he says he knows, it is a statement that expresses the strength of his belief that this is true. Therefore, when you believe that X is true and do not know it - it is not a lie. As long as you don't prove otherwise.
God - an abstract entity that controls everything - a good enough definition?
Ofer:
When you claim that X is true, you implicitly also claim that you know it.
That's why when you claim that X is true and you don't know it - it's a lie.
This is not a subjective definition.
I said that the religion is based on a lie and I showed you what my words are based on.
If someone claims there is a God I cannot argue with him until he defines what he means.
If, for example, he defines God as the left shoe of Shimon Peres - I will agree with him that God exists.
If he defines it as defined by some religion - I can prove to him that it does not exist.
I agree that there are many cases where the reporters are wrong or "lying" as you define it. The religion that was created after the idea of God came into being (a claim you also said) was created by people, people by nature are wrong/lying/exaggerating. And so in my opinion it is possible to take everything that is written in the Bible and put it aside for the moment. In my opinion it is not relevant to the question of the existence of God. Your definition of a lie - "telling something that is true even though one does not know that it is true" is subjective. I can call it "assumption" or "hypothesis" or "proposal for a possible reality". Therefore I can say that the basic idea of God described by religion is a possible idea. Regarding the "opinion of truth" I am not a religious person so there is no need to try to convince me of the lies/truths of religion.
point:
I have already said several times in the past that religion was good for its time.
I relate to the things that are said and if I think they are wrong I point it out.
Therefore, if you get a negative picture from my comments, it is mainly because there are people who try to paint the religion in a positive way by making incorrect statements.
I did not distort - neither your words nor the reality. To make a general claim of this kind without pointing out even one distortion is in my opinion dishonest.
Bhakti Yoga:
And I actually think that @#$%^& *)(7654i
Ofer:
To lie is to say something that is true even though you don't know it to be true.
Therefore, even if there is a God - religion is based on a lie because they do not know it.
Besides - religion paints God in a way that allows us to know that at least such a God does not exist.
The religion claims that God created the world in six days and it is quite clear that this is a lie. The religion claims that the Torah came from the mouth of God who created everything and yet did not know that the rabbit does not ruminate and the Euphrates and the Tigris do not come from the same source and this is a contradiction and therefore obviously a lie.
In other words - it is easy to see that the God described by religion does not exist.
Religion is based on lots and lots of lies, some of which pertain to God and some of which do not, and if you want to read about them, I suggest you go to the "Deat Emet" website.
I completely agree with the claim that religion was created to be a system of laws with which it would be easier to control people, and through which it would be easier to pass on basic moral laws. But from this claim it is impossible to conclude that the religion is based on a lie - that is, that there is no God. This is a possibility but not a clear conclusion.
Therefore, Michael, I do not understand how you are trying to prove something that cannot be proven.
It's a shame they don't teach about the only deity that has been revealed without any doubt to its believers and those who don't believe in it - the green spaghetti monster.
And the words of Pesto Bolonzo, the prophet of the flying spaghetti monster in the Complete Book of Noodles, the holiest book on earth "And it will be in the year 2009 and the Hubble Space Telescope will look and discover the monster and then all the people of the world will believe in it" (chapter Keko', verse 3993)
https://www.hayadan.org.il/hubble-sees-magnetic-monster-in-erupting-galaxy-2308082/
Birth, illness, old age and death apply to everyone in the material world without exception.
As long as the industry of murder and exploitation continues for the pleasure of the senses of the creatures who pretend to be human beings, they will also continue to experience suffering, exploitation, cruelty
And the wars will continue and there will be no real peace here!!
The real problem is that they don't teach true and eternal spiritual knowledge - bhakti yoga the science of yoga and self-realization - the Bhagavad-Gita and
Shrimed Bhagavatam and the Vedas and more and more..
which constitute the ancient knowledge of spiritual science - which indeed originates in India, but it is intended for all of humanity!
and the books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!! (Srilla Prabhupada)
Everything else without spiritual knowledge is mainly 'maya' - an illusion.. (the deceptive and deceptive energy of the material world..)
"The path to redemption and liberation in our time:
"The same perfection which was attained in the Satya age through mystic yoga, in the Tretha age through various sacrificial rites, and in the Dvapara age by worshiping God in the temple, can be attained in Kali-yuga simply by constantly repeating the names of God." (Shrimad-Bhagavatam 12.3.52) According to the Vedas, the world moves through four cyclical periods, the last of which is the Kali period, the period of increasing selfishness and weakening of spirituality in man.
In the Vedas it is said: "In this period of Kali, characterized by strife and hypocrisy, the only way to salvation is to return and call God by his names. There is no other way, no other way, no other way." (Chaitanya Charitamratha Odi 17.21)
"My dear king, although Kali-yuga is full of faults, there is one good virtue in it: simply by chanting the Hare Krishna Maha-mantra, one can be freed from material bondage and ascend to the kingdom of God." (Shrimad-Bhagavatam 12.3.51) "
Michael, you are distorting the things I said and you are distorting reality.
I understand that your opinion about religion is completely one-sided, I haven't heard anything good from you.
Religion is Satan and all religious people worship Satan and not God, there is God there is no religion.
I think God created all life on earth and he gave us the ability to move on and evolve
And all those religious people of all religions despise God by wasting their time in superstitions and not in actions for the benefit of the human race, the religious ones divide the world and create wars just to change it
The secularists must unite and fight the religion that has been winning for thousands of years.
Just to complete:
And when it turns out that your conclusion is the same as what I said - it's called a "decision"
Yigal:
It doesn't seem useless to me.
To me, it's simply a matter of accuracy.
When I say that there is no connection between God and religion, I am talking about what two different phenomena are created through different mechanisms and there is no determination of a timetable.
Religions that make use of the God nonsense were probably founded after God was invented in the same group in which they were founded.
Religions that are not based on God could have been created even before God was invented (could have been created does not mean that they were created. There is a difference between the claim that A does not depend on B (which is an essential claim) and the claim that A preceded or came after B (which is a historical claim).
I make the essential claim.)
When I say that religion was founded to control people, I am not necessarily talking about deviant rule.
Where did you make it?
From your last response it appears that (not only in my words but also in your words) you accept the claim that religion was created to control people.
Michael,
There is no problem in continuing to argue to no avail.
You claimed that - "I repeat: the invention of God is not part of religion." That is, there is no connection between religion and God. However, the weakness that is exploited in humans is related to religion and not to God.
The decision you are talking about exists only in your words and does not require the agreement of others since it is not based, but only declarative.
You cannot state that religion precedes or follows the concept of God, because you too (like every other person in the world) have no historical information on the subject, but only hypotheses.
And a reason that can cause people to enact laws or rather control the rule of perversions in humans is:
A weak central government that has no other way to control social order than through laws that are obeyed as a result of fear of a mysterious higher power. Later there will be those who will use the phenomenon to their advantage and use it to control humans.
I have no intention of continuing to argue with you, there's no point in it, and it's a shame.
Higgs:
That's really easy to answer.
Just say wrong things and everything is fine.
Where did you wink that as the brain is more sophisticated it is required for more unnecessary actions?
When a person grows up and stops doing these actions, is this the result of a brain injury (which resulted from the fact that his brain grew and improved)?!
What I said is absolutely true.
Animals whose brains are more adaptive are born with less "hard-wired" knowledge. You are welcome to check this instead of underestimating such a clear and proven claim.
So that their lack of "readiness for life" does not cause their extinction, they must rely on the adults. This is also a self-evident fact that is evident in every observation of animals.
Relying on the adults and imitations (even when you don't understand the reason for their behavior) is an integral part of the matter since all imitation is meant to be a substitute for understanding.
In short - my system of arguments is solid as a rock, while yours - not only is not based on the facts, but it is in contradiction to them.
Michael Rothschild:
The experiment in the article tests a response to meaningless theoretical actions in relation to a meaningful goal.
You claim:
"The article - as I have already mentioned, is another evidence of a well-known phenomenon in the animal world.
The more developed the animal is in terms of its brain's ability to absorb, digest and analyze its life experience - the more helpless it is born and the longer its childhood period (the period in which it depends on adults) lasts."
And I claim:
that the more developed human mind needed such theoretical operations for its proper operation. The more primitive the mind, the less heuristic operations the thinking algorithm needed around the meaningful target point.
For this, there is no need for many experiments. There are enough facts to suggest that the more creative a person is, the more he needs everything
All kinds of activities around that are not related to the goal in order to create for himself the muse and the environment suitable for creation.
point:
All along the way you glorify and praise the results of the religious education that makes a more orderly society possible (with less narcissism).
Crime, to me, is not part of an orderly society.
There were others who specifically mentioned crime.
That's why I brought the representation of the leaders of the religious sector in the prisons as an example that contradicts your claim.
Of course there are also other examples (some of which I mentioned):
I talked about the demonstrations to protect criminals (Aryeh Deri, the murdering father, the starving mother).
I wasn't talking about phenomena like Yigal Amir (and the rabbinic friend who declared a moral law).
I was not talking about a large part of the settlers who violate the law regularly - either by harming the Arabs or by illegal occupations (indeed - when ministers to the government: advise and sew" there is no doubt that they prevent anarchy).
I spoke about the evasion from the army (a clear action against the Andralmosia).
I was not talking about minor settlers who are arrested and refuse to give their identification details.
I didn't talk about Baruch Goldstein (the man!) and all the admiration he receives from this sector, nor about the criminals who throw stones at cars on Shabbat.
I wasn't talking about stabbing gays at the pride parade.
Please note that I am not mentioning the usual crime of the religious (which does not fall short of that of the secular and may even exceed it) but only about the transfers that arise from their religiosity.
You can add a lot more to the list of the religion's contributions "against" the Andralmosia, but I'm afraid you'll say I hate religious people, so I'll stop here.
Shlomo:
The logic is one and if there are logical conclusions from a certain set of data then there are no logical conclusions that contradict them.
This is a well-known law of logic.
Higgs:
Not true.
You did not point to a single failure in drawing the conclusions. You are merely repeating the trivia that science does not provide evidence.
You said that the explanations I put forward are as true as they are not true.
Let's see you stand behind this claim of yours and present a logical sequence of arguments (based on the findings of the research described in the article) that leads to a conclusion that contradicts my words.
You will not succeed because, as I said to Shlomo, logic cannot lead to a contradiction.
Yigal:
In my opinion the dispute has been settled but you refuse to admit it.
After all, the claim that God precedes religion (one that is based on God) is my claim! I am the one who said that the founders of the religion took advantage of an existing weakness of the human race.
Regarding the founding of the monotheistic religions - the truth is that you do not have any historical information about the process.
The only "information" comes from the scriptures of the religions and it is full of contradictions.
It is also clear to me that very central parts of the description of Judaism's foundation are simply lies.
If you come up with even a shred of an argument that would explain why a person would sit down and legislate a book of laws without wanting to rule these laws over people (and thus control them), it would be possible to say that there is still a dispute here.
Michael,
Since the whole subject does not belong to the exact sciences or even to the natural sciences, it is not possible to decide in a mathematical or even logical way the difference in approaches between us. Such an examination would be possible to a large extent if it were possible to conduct an observational study of the appearance of religions/God and their development, but such a study would have lasted tens or hundreds of years and is not possible (what is more, the starting conditions today are different from the historical ones).
In any case, in the three religions (and I assume there are a few more that I haven't heard or checked) that there is solid evidence of how they started - Nazism, Stalinism and the baggage cult - first God appeared and only after that the rules of the religion were created.
It is true that there are people who believe in the existence of God and do not follow a single religion (as you say), but on the contrary, this fact gives weight to the idea that the concept of God precedes the formation of religion!
In my opinion, the dispute can be left as it is, without a decision.
By the way, for anyone interested in the source of what is said here regarding the leopard (which is a hybrid of a pig and a lynx): It is written in the book "Magen Avot" (attributed to Rabbi Shimon ben Tzemach), which is a commentary on Tractate Avot, in Chapter 5, Mishnah 23, and not in Tractate Avot itself in the Mishnah.
and point:
I have nothing to say about it. If you are in the segment of defaming - good luck.
Michael Rothschild
Explanations and conclusions as you bring up or in the context of the article, are as true as they are not true.
Because they are just generalizations.
I don't attack. I am stating a simple fact that the human mind has a tendency to redundancy in actions. The observations demonstrate that the brain
Needs unnecessary and meaningless rituals for proper operation. These redundant actions are also meaningless
constitute background music apparently required for brain activity.
This is the only conclusion that can really be drawn from recent experiments.
White blood, stop making up nonsense. The things you say paint Judaism in exactly the same way that Amnon Yitzchak presents science. You can get along very well together.
The arguments for or against the religion are trite and not particularly interesting. What is interesting is the hatred that exists against these sectors and others that represent a different culture.
Does anyone know where all the comments have gone. I pressed REFRESH and they disappeared.
point:
Look, it's not that I'm trying to argue, but what you said at the end is simply irrelevant:
It is clear that in medical studies they will learn about the subject in more depth, and also in biology studies they will learn about fecal bacteria, and in sociology studies of various kinds they will learn about abnormal and disordered sexual behaviors, etc., etc., because this is the required knowledge that the student is required to know in order to acquire the profession and receive the degree/certificate.
Would it occur to you that a doctor would not know what to do when it comes to an injury to the anus or the penis or any other modest area of the body? After all, this is his profession.
The difference between these and the Halacha studies (the Babylonian Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud, the Shlachan Aruch and the Poskim, etc.) that deal with these matters is the reason.
They do not teach anatomy, and analyze the structure of different organs in the body. All they care about is what God allows or forbids to be done at any given moment of the day.
In other words: God will burn you in hell for wiping your anus with your right hand and not your left, or vice versa! (and I apologize again for the language)
And it's true, I admit that I don't understand much in law, I didn't study the subject. But if you think the sages of the Talmud understand more - you are so wrong. understand the subject you are talking about)
My interpretation of the verses is selective? Very true! I have no way of finding out what the author of my book meant when he said those things. But in this matter I am not alone. Each person interprets things according to his own understanding, which is why there are so many disputes in Halacha. Because every rabbi has a different opinion and view. But "no Bible is beyond the reach of its simple" and according to the content of the verse, try to understand the meaning yourself.
Secondly, my opinion really doesn't count. And also any other opinion that did not receive validity in the ruling of the final Halacha. Only the Shelchan Aruch and the other arbitrators are relevant to our case. Therefore, you are invited to open the books of the Shu'at (questions and answers) of any arbiter you choose, or the short shlan aruch, or the mishna barura, etc. and prove for yourself what is permitted and what is prohibited, what is kosher and what is wrong, impure or pure according to the Halacha. I did not invent the prohibition to study external wisdom (everything except Torah) these are explicit laws.
And one last thing: hate or not - irrelevant. No matter the reason behind the claim; refers to the claim itself.
As I answer your words, without saying: "Apparently you come from a traditional family, so all your words are irrelevant, because you are not objective". Thus, it is not an excuse to say: "You are anti-religious and therefore what you say does not count."
Best regards
white blood
To Michael:
I was just kidding about the poll. What I probably wanted to say is that it can
To be a smart and logical person like you and know the same information as you but his opinions
and his conclusions are different. And what sounds illogical to you will sound very logical to him
Because of the cultural distance between you and the different desires.
Regarding the links, I am aware of them and still thank them.
Noam:
I didn't say you were a liar
I said that the ultra-orthodox are lying to the outside about what is going on inside
You said you weren't brought up that way, so you grew up in a different and rare place
I have been to several meetings and it is always like this
Michael, what claim that contradicts reality do you claim that I made?
Shlomo:
I don't know what question exactly you want to make but:
1. I noticed that when other people tried to make wishes here there was a very low response
2. A poll does not help to decide on the correct answer to an essential question - all it allows is to know how people's opinions are distributed. In general - their argument is quite vague and therefore the distribution of opinions does not contribute information about the real question.
3. If the poll is about belief in God, then a more interesting poll has already been conducted than the one we can conduct here. In this link A poll was found among the scientists of the United States. It is interesting to see that even though it is a country where the majority of its citizens are religious to one degree or another, the more a person's scientific training increases, the less his tendency to believe in God decreases until it almost disappears among senior scientists.
4. If you still want to conduct a poll, it should be something related to the article. If you don't have an article to link the question to, you can use an article prepared especially for an exchange that is not related to any article. This is the article called "Free comments"
From:
Although I am new to the site, I have noticed that smart people speak thoughtfully and intelligently
Less, without thought. No matter which side they represented. I'm sure not everyone
I agree with your conclusion (or mine). Maybe you should do a poll. 🙂
Higgs:
The article - as I have already mentioned, is another evidence of a well-known phenomenon in the animal world.
The more developed the animal is in terms of its brain's ability to absorb, digest and analyze its life experience - the more helpless it is born and the longer its childhood period (the period in which it depends on adults) lasts.
I assume you are aware of this fact and it is confirmed by thousands of observations.
Dependence on adults is also expressed in the trust that young people must place in them - this is also a self-evident fact confirmed by thousands of observations.
Customs instilled in animals during their childhood years may continue to characterize them even after they have grown up.
This is also a self-evident fact confirmed by thousands of observations.
Religion is an example of such a custom and indeed it is a fact that many people continue to hold to it for this reason only. It is clear that when they come to argue and defend their customs they find themselves powerless in the face of the logical arguments that come before them. I ask you, in this matter, to treat the words exactly as they were said. I don't want to start discussing your specific case - I just want you to ask yourself - in view of the many debates you have read here on the website - whether the religious commentators (usually) knew how to defend their opinions as a person who has formed his opinion based on observing the world, analyzing the facts and drawing conclusions from them is able or Perhaps the infantile brainwashing scenario better describes the situation they find themselves in when they hold beliefs they have no green idea how to defend.
I also ask you to go back and think about the many responses that pointed out in this discussion the fact that this is exactly what happens in all religions. Do you accept that the believers of Islam, Christianity and Buddhism, for example, received their beliefs by imitating the customs of those who surrounded them in their childhood or do you also claim that they made the right conscious choice?
In short, I'm sorry, Higgs, but it seems to me that you're just lashing out.
Michael Rothschild - Roy Tsezana
Short and to the point: they took a staged experiment that many like it and constructed a completely fabricated interpretation.
The experiment indicates at most that the human brain has a tendency to redundancy during its operation.
Obsessive compulsive actions of various kinds are an integral part of human behavior.
Especially in creative and creative people there are certain tic behaviors to create a state of muse.
In everyone you can find some purposeless behavior in different forms and repeatedly.
And it manifests itself differently in each person. Why this activity is necessary for the brain no one knows for sure because no one knows for sure how the computational algorithm works in the brain.
From a quick reading of the comments on this site, you can see repeated compulsive expressions by various commenters.
Both the repetition of the style and the urge to return again and again around the same point in a useless way.
From here to the religious conclusions the road is far and completely absurd.
Shlomo:
I have not checked the other sources.
I have my own collection of examples of the nonsense of Judaism.
The source of this collection is the website "True opinion"
Before I use the example I check it on the Swallow website.
Yigal:
I repeat:
I know - and I'm sure you know too - people who believe in God and do not hold any religion.
I assume you also know history and know that the ancient Greeks believed in many gods that were not associated with any religion.
God is simply a default - a way of stopping the investigation and delegating responsibility for what we do not understand.
Humans think of a lot of stupid ideas and not every stupid idea should have a survival advantage.
God is one of those silly ideas.
"End of the world" theories of sorts are another silly idea.
There is no doubt that religions were invented to control people.
For what other need did a man sit down and write a book of laws?
I repeat and remind you that religion is a set of rules!
Michael,
There is no contradiction between the invention of the concept of God and the invention of religion, and in my opinion religion was not invented to control people (the idea is too complex) but was used as soon as its advantages became clear. In my opinion, the invention of the concept of God has evolutionary roots (see again in response #77) and I think that the fact that these two memes cooperate so well (as a memetic environment) with each other does not contradict the possibility that they were created separately or that one was created before the other and perhaps supports the possibility that the other was created as a result from the first existence.
On the face of it, there does not appear to be a direct connection between the laziness of human thought and the invention of God - there are other ways to excuse a lack of understanding/knowledge/powers and there is no priority, including non-survival, for the idea of God.
Michael, you are a true friend. This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
Have you checked the other sources as well? I can't understand anything. No commas and no periods.
Friends:
Anyone who wants to search for something in the sources of Judaism can do so through the Snonit website:
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/
I had already searched for the topic that Shlomo asked about there using all the keywords that came to mind (leopard, lioness, wild boar, etc.) and couldn't find it.
Save the link because it is very useful in our places.
Roy:
I'm not that familiar with the books, but it's in the plan. Thanks for the feedback.
Hello Shlomo,
I prefer not to edit posts that have already been written, to avoid confusion. I sent a message about the error to Lior Halperin, and I hope he can explain the problem.
Have you checked the other sources as well?
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Raul - I'm not ready to be called: liar. There is a limit to how much a person should remain silent when they are humiliated in public.
Maybe you meant to say that they taught 100% - it is. certainly! But they didn't push me against the wall either physically or mentally and demanded that I do what they said and didn't say that if I didn't do this and that they would kick me out of school - they made sure we kept certain things - there were red lines and I believe that even in a school where his honor studied there were red lines.
I have heard of places that do behave like this and fortunately I did not study in them. The education you are referring to was the education my ancestors received in Europe.
Roi Cezana: Regarding the 36
Please correct the source that the leopard is a hybrid of a pig and a labrador. I can't find it. Thanks
Yigal:
Read my words again because the answer to your words is in them.
The reason for the survival of religions is that they are a collection of water that preserves itself.
I already said this in my first response to this discussion and I went back and pointed to it in my last response to you as well.
It does not belong to the matter of the establishment of the religion.
It is easy to describe situations (and there have been such cases in history) in which a religion will be founded and not survive.
Such a religion is founded from the same motives that drive the creation of other religions, but the memes that make it up do not preserve themselves well enough.
Therefore, pointing to the "malicious" motive in the foundation of the religion does not per se belong to the matter of its survival.
Survival results, as mentioned, from a collection of water that "knows" how to survive.
"Successful" meme collections for this matter are those that make use of weak points in a person's character (such as belief in God) and I voted for that as well.
I repeat: the invention of God is not part of religion. The successful religions simply take advantage of the same mental laziness of people that makes them believe in God even without them.
I also want to point out that you too, in the response to which I responded, claimed that religion was created as a result of people's motives to surpass (=dominate) others so that all your words in the last response seem to me to stem from somewhere else.
To Noam """Imagine that at my school they would tell me: do 100% as we say or stay with 0%. How was I today? I certainly wouldn't put on a tefillin every morning."""
Just a lie
And if not, then you're the only one who didn't tell you
Higgs:
You didn't leave me anything to answer because you just made general comments about science and scientists.
As soon as you say something that can be addressed I will be happy to address it.
point:
What are you talking about when you talk about a fundamental difference?
There is also no essential difference between me and Hitler. OK?
You can argue whatever you want but I am not talking about people and there is a very fundamental difference between gaining knowledge through a critical process - as science does (and no matter how much you decide to slander it) and gaining knowledge simply by believing what is written in a book that is two thousand years old.
What I said about Shas is a fact.
Instead of facing the fact you start trying (with distinct failure) to trace my mental motive for saying it.
My mental motivation is simple: you and others made a claim that contradicts reality and this example is a simple way to point out the contradiction between your claim and reality.
Michael, it is ridiculous to think that there is an essential difference between a religious person and a secular person. Humans are irrational and their actions stem from the same reasons.
And yes, I still maintain that a lot of things here in the comments were said out of hate, like your example of the prisons.
Michael Rothschild
Although it is true that much progress in science is made with the help of experiments whose conclusions do not have absolute mathematical validity.
But... in the matter of raising such and other theories, I have quite a lot of doubts when they are done the way they are done today.
There is too much freedom to come up with outlandish theories in any imaginable field. And examples of this are not lacking.
There are lots of frustrated academics getting funded to create many worlds of theories as we have all witnessed in recent years. There is an explosion of theories in every field.
And many of them start with a frustrated researcher who wants to publish to get academic credit or publicity. And for this purpose he creates a suitable theory tailored to his needs. He then mobilizes the budget to create the directed experiment that may be suitable to draw the conclusions "appropriate" for his needs to the person of the theory.
Many times when you check in depth it turns out that the results actually point in completely different directions.
But usually the results are tailor-made so that they constitute unequivocal support in the direction the researcher is striving for.
After all, it is clear that in reality the results are never unequivocal as described in the final publication.
There are always a large collection of raw results that are specially sifted according to the planner's requirements.
Michael (to your response 79),
You assign a malicious intentionality to the invention of religion, and thus, in my opinion, you miss the opportunity to understand the reasons for its evolutionary survival: as a deliberate manipulation to control people it has no advantage over any other manipulation with the same goal. Hence, there is a need for an additional factor that will enable the survival of religion (over the other manipulations).
My argument is that there is an urge in man that causes him to invent God, the urge to be controlled by his superior, which stems from an evolutionary development of belonging to a social rank group. The invention of the concept of God as part of the social hierarchy led to the invention of the collection of laws known as religion. Humans learned from observation that the God-religion system survives well, and some of them began to exploit them to their advantage, either consciously or unconsciously.
The God of Nazism and Communism was (among other things) the cult of personality.
Higgs:
After all, you should know more than what you expressed in your response!
There is a difference between science and mathematics and you know that in science there are never (and never can be) proofs.
All scientific theories are confirmed (or disproved) through experiments.
Any experiment that could have disproved and did not confirm.
No experiment proves it.
This is also true for the laws of mechanics.
Therefore you can point to a "hidden fallacy" in this area of science and sterilize all scientific activity.
Therefore, science does not refer to hidden failures or any other hidden things. It only deals with visible things and also failures you want to point out should be visible - that is - a refuting experiment.
Eran:
It is interesting.
Because you claim there are comments here that do not deserve a response (I wonder which ones!) you decide not to respond to any comment.
In my opinion, you simply saw that you had nothing to answer and decided to turn to insults instead of confronting.
I respect everyone and in contrast there are comments here that do not deserve a response.
The only thing left for me to say is that everyone should live by their faith and respect each other.
A person is judged by his actions and ways and not by his words.
Wishing everyone a good day.
Michael Rothschild
First of all, how are you? Due to lack of time I don't surf here too much.
And for us.
Drawing conclusions based on these experiments is wrong in my opinion. Both because the demonstration of one or more cases is not conclusive
the other possible theories. This is not proof and no matter how many facts have been accumulated.
In the music book of the prime numbers, the Riemann hypothesis was presented on the intersection of the zeta function with the zeros on the half axis. Since the hypothesis was raised about one hundred and fifty years ago, more and more calculations of those encounters have been made.
Naturally, with the advent and improvement of computers since Riemann, millions of calculations of this function have been made.
As you know, calculating each such point is not an easy task.
However, no one claims that the collection of all these positive results that confirm the hypothesis constitutes conclusive proof
that the hypothesis is indeed correct.
There is still a million dollar reward at the Clay Institute for anyone who can prove it.
It is enough that at any great distance from the starting point there should be one counterexample to invalidate the entire hypothesis.
Similarly, the frequently put forward theories that originate from drawing conclusions from experiments staged in the above manner in the article
Their validity is questionable. The use of conclusions as a result of observing the results of experiments is nonsense and a mistake.
I pointed out earlier two flaws in this way. The first, as mentioned, is the manner of drawing the conclusions as above. The fact that no one had the motivation to create an experiment that demonstrates opposite conclusions does not strengthen these conclusions.
And the second is the existence of the hidden failure of not understanding the algorithm in which nature works and in which the human mind works. which mainly leads
To wrong conclusions is the comparison and image to a brain that works in the same way as computers work.
And this is certainly an obviously incorrect assumption.
Point: I've already said that there are many shades in the middle - no 2 and no 3. In your division you are actually hurting people.
Imagine that at my school they would tell me: do 100% as we say or stay with 0%. how was i today I certainly wouldn't put on a tefillin every morning.
Another thing: I said quality people meaning = people who improve themselves and the world. This is not a race theory or a new theory. The reason in a person must be used for the benefit of humanity. This is the essence of the mind. I did not use the term righteous for obvious reasons.
But indeed not everyone who defines themselves as high quality is indeed so and it's nice that you mentioned the Germans in this context.
One last thing: there is no such thing as a secular religion. Sorry for the harshness but this is bullshit. Secular is a negative not a positive. A secularist basically declares himself: I am not so and so.
Roy: About 36
There is no mishna 23 in chapter 5 in tractate Avot. Please correct the source (check with Lior Halperin).
point:
I don't know what and who you are talking about.
In my opinion, it is not about religious hatred in any of the comments and I think it is presumptuous on your part to appoint yourself a chief psychologist and diagnose people by reading their comments.
Besides - there is no secular religion. This expression indicates a complete lack of understanding.
Religion is a set of rules. What do you think is the system of laws of the secular "religion"?
And regarding the statistics of transfers - you are completely wrong, and as I said - the representation in the prisons expresses this well.
Higgs:
The fact that you assume something ("For a simple reason, I assume that it is certainly possible to conduct "other" staged experiments from which it would be possible to present contradictory conclusions to this one. Only that no one has yet had the motivation or the adequate payment to carry them out.") proves nothing except that you assume it. The fact that you assume this is not a reason to dismiss what is said in an article that is entirely based on facts.
There are many facts that support the article's conclusions as well as the expansions I made in my comments.
If you want to deny the things, you are welcome to bring facts (from nature - not from your assumptions) that contradict them.
If you want to propose another theory, you are welcome to do so and also to propose experiments that will allow its confirmation or refutation.
Roy Cezana
Drawing scientific conclusions from observing the behavior of actors (monkeys or children) directed by "Scientists"
Lacks a real basis in my opinion. This way is suitable for analyzing a Shakespearean or other stage play.
However, drawing scientific logical conclusions in this way leads to the creation of completely unfounded nonsense theories. For a simple reason, I assume that it is certainly possible to conduct "other" staged experiments from which it will be possible to present contradictory conclusions. It's just that no one had the motivation or the proper payment to do them yet.
Proof based on positive experimental results only works in a positive direction.
That is, it does not rule out many other possibilities that you did not take into account in the staged experiment.
It's like you shot the arrows and then drew the circle that indicates the target.
Experiments of the above type have a significant hidden flaw: and it is that no one yet knows how the human brain works.
And no one knows how to explain, for example, why humans developed differential calculus and know how to solve equations
differentials. And monkeys do not succeed in this. The monkey that knows how to calculate the multiplication table has not been born yet.
And the monkey has not yet been born that can be taught a mathematical rule from which it will deduce its consequences. such as how to calculate a connection
and subtraction or multiplication and division. While young children can easily be taught.
There are many things we do not know how to explain about the algorithms in which nature works.
For example, no one knows how to explain why there are so many coding sequences in the DNA molecule
which so far appear to be completely unnecessary. In the same currency of "similar to..." that the experimenters used I can argue
that nature's algorithms require actions and codings that seem to us to be absurd today.
But in time, it may turn out that these permissions constitute a very important layer of human freedom.
and his ability to solve things and develop.
White blood, the very things that are said stem from religious hatred. After all, if things were analyzed rationally then surely the situation in the sector of the secular religion is much worse from a cultural point of view than that of the religious sector. And the fact that things are aimed exclusively at one sector for me indicates hatred or some kind of prejudice.
Your interpretation of the verses is selective and stems from the hatred you have against this sector.
Regarding the last question, you seem to have no understanding of legal matters at all. And if it is the manipulation of the anus that bothers you, I'm sure that in medical studies you delve more into the subject.
Yigal:
The things that Dawkins and the Lempert Committee said, I also said.
They did not notice the opposite phenomenon that I pointed out, which is the phenomenon of "youth rebellion" as a mechanism that evolved precisely to free the child from the grip of blind trust in adults.
The question that is really interesting is how the religion survives and not how it was created, so that is what most of the speakers referred to.
You try to turn simpler questions into the main thing and I have to say that I completely disagree with your answers to them.
Religion is the one invented by people to control others. The religion! No God!
I have already said this in my previous comments - both in this discussion and in others.
This is also the reason for the invention of godless religions such as Nazism and Communism (as practiced in Russia - not the one practiced in the kibbutzim).
Religions take advantage of weak points in human nature (like belief in God and like the limited imagination that allows them to feel belonging only to a small group and not to the entire human race) to control people in the first place.
Later on they use the "selfish meme" to survive.
God is invented by humans, repeat and invent without anything to do with religion.
It is simply an expression of mental laziness: instead of looking for an answer to various questions about nature, they pull out a joker that is supposed to solve all the problems.
This is also the reason for the evolution that God goes through as scientific knowledge buys him a hold on the head of a person - an evolution that has already received the name "God of Gaps".
I know many people who do not practice any religion and yet believe in the existence of such a God - precisely out of the same mental laziness combined with the unwillingness to say "I don't know".
These people do not believe in God because of religion but because of themselves.
To Roy Cezana
Thank you for the successful article and the number of commenters and comments will testify to that.
God is with you .
What is the origin of the concept of God and what is its social and personal role?
In his book "Is there God?" (The God Delusion) (and in previous publications) and in his book "Naked Soul" Richard Dawkins raises a committee to detail the hypothesis that religious belief is rooted in the blind trust that children place in the words of their parents in particular and in the words of adults in general. The evolutionary advantage of such blind trust is clear (the survival of children depends to a large extent on their obedience to the adults around them and their experience in life), but such trust cannot be the source of the invention of the concept of God since it only explains how such an idea (meme) survives and is passed on to future generations. How the concept was created and what evolutionary benefits it brings to its owners remain a mystery, and this is especially intensified in light of the fact that the energy invested in maintaining its existence appears to be wasted.
Man's origin is probably social beings, and even today man maintains a complicated and branched social system. One of the characteristics of a social system is the social hierarchy, in which there are those of high status and those of low status. In nature, the high-status members receive many "royalties": mating with the most females of the group (and preference for high-status females and their offspring in access to the group's resources), control over the group's resources such as food and priority in access to new resources.
It is likely that over time, in an evolutionary way, a potential urge of each individual to oppress those weaker than him and alongside him an urge to submit to those stronger than him developed. It seems that such mechanisms are useful in determining the social rank because they prevent unnecessary conflicts between group members. A good demonstration of these mechanisms can be found in the behavior of animals that compete for the favors of females and do not fight to the death but retreat as soon as it becomes clear who is stronger.
One can conclude from this that this drive is also inherent in humans, and one can observe humans oppressing (sometimes) the weaker of them. But what, it's hard for a person to want to submit to another person and the invention of the concept of God can make it easier for everyone to submit to him.
The benefits inherent in thinking about a social level where the first is "all-powerful" "infinite" etc. are understandable: all those who follow him also rise to a higher level, since they are in the level where the first is sublime; The first in the rank allows social regulation without question; And every occurrence is his responsibility and his "fault".
Throughout history, the first in the social hierarchy were elevated to divine status: the king among the Sumerians, the pharaohs in Egypt and rulers in various places were considered gods (another word for God). Even in modern times, there are examples of the first in the social hierarchy being elevated to divine status: the divinity of Atahualpa, the Inca king, was so absolute that when he was fraudulently captured by Pizarro, who had only 200 warriors at his disposal, the entire Inca army surrendered to them with hundreds of thousands of warriors. The case of the "cargo religion" also belongs to our time, in which the first man in the rank (John Fromm) became a god.
In the movie "Instinct", the gorilla researcher (Anthony Hopkins) explains to his lawyer (Cuba Gooding Jr.) that her feeling of peace was gained by the feeling that the alpha male of the gorilla group had extended his protection to him. The feeling that there is a "Father" who watches over us ("We have no one to trust but our Father in heaven",
In God We Trust, God Save The Queen and more) is a soothing feeling that apparently everyone aspires to and it is also probably related to the human aspiration to be on a social level with someone above us.
To Jehovah, the God of the Jews who is claimed to be the first abstract God, insane jealousy is attributed to his believers: You shall not make for yourself any statue or image; Anyone who deviates from this or that commandment will be put to death and in any case of "squinting" towards other Gods ("children of Israel fornicating") he punishes very severely. Such behavior is reminiscent of the behavior of an alpha male who does not allow any deviation from the rules of the hierarchy he is at the head of.
A summary of all that has been said above gives a basis for the hypothesis that the origin of the invention of the concept of God is the drive or desire inherent in humans to be within a social hierarchy and at the same time enable the existence of an organized society over time.
Ofer:
Don't you understand that I have no choice?
Those who define me as a "Jew" are the anti-Semites!
I, for my part, lack any religion!
Don't you know that in Nazi Germany they dug into people's family history and sent to the concentration camps anyone who had Jewish blood in their veins?
In my utopia there are no religions, no countries and there is only one language.
I would not leave any trace of the artificial separations we make between people.
The problem is that right now, people like you - not understanding the benefits of this utopia - are making it impossible.
What is left for me to do? Just finding a way to continue living in this jungle despite my opinions and my race.
In order to continue living, I support - under the current circumstances - the existence of the State of Israel.
Unlike the ultra-Orthodox - my support for the existence of the state also brings me to actions and that is why I spent over twenty years serving in the state's army.
I did this - not because I think a state is a good idea in general but because in light of anti-Semitism it is necessary to protect my life and the life of my family.
This is also why I stay here. I mean, that's the main reason. Of course there are other reasons, like the lyrics of the song "Here I was born, here my children were born, here I built my house - with my two hands". I don't stay here because "here you are with me" but because "all my thousand friends are here".
I actually make the separation between religion and people and what bothers me is precisely the religion and not the people.
The people are in my eyes victims. Babies who were born. This is exactly what I wrote!
Religion is a warped idea based on the elimination of logical thought and natural morality and replacing them with a collection of nonsense whose entire purpose is to serve the religious establishment.
Michael, the people of Israel also "kill" their sons. Why do you choose the irrational choice and remain part of this nation?
And another thing that I believe you are not doing, is the separation between the powerful religion and its wisdom and the people who claim to believe in it, and everything related to them, for example strange interpretations, passing strict laws, etc..
point:
First of all, I didn't understand where you got the phrase: "This secular religion that advocates hatred of religious people is just as bad as any other religion":
A. Who spoke about religious hatred? We talked about education and studies, didn't we?
B. Secularism is not a religion or a certain way of life, it is freedom to choose your own path.
third. Most of the secularists I know do not hate religious people. And those who do, as far as I'm concerned, are divided
According to the reason for this:
If he doesn't know what he's talking about, and just slanders for no reason, he's an idiot just like an ultra-Orthodox who slanders the secular without checking.
But if he hates the religion (not necessarily the followers of the religion) out of hatred for primitive and racist worldviews that cause division in society and encourage hatred, discrimination and murder: then, in my opinion, the reason is justified.
And regarding the culture and spirit in the public - what does it mean and what will I need: you are right. Truly, the majority of the public does not value knowledge and education, and prefers to deal with a born star and the rest of Mearein.
But it's not because of their secularism, it's a result of education (or lack of education).
What about all the scientists and mathematicians and philosophers and poets and[…] and[…] and[…] - are you saying that these also despise education?
And just for general knowledge, you should know that the foundation of Talmud studies in yeshivot is not rooted in love for wisdom, but from the mitzvot of Torah study. We were a direct order from God that everyone is obliged to fulfill! (as it is said: "This book of the Torah shall not pass out of your mouth and you recite it day and night") And if I don't feel like it? - "Rabbi Levi said: Anyone who judges the words of the Torah, and engages in conversational matters - they feed him coals of harnesses" [Msachta Avoda Zerah, page 3, page 2] and even God does not hear his prayer: "He turns away his ear from the hearing of the Torah - even his prayer is an abomination" (Prov. force 9)
And there are many other derogatory words about a person who has stopped studying Torah. And the emphasis is on the Torah. And it is forbidden to study other things. Like the story about Rabbi Ishmael who forbade his sister's son to engage in Greek wisdom (as their language) which is presented in the Tract Minachot. and more examples.
From this you learned that there is no taste or smell in the actual study, and even more so in the content of the study, among the ultra-Orthodox, but only the result of brainwashing.
And apart from all of the above, I still don't see a good enough reason to study theology, over any other activity, since it teaches nothing.
Give your opinion on this: which is more stupid: sitting with some drunk friends on the sidewalk and engaging in gossip, or sitting in a strictly kosher yeshiva and engaging in issues such as: is it permissible to wipe the anus with a stone that is larger than the size of an olive? (Sorry for the bluntness, but this is the issue in the Shabbat tract)
The answer is not obvious, in my opinion...
Hate no, but disdain totally yes!
Although the debates here for pastors are not relevant because this is a science site with many people here
are intelligent nerds but intelligent
And it is known that the more IQ there is, the less superior power
And multiply what we see here
That or an article that mostly reinforces her words and adds their opinion
Or some believer dismisses everything and they try to explain it to him and then he answers one
and dismisses everything else as if nothing was said to him
The only reason they need to intervene is the masses who do not know and believe everything
By the way, to those who mentioned above that religion is necessary
If I'm not mistaken, Pinoza claimed that but
It should be sifted
But it's getting worse
And apparently no one cares
I realize it's not really related
But you can see that nobody cares
Also from religious coercion in Iran
point:
I have no hatred for humans.
I have a fear and maybe even a hatred towards destructive ideas.
In any case - what I wrote in my comments are not feelings but facts.
Sparrow bird, I see that you are responding here, you still owe me and yourself a clarification in this thread.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/wrong-perception-on-evolution-a-1608097/
At least thank you for being wrong and come back with the question. 🙂
Noam, I divide the world into 3: those who do not divide it, and those who divide it into 2.
Noam, "quality people"? What is this, the new race theory?
Because I'm sure you would have found among the Germans in the 30s people of much higher quality than those walking around our country, and there are many who think so.
Michael, my feeling is that you have a burning hatred for religious people. It doesn't have to be that way.
Roy: About 36
I didn't find the information you posted about Tractate Avot (that a leopard is a hybrid of a pig and a labrador). I would appreciate it if you could correct the source.
pleasantness:
so that's it.
It does not belong to religion and therefore there was no place to bring it up at all.
By the way, in relation to chimpanzees, you should know that they are also murderers and abusers.
Of course, as in any other field, they are less efficient than us, but it is not a question of motivation but a question of ability.
point:
What do I say and what will I say?
I don't know which secularists you are talking about because most of the secularists I know do not even come close in the severity of their behavior to that of the religious.
Do I really need to remind you that the ultra-Orthodox live at our expense, instigate wars and send us to fight them (when they "kill" themselves in a Torah tent) go on demonstrations against the hospital that dared to save a victim from their clutches and on and on?
Has it been hidden from you the fact that Shas is represented in prison much more than any other party?
Don't you know that the intention of all (but all!) religious currents is to turn the State of Israel into Iran?
Michael- I hear every day about atrocities that take place in our country and I don't know if their actions are not worse than the actions of cannibals or monkeys. And it has nothing to do with ultra-Orthodox or secular religion - everyone has a lot of "mistakes". You have already proven this to me before and I do accept it.
When I hear about such acts on the radio, I really catch myself for a moment and ask: Where do I live? In the jungle? In a madhouse? And then I think: maybe it's better to really live like a chimpanzee - at least not causing harm to living creatures.
Point- . I know that's not what you meant, but it is implied from your words that anyone who is not religious is evil, which he is not.
And not only that there are evil people among those who maintain the religion and there are excellent people among the non-religious - but it is even possible that the relative amount of quality people among the non-religious exceeds the percentage among their counterparts! How does that happen? Good question, maybe we should do some research on that...
Another thing: don't divide the world into 2 types: believer and non-believer. There are many, many shades in between. I think that's what "white blood" was trying to tell you. Let not hatred arise within us.
Michael,
Indeed there are many ways not to be religious. But the religious majority are much worse than any religious culture of this or that.
I believe that humans are idiots in general, in this situation religion saves the world from endearment.
The way I see things today, the secular religion advises its followers to be with a scoundrel and not a wise man.
Raul, you are confused...
White blood, I'm not talking about individuals but about the culture and spirit in different communities. For the religious, there is an interest in learning and anything that is more is excellent, for the secular, a child who knows too much is called a nerd, this in itself is enough to express the whole difference.
You can always find excuses of the devious kind, in this sense this secular religion that advocates religious hatred is just as bad as any other religion.
Isaac:
You squirm unsuccessfully and it's really pitiful to watch.
I have no language difficulties.
If you really can't find your spelling mistakes, reread the word "see", the word "arrival" and the word "run".
Hint: Your mistakes are in each of these words (you probably have more spelling mistakes. Here I referred only to those that appeared in the quote I brought from your words).
And in relation to the meaning of your words:
What is a nation?
A "nation" can be defined by its people, it can be defined by its culture and it can be defined by some combination of both.
Since the "culture" that you want to preserve is yours - that is - Judaism's and since it is clear that Judaism does not preserve its children but kills them, my reaction to your words was completely justified.
It turns out that I also understand your words better than you.
You're just messing around with spiritual survival.
After all, this is exactly what I was talking about: memes preserve themselves and not those who believe in them. Those who believe in them (which is ridiculous in itself because they are so nonsensical) simply risk their physical existence and there is no sense in risking your physical existence, in risking your children and in fact in risking the whole world just for a stupid group of memes.
After all, I did not atone by saying that Judaism as a collection of memes survives!
On the contrary! I confirmed it!
What I pointed out about the ridiculousness of it is the fact that you see it as a positive thing!
point:
It's really better to sit and learn how to roll, drink for rent and stare at the TV.
It's also better than murdering and rolling in garbage.
What does this have to do with us?
Secularism does not define a way of life.
It is simply defined by the negation of religiosity and there are many (many) ways not to be religious.
When someone denounces religion it does not mean that he is trying all the ways to be secular.
Obviously - every reasonable person chooses only one way.
Do you think I roll, drink and stare at the TV?
Don't you think it makes more sense that I'm actually studying?
But unlike the religious (those among them who don't roll, drink for rent and stare at the TV) I actually learn things of taste.
This brings me to the words of a sparrow:
They actually only learn nonsense and that's all they do.
Just a pity for their genes.
pleasantness:
Do you really think that any of the debaters here live like a cannibal or like a monkey?
I don't believe that's what you think.
Therefore, when you say that the alternative is to live like a cannibal or like a monkey, you probably think that this is what would have happened to you if you had abandoned the nonsense.
It turns out, then, that I value you more than you value yourself and I wanted to inform you that even if you abandon religion you will not start living like a cannibal or like a monkey.
What's more - start living. point.
Itzhak
The point is that a spirit does not exist, there is no such thing as a soul or soul
Actually a teacher of mine or my rabbi once taught me that the only testimony
Spirituality is words
After all, everything is words and everything we have is like words
"I would die and come back to this world"
או
"In the beginning, God created"
or a program called
"This house is haunted"
Not something you can see like fossils
By the way, even after 6000 years, the time of our world, which has existed for about 4.5 billion years, has apparently ended
Even then you will say that 6000 is according to the Torah's time calculation
And it does not mean 6000 years in our calculation
Because with words you can do what you want, even "God"
And Roy I wanted to make one more comment: there are many people who use their powers for terrible things. Chimpanzees do not have these powers. So maybe sometimes you really should be a chimpanzee and not act like a monkey imitating a human...
Roy, I have several complaints against you:
1. The source that makes me inclined to perform religious commandments that lack any logical explanation is: God's commandment. I personally feel that I have a free choice. But if I hadn't gotten used to it at a young age then I would surely be against these commandments today.
2. The religious actions you mentioned in the article actually help me in my day-to-day life.
3. What is wrong with social cohesion? How would you rather live: as a cannibal? like a monkey?
4. I will never believe in Zeus, because the greatest of the prophets was Moses and his prophecy was proven for all to see. Moses is the ultimate representative of God. Not Zeus and certainly not Muhammad.
Michael, thank you.
You can always be counted on to provide me with the dose of laughter I lack.
Your language difficulties would be obvious if you didn't insist on looking for spelling errors
(I didn't find them by the way)
For example Michael - when I write "culture" I mean "culture" (hell, there is no bold spelling and font size here).
When you talk about the survival of the "people" what do you mean? for physical survival. And I'm talking about spiritual survival, which in my opinion is much more important for the existence of all humanity.
Now go out and read the stuff again.
And for the benefit of the society in which you and I live, the time has come for unequivocal numbers to be brought here regarding the positive and negative parameters between the secular and ultra-religious society and not to hide behind the excuse "they are hiding data". I have no doubt about the results but for now I spoke very personally about what motivates me and what I see around me, so you can accept the things or not but you cannot dismiss them as "casual things".
Elad
If you asked then I went out and checked, I can't say now that all religious Jews live exemplary lives, I can't say that everyone who wears a kippah or prays fervently has a more refined soul than a person who doesn't observe mitzvot (on the contrary, I can say with certainty that he is not like that) but I can To say that Judaism has the most complete and profound thing in all respects, which allows those who are interested in it to live in harmony with themselves, with the universe, and with the society in which they live.
By the way - do something with the name, it doesn't seem to represent your essence.
As a person who comes from the field of social sciences and works with children. There are mountains of studies that talk about the influence of the childhood years on the behavior patterns that the adult will develop and the influence of parents' beliefs and customs on their children in particular.
Therefore the argument about "perhaps 4-year-old children do it, but with adults they told otherwise" is not valid. It is not impossible that those 4-year-old children who were exposed to the pattern of "opening the toy box" for years, would continue and carry out the same pattern even in adulthood. And since at the age of 40 the sequence of unnecessary actions did seem strange to them, they found an alternative meaning for this sequence.
I remember an experiment where they tested people who had a disconnect between the two numbers. (when the whole counting receives information from the opposite eye but does not receive information from the other eye). They were instructed to close their right eye and were shown a picture of a cup and they were asked to choose the utensil corresponding to the picture (spoon). After that they were ordered to close their left eye and were shown the utensil they had chosen (a spoon) and a picture of snow and asked them to explain why they chose this utensil... The explanations the people gave were very spicy and even very logical - if that is the connection between the explanation they gave and the choice they made was loose Very much to say the least.
I may not be quoting the experiment exactly as it happened but its meaning is clear.
point:
Well, what's the problem?
Go to Tel Aviv University (Haim Lebanon St., Ramat Aviv. Left on Einstein, before the Shuster Center). You can also go to Kiryat Har HaTsopus in Jerusalem, there's some remote place like that that no one has heard of, it's called the "Hebrew University" or something Such, I don't know... or "the parking lot", sorry - the Technion in Haifa!
And there are all kinds of strange centers like that, for example: public libraries, colleges, research institutes, museums, archives, and all kinds of other strange places where there are people who study and use their intellect.
You can even take a picture of these kind of people, frame it and hang it on the wall.
Or go to all kinds of chess competitions and the like to see them live.
There are many ways to get what you want, you don't have to get stuck with those who drink and roll (as you say), there are other alternatives.
Thanks Roy, one of the most fascinating things I've read on the site so far.
Elad, regarding 49, I will tell you what the difference is: those who sit and study in the ultra-Orthodox community, *really* sit and study. They do it around the clock, so there is no time left for nonsense. Those who do not study, indeed find all kinds of entertainment for themselves - including television and cinema.
On the other hand, among seculars, even those who study are included in the public spending time in the various places of entertainment. Because learning is another detail in their lives, it is not their essence as it is with Torah students.
It is allowed man. "Programmed" animals, we have a choice.
Idan (33),
patience…
point,
If you think that all the clergy sit and study and all the seculars smoke, you are wrong.
There are endless religious people who smoke (many of them are beyond the green line, in places where it is not a problem to smoke because there is really no criminal police) and in ultra-Orthodox society there are quite a few shababniks, refugees from the yeshiva world who walk the streets looking for girls who walk in dresses that are too short in order to beat them up.
Haredi society was built on the assumption that it is possible to live a life of pure learning, and in this it is quite backward.
Today it is already becoming clear even to the rabbis that it is impossible to maintain an entire community of learners, if only because a great many people do not want to learn or do not have the skills to do so.
Also because, following the recession, the money of Orthodox Judaism in America stopped flowing into the country in large quantities, and it is starting to be a real problem to maintain this world at a minimum standard of living (even with the government investment).
Besides, crime in the ultra-orthodox world is not reported outside except in quite rare cases, because of the total lack of trust in the "Zionist" institutions.
I agree that there is a problem of ignorance in secular society, but the solution is educational.
Besides, there are enough secular people who smoke drugs, go to clubs and watch TV, and the rest of the time write researches in psychology, open hi-tech companies and promote human knowledge in mathematics and in endless professions.
I think the problem of ignorance also exists in the religious society, only that there it is much easier to sweep it under the carpet.
In the ultra-orthodox world, those who don't want to study do things other than go to clubs and watch TV. He does the ultra-Orthodox equivalent of this. It's just much less noticeable.
To an outside observer, it seems that they are all the geniuses of the generation who sit and argue all their lives about issues of Halacha and morality. The truth is, not everyone does. Just as not all secularists study nuclear physics.
Elad,
Nicely written (not that it will change anything for any of the believers).
In defense of religion:
Despite everything, I prefer to see people sitting and studying and using their intellect, instead of those who go around clubs drinking and spinning or just sitting in front of the TV screen.
Moshe,
I will try to answer your claim "about the inability to bring proof from a study done on 4-year-old children, and project it onto like-minded adults".
Do you really not know the tremendous influence parents have on their offspring? The brain of a three-year-old toddler is
Plasti, it is right to receive new information about the world more than any later age.
Graduates of this opinion are largely delusional. A large part of what we are is shaped in the first three-four years.
Children of abusive parents will be abusive parents themselves in a significant part of the cases, children of criminal parents will also be like that (criminal families!!!), children of literate parents will also be like that.
Children of parents who believe in religious nonsense, will be like that too. There is no magic here.
Roy, interesting article.
Michael, a beautiful parable.
Moshe and Eran c.
I really like the argument that always comes up in this debate that all believers of religions that are not the religion you happen to believe in have never examined their religion and therefore do not convert (or become Christians or whatever).
Do you really think that 800 million Hindus don't really believe? That they are just lazy and have no power so they are satisfied with their idols and don't check what the Jews have to say?
Do you really think that 20 million Sikhs who do not cut their hair once in their life are not pious in their religion?
There are religions that are no less strict than Judaism, and people believe in them with complete faith. Just like the believers here believe in the principles of Judaism.
You simply do not know about them, because you have never examined them in depth.
As every believer says, "If you really learn Judaism, you will begin to believe." So we checked, and it's not there. Reality does not fit that. And we really checked. Realize that it is possible that a person studied Judaism and did not find God there.
Did you check all the religions in the world before you started believing???
And as for Christianity, those who believe in it are sure that Jesus is the savior, and evangelicals even believe that Jesus is their personal savior. are sure of it. One hundred percent.
Hundreds of millions of Muslims think it is important enough to invest the best of their money to go to Saudi Arabia for a month and walk hundreds of kilometers in the desert before making the pilgrimage to Mecca. Is this not a demonstration of faith? If they have enough faith not to eat on the day of their month do you think they don't have enough energy to really ask themselves questions?
So they asked, and concluded that Islam is the truth. As you asked, and came to the same conclusion about Judaism.
Just as you believe in praying, eating kosher, etc., they establish the commandments of Islam.
People of other religions (non-Jews) believe with complete faith and without any doubt, just like Jews.
And just like you don't check their religions because you are sure they are nonsense and that the truth is already with you, they do exactly the same thing.
Hindus, Christians and Muslims believe just like you, and even more than you.
In my opinion, any person who understands this and internalizes it cannot remain religious, no matter what religion he comes from.
Once you realize that all the religious people in the world believe in complete faith just like the Jews, then if you are a religious person you must come to the conclusion that they have been brainwashed since they were children, because otherwise how could they believe such nonsense?
And if this is the conclusion then how do you know yours have not been brainwashed?
Of course the response to this, if there is one, would be to say that science is exactly the same.
Oh well….
In one line, if they show me scientific proof that shows that the theory of relativity is wrong, I will accept it and send the theory of relativity to the trash.
A religious person will always believe in the scriptures of his religion (or in his religion, or in tradition or whatever), no matter how much they show him that reality contradicts them.
Elad
Sheila:
Your claims were also answered in my 15th response.
The one who gives things out of the blue is just part of the meme system that preserves itself.
Isaac,
Faith, by definition, cannot rely on "reasons". Otherwise there is no need for faith because there is "knowing". Belief is a voluntary decision and nothing else.
For the same reason a person cannot be persuaded to "believe" if he understands the essence of faith.
Those cowards and cowards who turn to religion for the sake of favors (faith not for its own sake) are frightening to me, and unfortunately their number is increasing day by day.
The great failing of Judaism today is that it is afraid of questions that are not dictated by it in advance. There is no culture in human history that has succeeded despite this kind of thought compulsion.
When writing a scientific article, one should not express a personal position in it.
You may be an atheist, but some people are sure that by putting on the tefillin or praying they are doing the right thing. They don't do it even though they know it's not true, as you mentioned in the study. They learn all their years why it is good and why it helps and believe in it (belief - something you did not mention at all in the study). Of course children first imitate their parents, but when they grow up they learn why they pray.
All research is worth nothing without the necessary psychological-evolutionary reference to belief and what people believe.
After all, for the children in the study, the actions to open the box were really pointless, because that's how you presented them. But putting on tefillin shows a meaning, this is the difference.
Isaac who will laugh last:
Apparently your religion demands that not only the grace lie but also the truth is a lie.
Didn't you talk about the survival of the people? interesting! So how, in your opinion, should I interpret the following sentence?
Quote: "Avrach B arrives and explains to you that the seemingly worthless action increases the chances of survival of the culture from which it came. It will not run! It is a fact!"
(spelling mistakes in the original).
Then you expand and rave about "why Jewish life is better" without actually saying anything other than the statement that it contributes to society - a statement that is not based on anything but which also highlights the confusion that creates between the people and the person.
It turns out that "out of all the text" you chose one argument of many kinds to deal with (probably because you realized that you would not be able to deal with the others) and you also fail in this deal.
I do not know if the parable was brought here and if an article was dedicated to it.
What I do know is that there were those to whom the parable was new and they found it both interesting and related to the article.
It's probably a matter of general ability to understand contexts and evaluate content.
Moshe:
Your reservations were answered in my first response (15)
Shahar Yitzhak Shamir:
same as above
For example:
Your response demonstrates the destruction that religion causes to consciousness.
For the reasoning that came up here regarding the "rational" choice of religion:
Another way to present the same things that Roy said is the following way:
There is no religion in the world that most people believe in.
Hence all believers in a certain religion believe that most believers of their kind are wrong.
The path of choice for all believers of all religions is the same path (pasted copy of the parents' religion).
It turns out, then, that believers of all religions believe that the path that led them to choose their religion led most people to error.
Is relying on a path that has failed so miserably a rational act?
Not in my world.
Of course, the feeling of irrationality increases the more you see what the religions are and discover that all believers are right when they talk about the members of other religions and wrong when they talk about themselves.
What is rational in arguing with the rabbit and trying to convince her that she is rummaging?
What is rational in trying to defend the claim that the Euphrates and the Tigris come from a common source?
What is rational in Boeva Ma'aisas about Cain's marriage with a woman who was born and not created?
What is rational about wanting to harm homosexuals or Shabbat violators?
Isaac (32):
To the question why adults believe, she gave an answer in what you called "all the words" but you prefer to believe as soma and describe the others in these words.
Eran:
In terms of the sense of belonging - if you think a little more deeply - you will understand that religions do not create the proper sense of belonging.
They create different feelings of belonging in people of different religions and thus divide people artificially and are a reason for all the organized massacres on earth (and no one will jump with Nazism again because Nazism is also a religion and like any religion - beyond the lack of logic in it - it also gave His believers have a sense of belonging. Although it was belonging to the superior race and not to the chosen people, what is the difference between these two absurd feelings?).
Even I, as a secularist, feel a deep sense of belonging.
My sense of belonging is that of belonging to the entire human race and not just to a fringe group that defines itself only to separate itself from others.
My enemies are the bacteria that cause diseases, the asteroids that threaten to destroy humanity, the warming of the earth, the water shortage, the population explosion, the depletion of the energy sources we use today and in the longer term even natural phenomena such as the transformation of the sun into a red giant.
I think you will agree with me that the choice of these enemies makes more sense than the choice of other human beings (whose above are common enemies as well) as enemies.
Scientifically:
Really cool. You're just rambling.
Roy:
Excellent article! Eloquent and stylish. Just a small and important note:
Do your mental and physical health a favor and refrain from responding to missing "claims": content/base/logic/consistency/seriousness, etc. (missing spelling) and whole (full spelling) and sick (interpretation according to Kabbalah).
A waste of your precious time. As you wrote yourself:
"It seems that in these cases the actions are not only useless in themselves, but also
You rob the person of energy that could have been used for other needs!"
Best regards
white blood
Eran,
You cannot compare God to energy. Or rather, you can, but then the concept of God loses all its meaning and content. Energy does not have conscious intent.
I can agree with you that we certainly do not know everything, but we are also not at the beginning of science and research. We are after four hundred years of establishing and establishing scientific laws. Acting according to these laws allowed us to extend the human lifespan by decades, bring us to the moon and back, place a network of communication satellites around the earth and allow us to communicate with the whole world, as if we were one small village. All this happened in four hundred years of scientific development. Compare that to more than three thousand years of useless religions, and you will understand why I see no point in believing in religion.
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Roy, answer me the question, do you believe that a higher power created life?
God = higher power = energy = any other concept you want.
After all, they created an experiment in which they transferred several elements in a test tube and transmitted electric pulses, and as a result, the building blocks of life were created.
Faith is a great thing, that's why they say a man, a man and his faith will live.
I believe in one thing we will both agree on.
We do not know everything, we are only at the beginning of science and research.
Eran,
The question is how do you know which religion to believe in, if any.
You rely on the fact that the Book of Zohar writes about an event similar to the Big Bang. But the Greeks already wrote that the world is made up of atoms. Are you, therefore, willing to believe in Zeus?
You may say that Judaism convinces you more than the Greek Pantheon. But in this case, you must explain not only the discounted guesses, but also the appalling scientific errors in the Talmud. Several examples (courtesy of Lior Halperin):
A bat lays eggs (Babylonian Talmud, Koroth 7 EB),
Afaa's pregnancy lasted 70 years (Babylonian Talmud, Genesis XNUMX:XNUMX),
The leopard is a hybrid of a lioness and a wild boar (Tractate Avot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 23),
A rabbit and a hare raise a rumen (Leviticus 11:3; Babylonian Talmud, Chulin Net. 11),
The claws of the lion and the wolf contain poison (Talmud Babili, Chulin Nev. 12-14),
Mice are created from earth (Talmud Babili, Chulin Kach' 12-Kach' 11),
Lice are created from decay (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 16:22),
Snails are created from rain (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 11),
The blood of the Nida is poisoned (Ramban Commentary on Leviticus 18:19),
Human sweat is poisoned (Jerusalem Talmud, Teromot Pach 13),
The heart has three chambers (Babili Talmud, Tractate Chulin,
Only the left heart cavity has blood and the right one is empty, and for the sages the heart is on the right side of the chest (Sefer Hatanya, part one, chapter 9)
The trachea divides not only into the lungs but also into the heart and liver (Talmud Babili, Chulin MH 1B),
A cheetah is actually a female hyena and a male hyena after seven years becomes a bat (Talmud Babili, Baba Kama 16:1a),
Adam's spine seven years after his death turned into a snake (Talmud Babili, Baba Kama 16 12b).
If you choose to believe in Judaism (which is unequivocally based on the Halacha and the Talmud), then you must find a way to reconcile these assertions, which are all wrong, with reality.
Best regards,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
I read the article and the comments here and it is important for me to clarify something very important and deep that I understood over time.
Personally
I am not religious or Shabbat observant, but today I put on a tefilin every morning, pray to God and thank him for restoring my soul, for protecting me and my family and for blessing my path. Sometimes when I succeed in my actions and in my ways, I increase and pray to God for guidance or Arabic and thank him for the help. (that all my actions and ways be worthy of God's blessing)
A little about my Hebrew...I didn't know how to put on a tefillin or say a prayer until I was 27, I didn't go to a synagogue and all of that seemed strange to me. I went to a foreign country that didn't like us that much... I joined the community and since then I've been doing what I'm doing today.
When living in another country looking for belonging, who am I, what is my past...slowly connecting to the past and asking questions and the Bible gives the answers. (In any case it gave me all of them)
I am not trying to convince you here of my rightness or my way, but trying to show you something that you may not have known, read and become wiser.
Scientifically
I'm not a scientist but I also research everything, love knowledge and discoveries.
A few years ago scientists discovered the Big Bang and since then they have been researching it vigorously, the book of Zohar at the beginning writes that everything was concentrated in one point and then God decided to reduce himself and since then infinity was created.
If you look at things from a scientific point of view, the story of the Zahar is very similar to what is written in the Zohar.
* It is important for me to note that I did not read the warning, but saw an article on the subject, talk about it.
Today researchers ask so many questions such as: what is the origin of man, where did it all begin...?
All the answers are found in the first pages of the Bible.
You can call God: Cosmic Power, Supreme Power...
Have you asked yourself how everything was created, what gave life, what is the essence of life?
My answer is: God created everything and the essence of life is to create and create in the end because God created us in his image.
In short, we are so small, we don't know so much, we just started our journey in the world of research and science and we already act like we know everything...
Not everything is known...there is much of the hidden...give respect to the God who created you.
Isaac,
As above.
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Where exactly in the article does it say what the source of faith is?
The title of the article is misleading and just creates provocations that religious people are less developed than chimpanzees.
I would be happy if someone would write an article on what made all the chimpanzees believe that they are slaves to their god and that all day they have to sit in a shelter and pray that frogs don't come down on them from the sky or all kinds of other things and why they think the world only exists for 5000 years.
In my opinion, lack of understanding and lack of wisdom that existed in antiquity is what led to different "beliefs",
I wonder what would happen if we put some children on an isolated island and return to them in 20-30 years and see if they too have developed faith in God
okay, well . I know what I wrote.
I hope you too will have the courage to seek a truer answer.
And don't believe as soma.
Moshe,
My question to you was also the answer to your main claim. I will ignore what you said about logic, since you were not logical at all (and I hope that from this answer you will understand the problem with your illogical answer).
I will focus on the answer you provided, because Judaism is the most binding religion. But it turns out that there are also different religious obligations in Christianity and Islam: wearing the hijab or the burqa, taxes that go to religious institutions, voluntary whipping in the Shia religion, five prayers a day in Islam, a ban on eating pork and drinking wine, and so on. I see no reason to state that Judaism is more binding than Islam, therefore, and yet we hardly see Jews who convert to Islam or Muslims who convert to Judaism, even in the most democratic countries where no social sanctions are imposed on such converts.
Isaac,
I quote your words - "A person grows up and gets used to a certain way of life, value emphases, smells, songs, home and family. It takes tremendous mental strength to get up, investigate and search for the pure-absolute truth."
Thank you. You accurately articulated the messages brought forth in the article, the reason why every person remains in the religion they grew up in and the reason why people continue to believe and choose not to look for more real answers. strength
Best regards,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Roy,
Good question and wrong conclusion.
A person grows up and gets used to a certain way of life, value emphasis, smells, songs, home and family.
It takes tremendous mental strength (for those who agree to the existence of the soul) to get up to investigate and search for the pure - absolute truth.
Each of the religions has a part of truth, in my humble opinion most of them also have a distorted part. But for most people in the world - that's good enough!
The need for a change in life comes when you feel upset, and even then it takes great courage and extraordinary honesty to make a change.
Did you examine all the philosophies and make an informed choice regarding the way you smile?
Or maybe you also live in the world you grew up in?
Roy,
1. Do you know the advertisement "The majority of the public travels to El Al"? This advertisement should convince me to choose Al-Al too. However, the question arises, if El Al is indeed such a successful company, why did the minority choose not to travel with El Al? And the answer is that they probably have their valid reasons. Apparently the competing companies have advantages that El-Al does not have.
2. In the same way, the logic of so-and-so is not the logic of an unknown person. Logic is not absolute, and it is all in the eye of the beholder. Irrationally, there may be several logical claims, contradicting each other.
3. It is common to say that Judaism is the most binding religion. That is, it is relatively easy to define yourself as a Christian, go to church once a week, and do whatever you want the rest of the time. The duties of the Christian are not great, and are not related to all levels of life like Judaism for example. So it is possible that most of the great believers in Christianity did not deeply examine the logic of their religion, because this religion never required them to make an exceptional sacrifice. If it were depicted that Christianity would oblige its believers to pay half of the obligations of Judaism, because then you would see the number of "believers" drop miraculously.
4. You still haven't responded to my main argument, which is about the inability to bring proof from a study done on 4-year-old children, and project it onto like-minded adults.
Moshe,
Regarding your second statement -
I have a religious Jewish friend, a Catholic friend and a Muslim friend. And if that's not enough, a friendly Buddhist also works with me in the lab. They are all enlightened, smart, educated and of course nice people (otherwise I wouldn't be friends with them). Each and every one of them believes in the religion they were exposed to in childhood, even though they are aware that it cannot be logically supported. None of them consider converting to another religion. If older people choose their religion in an informed and wise way, maybe you could explain why the vast majority of people stick to the religion - any religion - in which they grew up? After all, if one of the religions (say, Judaism) has such convincing explanations about its correctness, and if mature people act in an intelligent manner as you say, then many people in the world should have converted their religion a long time ago.
Best regards,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Interesting article, as always, thanks Roy
I think the article shows how children and monkeys manage to train the scientists to repeat the same stupid and unnecessary actions, studies and experiments, time after time.
I reinforce Moshe's words (response 24)
Why state that chimpanzees are smarter than humans if the experiment was conducted on 4-year-old children??
And the reason we put on tefillin is so that we remember the exodus from Egypt ("And you will have a sign on your hand and drip between your eyes because with a strong hand God brought us out of Egypt (your hand is not a typo))
to roy,
I enjoyed your writing, but a little less than the content.
1. Why was the research that proved that the human race imitates its actions that are done unnecessarily, only done on children?
The answer is simple. Because the child is indeed a great imitator, and a little sage. Not all the actions he does as a child make sense. On the other hand, the adult person, whose mind has developed sufficiently over the years, avoids apparently irrational actions. And it is a fact that the research was not done on adults, because in their case, it is clear that 100% of them would have opened the box without the unnecessary actions along the way.
2. From this you must conclude that older people who observe the religious mitzvot, and sacrifice a lot of their lives for religion, do not do so simply because they are imitating someone. The intelligence they have would have prevented them from doing parrot-like, meaningless actions.
3. It is not serious, therefore, to state without blinking, that religion is merely an imitation of our ancestors. And this as mentioned, both because the adult person is not an imitator like the child, and because the religion has a little more convincing explanations about its correctness, than what you were told (or not) by the man I blessed at the tefillin booth.
Lawrence –
Thanks for the song
But I wonder who is the insane one in this case.
And more importantly - who are taking off.
Brother.. If I were a Rothschild, I would be my own friend.
Sorry I'm not connected to the site 24 hours a day.
answered in an orderly manner -
Father - the ignorance you demonstrate does not allow me to respond.
stranger - you asked important and good questions(?) and I don't know all the answers, so choose a question for yourself and ask a religious person whose intelligence you do appreciate.
And the cherry - Michael.
What a mess you have in the memes. I really don't know this guy.
In all the sea of gossip I will take one thing and draw your attention to it - I was not talking about the survival of the people!
And the second story you brought - is not relevant to the discussion and if I'm not mistaken it was published right here and even received a whole article.
Ofer, there is no difference - changing a tradition is canceling an existing tradition and replacing it with a new one. The difference this time is that we came to the realization that we don't need a new tradition either.
Michael - great parable, thanks for bringing it...
This reminds me of another story that I didn't want to include in my previous response so as not to hide the forest for the trees:
There is a story that is usually told about monkeys as a parable for humans.
It is not known if the story is factually true (about the monkeys), but there is no doubt that the analogy (about humans) is also true.
They put four monkeys in a cage with a banana hanging from the ceiling and a box below it.
At a certain transparent moment he tried to climb the crate to take the banana, the experimenters turned on water hoses and sprayed strong jets of water in the direction of the other monkeys (not the one that approached the banana).
This story repeated itself until the monkeys realized that it was when one of them approached the banana that it harmed all the others.
From the moment they realized this, one of them could no longer approach the banana because as soon as he tried to do so, the others immediately jumped on him and beat him and prevented him from doing so.
After some time they took one of the monkeys out of the cage and replaced him with a new monkey who did not know how to use a hose.
Of course the new monkey tried to go to the banana but immediately the others surprised him with their blows and after a few attempts he realized that this is something that is simply not done.
Then they took another monkey from among the three remaining monkeys from the original and replaced him with a new monkey.
He also tried to approach the banana and he was also beaten.
You won't be surprised to find out that the first monkey that was replaced (the one that didn't know Zaranuk) also participated in the beating even though he didn't know why he was doing it but he understood that this is how it is done and this is how it should be done.
Again it didn't take long and the new monkey also understood the principle.
In this way, monkey after monkey were replaced until all four monkeys were those who did not experience the pleasure of the hose bursting, but nevertheless made sure not to approach the banana and prevent access to the banana from each new monkey.
This is how an organizational tradition is created (says the last sentence in the original story).
This is also how religion is created and maintained.
'Just want to fix something small' -
thanks for the correction. I corrected the naughty word.
charming,
I believe Michael answered your question nicely. The more intelligent the animal, the weaker instincts it is born with, and needs to compensate for the lack by imitating its group mates. By this logic it is likely that humans, who are the most intelligent animals on earth, have the greatest need for imitation, even more so than chimpanzees.
Best regards,
Roy.
------
The Kab-Lella Hagado-Lella competition Starting a blog Another science! Everybody is invited!
My blog - Another science
Small correction, the penultimate paragraph goes like this
thousands and thousands who vowed
This is only a small part of the song which is not really about religion but completely
applies to her
Well said Michael Rothschild
But Isaac read these words and your soul will be encouraged
Can you hear that sound?
in your ear
growing louder and loader
the whole world around you
a pounding and grinding
that tells you that
you're not alone
it's the sound of
and thousands of thousands who vowed
to insanity
These words belong to the legendary poet Daniel Gliddenlaw
In case you haven't noticed, he wrote it out of frustration
The article is interesting and re-demonstrates principles that I have already pointed out in my previous comments.
The more intelligent the animal, the more helpless its babies.
This is due to the fact that the brain is built to absorb and apply new information and is not pre-programmed.
There is a "trade-off" here that evolution has made between the early burning of useful knowledge (which saves study time) and mental flexibility that enables the adaptation of behavior to circumstances.
Humans are at the end of the spectrum of this trade-off.
When they are born they are completely helpless.
"To" allow them to survive, evolution instilled in children the belief in adults and imitations.
It makes sense because the adults have already learned what is useful and what is not and it is better to imitate them even if you do not understand the meaning and purpose of their actions.
The more the brain is pre-programmed - the less need there is for this imitation.
It reminds me of the phrase "He was a child prodigy! Already when he was born he knew everything he knows today when he is in his 30s!"
As the child grows older, his dependence on the knowledge of the adults decreases and there is more and more justification for basing himself on knowledge he has acquired himself.
The transition from faith-based knowledge to personally acquired knowledge is not always smooth, but due to its necessity, evolution has embedded in us the rebellion of youth in which the boy shakes off the morality of tradition and the trust he placed in adults and begins to live an independent life.
Religion, as I said before, is largely based on brainwashing the child with a collection of memes that as a child he accepts without criticism because they come from adults.
The point is that this is not a collection of innocent memes, but one that is built to preserve itself beyond the age of the "gullible believer".
He does this by memes of "life after death", "death for the sanctification of Hashem", "murder for the sanctification of Hashem" and more.
It so happens that there are also innocent adults.
This of course also explains the phenomenon demonstrated in Yitzhak and Ofer's responses.
One of the memes that is inserted into the head of the baby that was born is the confusion between man and "nation".
After all, every sane person understands that being a Jew is a danger to souls, but nevertheless these two wave at the survival of the Jewish people.
They do not understand that the "Jewish people" survived at the expense of their sons!
The people survived and their sons were destroyed!
Those who were not Jews two thousand years ago produced many more descendants than those who were Jews.
This whole myth of the survival of the Jewish people is also ridiculous for other reasons, but these reasons are less important.
One of them is that it is simply not true, that is, there are traditions that have survived even longer than Judaism.
By the way, one of the traditions he discovered almost as old as Judaism is the tradition of anti-Semitism.
This is a tradition that will probably survive no less than Judaism and that, in principle, is probably much less dangerous for those who hold it (although no less detached from reality).
Some repairs
Kernels = Kernel
Sucks = mitzvah
Their meaning = interpretations
I take advantage of the haste
I just really have no patience for these popular hallucinations and as such they are not considered hallucinations
The evolutionary point in the Torah is completely true, one of the reasons I became an atheist
The one who told me that Rabbi Ovadia came up with a halacha that it is forbidden to pick up the seeds of Apsarak on Shabbat
Something like that
Now I said to myself, he must have sat down and said to himself, I don't have to do anything, I have a maid who will do it
In fact I think it's a crime to even bother picking it up
Even if this example is not reflective or incorrect
It cannot be argued that over time nipples and silly legs were added like a hat or a kippah
The idea is that every day an idea is added and why doesn't God come to do miracles if He is
Already jumped to add laws
In general, whoever wrote the Torah was no different from the rest of his generation
And you can see it by the treatment of women
Now I will support Roy's claim
Tell me Isaac, how do you know that God did not really abandon Israel and leave for the "Christians"
After all, all you have is a book and a lot of interpretations and a lot of people
But Christians have more than everything
Except you follow your father, unfortunately your father attacked you while you were walking on the thin ice
and put nonsense in your head
I wish you insights and a life spent
Sharks and not hungry sharks.
A fun and great article - spread it and don't read it alone.
Father, it is clear that if the Jews had not kept the customs of their ancestors (imitating them) for 2000 years, the Jewish people would not exist today.
Your claims are irrelevant. There is a difference between changing traditions and abolishing them completely.
To Isaac
The Jewish people changed their traditions several times in less than a generation, and nothing interfered with their existence.
Ask the historians - the project of Yavne after the Great Revolt completely changed the daily life of the Jews of that time. The revision was comprehensive and not only in canceling the laws related to the temple.
Even about 300 years ago, Shabatism was the most dominant current in Judaism and in the end it completely disappeared from everyday life, the stagnation, not to mention worse than that the retreat of today's ultra-orthodox Judaism in the last 200-300 years as a response to education is actually causing the disintegration of the nation.
It is a fact that today the majority of Jews in the US (who are not defined as secular) prefer to belong to the reform current, and to be Jews without observing baseless mitzvahs.
First class article and comments. Every word is embedded exactly in place.
Roy - danger of logical fallacy!
Please allow me to describe your heartwarming encounter with the Abrachs in a slightly different way -
Avrach A comes and justifies the wearing of Tefillin with virtues that are easy to disprove.
Avrach B arrives and explains to you that the seemingly worthless action increases the chances of survival of the culture from which it came. It won't run! This is a fact!
Now the debate is whether there is added value to a Jewish life over a life without religious morality, and not whether there is a need for action X or Y within the set of actions required by actually accepting the codex dictated by an authority that cannot be challenged.
I came to the conclusion that there are many advantages to Jewish life. And so I also put on tefillin every day.
Does it benefit me personally? It's hard to say.
Is life as a Jew beneficial to me as an individual, and to the society in which I live? Unequivocally - yes!
Will it be useful to you? Do it and listen!
Humans are engineers who listen to the most important engineering commandment "if it works don't touch it"
Nahum, Hezal, you also learned about quantum mechanics, right?
They just forgot to attach the formulas.
What's interesting is that Hazal has already figured it out
Man is allowed from the animal is not
If you don't understand what you are doing, you are worse than the monkeys
why are you so utilitarian And in general, what is so useless about religion when the religious explain to you why it is so good to do what they do.
The act of imitation is not from the roots of religion in a special way any more than it is from the roots of human behavior in general.
I think that religion grew out of the very strong need of the person who thinks to give meaning to his life, only then is it possible to understand and explain the horrible and obvious distortions to every person (on the other religious faction) that all religions have reached.
Just today I heard a story that mirrors the article.
There really are so many useless actions and more than that, pointless... and we act on them every day.
A matter of evolutionary habit.
short story:
One woman would prepare a juicy steak for her husband every day
And each time, she would cut a small piece of the steak and throw it away.
Like this every day.
Eventually, the husband asked her, "Why the hell do you always cut that piece off the steak???"
"I don't know" she answered, "my mother always did it"
So the couple went to the mother to ask the same question,
And she also answered "I don't know, my mother did it all the time".
So the young couple and the mother went to the grandmother and asked her:
"Grandma, tell us please, why the hell do you always cut a piece of the steak?"
So she answered:
"Because my oven was too small..."
And on that optimistic note: a great night everyone.
It could be that the four-year-olds were mathematicians....
"Let's imagine that the actions are not unnecessary and we have already solved this problem"
of genius!
But the question that concerns me,
Why was the same trait of repeating and following all the steps, less seen in the chimpanzees? (only two thirds)