Call me...

T he atheist rejects the claim that there is a
supernatural entity or force that interacts with existence...
Because it is a claim without basis.

Atheism makes no claims whatsoever.
Atheism asserts nothing.
Atheism IS NOT an act or an action
IT IS a position
 It has no objective.
Comparatively / Conversely:
Anti-theism IS an act or an action
 It IS NOT a position
 It has an objective.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Unicorns (Unabridged)

Latest comment from Baroukh Mendelsohn (scroll down to see all comments)
Rich LaDuca There is no such risk to funding... I am pretty sure no one funded this research with the aim to have a proof the Torah was written with a single hand.
Reply to this email to add a comment to this post.
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Buzz   Jun 27, 2011
Rich LaDuca I answered your last comment by editing my previous comment in the thread because the thread reached the maximum number of comments (500).
Rich LaDuca – This pretty much sums up why you are unable to see your own shortcoming... You refuse the effort / initiative to see beyond your own front door... Knowledge and understanding seldom occur without effort... And here you said it all -

"a need for me to invest a lot of time."

What a convenient way to remain in your trench!

I have never allowed myself that luxury.

Salem, Shalom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   Jun 27, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca You want to prove me wrong, right? So you have to make the effort... I am sure I am not, so there is no reason for me to do efforts when anybody comes and tells me I am wrong.   Jun 27, 2011
Rich LaDuca – You approach is contrived good sir!

You contradict your own methods... You are on thew web insisting on proof because you will otherwise dismiss what others assert if it is contrary to your perceptions.

Short of providing links to information... There is little else available in the way of sharing other than copy / paste. What else is there to offer unless you step away from your keyboard?

Meanwhile, the 'proofs' you offer are considerably less substantial than even that.

Pointing to a self-referential source and considering it factual evidence inherently contains flaws in at least its objectivity.

As far as objectivity goes... I remain open to perspectives... The perspective you have grown up with is one that I have studied, along with many other spirituality.

That I point out the arrogance Jews present by referring to themselves as 'gods chosen' is based upon the way they cling to 'Deuteronomy 14:2' etc.

כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ; וּבְךָ בָּחַר יְהוָה, לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה, מִכֹּל הָעַמִּים, אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה.

I'm not interested in proving you wrong, I would hope that I can enlighten you.

If you are under the impression that I am pulling the historical background for the bible out of thin air, you are mistaken... And apparently unwilling to see for yourself... All that I have said is easy to triangulate.

I did not say that the Ten Commandments were word for word the Code of King Hammurabi... The similarities between the two (the Code having something like 321 items) are seen in the overall intent with occasional textual similarities.

The overall picture is that what Jews are claiming as their own is simply not the truth... These things all predate Judaism by centuries. That does not dilute Abraham... It enriches it and points to a bigger and much more profound picture of what the lesson really is because of where it really came from. That the message contained in the lesson has not only survived, but it has multiplied and carried forth from its self. This is significant beyond measure.

Rather than denying that history... Allow it to enhance your understanding.

It does not need to be attributed to a supernatural being for it to be profound.

In my opinion, calling it 'god' tends to cheapen it because of the omnipresent ambiguity associated with something that cannot be proven beyond faith. Faith is not proof... Faith is the exact opposite of proof.   Jun 27, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – "I did not say that the Ten Commandments were word for word the Code of King Hammurabi... The similarities between the two (the Code having something like 321 items) are seen in the overall intent with occasional textual similarities."
=> What you said is that the Ten Commandments are a condensed version of the Code of Hammurabi and I claim this is false. If you take all the items of this code, most of them contradict the Torah. For example, is there something related to a one day off a week in this code?   Jun 27, 2011
Rich LaDuca – From 321 items to ten... That is quite condensed!

But don't let that hang you up on the bigger picture...

Perhaps this excerpt will help you... many non-secular school children are shown these similarities.
While the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and Hebrews subscribed to remarkably similar laws, their concepts of God differed in some ways. From what ~I~ had ~previously~ discussed, it can be safely concluded that these three civilizations had a keen sense of fair play as they included in their laws most of that which might be considered generally decent today. They differ however in their discussion of fair play regarding God or gods. Hammurabi felt safe not mentioning what might ensue in the event you disrespect Ishtar, while failing to utter incantation thirty eight regarding "obstructing gods" might not bode well for your Egyptian afterlife. The Ten Commandments, on the other hand, offer some truly unique insights right from the beginning regarding one's relationship with God. To wit, you are to have only Yahweh as your God and no others, you should not worship so much as a statue, and under no circumstances should you "misuse" the name of God. Swift punishment will come to those who do not adhere to these commandments regarding the one true God, and, by all means, "remember the Sabbath day…."

While the outcomes of these documents were likely similar, their individual intents differed to some degree. The general outcomes of these documents in their respective civilizations were likely the same; they all resulted in a general trend towards that which is considered decent behavior. While that was surely a mutual intent in all three civilizations, there may indeed have been some variety in the initial spirit of the projects. The Negative Confessions, as they are so aptly called, while giving the living something to strive for, seem to have their major importance in one's ability to recite them to Osiris with a straight face in the afterlife. The implied penalty was singular in that you may not be able to continue on your post mortem journey failing one of these affirmations. The Code of Hammurabi appears to more closely resemble a set of secular rules with less consideration given to how one should actually conduct or not conduct a relationship with your god of choice. Inversely, the Hebrew laws seem to be rooted in a close concrete relationship with Yahweh as the one true God, and a sentence rarely passes without a requisite reference to God.

The impact of these laws and codes were likely mutual from the aforementioned spirit of equity in the "eye for eye" rules, to their common phraseology such as "…bear false witness…." Additionally, they have certainly had an impact on current western legal tradition. Consider the not so obvious death for the thief. While it may seem archaic, it is indeed current martial law under emergency situations in our country today with measure meted on the spot. Modern civil courts offer financial recompense from a transgressor. Hammurabi and Yahweh, as well, offered equitable compensation in the form of grain or assistance in some way. The twenty third and twenty fourth laws of Hammurabi have a ring of welfare to their spirits. As adultery and fornication were prohibited in the ancient world, so to this day do we make laws concerning with whom you may be permitted to have sex. Many states offer legal recourse for adulterous behavior. The list of modern parallels is abundant.

As a result, these three cultures and their requisite laws do have similarities. The spirit of Mesopotamian and Hebrew law are, in many ways, identical. That being said, their respective concepts of God indeed differ in some ways. While the outcomes of these documents were likely similar, their individual intents differed slightly. A study of these texts is indeed a study in the heritage of what we know today to be our modern western legal tradition.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++   Jun 27, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Thanks for this text... Showing similarities is interesting but not a proof the Mosaic law was derived from a previous one.
"The Ten Commandments, on the other hand, offer some truly unique insights right from the beginning". There are unique or not?
Is there something similar to "remember the Sabbath day…." in other codes?
Finally regarding the thief, Judaism doesn't put him to death unlike others.   Jun 27, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Good... You are seeing it too! unique insights.
Insights based on / in regards to...
Come on...

The Kings Code!!! This template... Revised and updated for a more modern ruling class... But remarkably similar in many respects. The revisions are indeed insightful!

History is an amazing teacher isn't it?!

So that has dispensed with... Lets move a little further in, shall we?

King Solomon is quoted in Ecclesiasties 1:9

מה שהיה הוא שיהיה ומה שנעשה הוא שיעשה ואין כל חדש תחת השמש
מַה-שֶּׁהָיָה, הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה, וּמַה-שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה, הוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה; וְאֵין כָּל-חָדָשׁ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ.

This is a further reminder that these items you attribute to having origins in Judaism are as not quite as you say (or better as you had been told - You seem content to assume you were given all the facts previously, as a child)... In this case, the origins of what is not new under the sun is what you are refusing to acknowledge let alone to examine   Jun 27, 2011
Rich LaDuca – This... to...   Jun 27, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Really? You think that "Revised and updated for a more modern ruling class..." is a good answer to "Is there something similar to "remember the Sabbath day…." in other codes?
Finally regarding the thief, Judaism doesn't put him to death unlike others." ?   Jun 27, 2011
Rich LaDuca – And these two points are what convince you that the Ten Commandments MUST be Jewish in origin?

Or are you unable to consider that additions to the original concept could occur. We ARE talking about the minds of living, breathing and resourcful people here.   Jun 27, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca
You still didn't answer.
Is there something similar to "remember the Sabbath day…." in other older codes?   Jun 27, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Nope... That one must have assuredly must have been thought up by a Jew like you said.

No one else up to that point could have conceivably come up with something as brilliant as taking a day off.

What an original idea.   Jun 27, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – So we reached the conclusion the Ten Commandments can't be a condensed version of something older, right? :-)   Jun 27, 2011
Rich LaDuca – We reached the conclusion that most of the Ten Commandments predate Judaism and that its origins have been appended to cal for a day off and less killing... Neither of witch have come to fruition. People work all the god damn time, and kill in the name of god all the god damn time too.

So we also conclude that what remains of those 'Laws' were part of an earlier body of work that has been condensed and re-worded / re-arranged several ways over the last 4000 years or so... nothing surprising there... Words are inherently weakened over time. At least that was the case until language was easily reproduced.   Jun 27, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca
"We reached the conclusion that most of the Ten Commandments predate Judaism"
=> You still didn't convince me about that. Still we reached a conclusion that at least one commandment is of Jewish origin and so the Ten Commandments as a whole can be simply a condensed version of an older code.

"and that its origins have been appended to cal for a day off and less killing..."
=> Again, I didn't see a proof that this was only appended.

"Neither of witch have come to fruition. People work all the god damn time, and kill in the name of god all the god damn time too."
=> This is not true. First a lot of people in the world don't work on day a week (even if they changed this day to be different from the Jews). Religious Jews keep the original day of Shabbat.
Regarding less killing, this is obvious too than what it used to be before.
I agree that there is still a lot of work to do but we are in a good direction.
Regarding death sentence in Judaism, Rabbi Akiva said that he can save anyone who may get a death sentence and it is also said that a Sanhedrine that condemns one person to death in a 70 years period is considered cruel (so that wasn't usually the case).

"So we also conclude that what remains of those 'Laws' were part of an earlier body of work that has been condensed and re-worded / re-arranged several ways over the last 4000 years or so..."
From the 4000 years, you can remove at least 2500 years as we are sure the Ten Commandments didn't change for at least the last 2500 years.
Before you don't know what happened and your claim is only a conjecture.

"nothing surprising there... Words are inherently weakened over time. At least that was the case until language was easily reproduced."
=> The Torah was easily reproduced since the beginning and it was reproduced manually as it is still done today. If a Torah scroll had even a single mistake on a letter, it was considered not holy and had to be buried in a Gniza. Consequently you can't find two different versions of the Torah in all the remains that were unearthed out of Gnizas.   Jun 28, 2011
Rich LaDuca – So then a "Religious Jew" that is a member of the IDF would never be seen 'defending' Israel against 'terrorists' on the Sabbath... because doing so or expecting it to be done would clearly be a violation of Jewish law... Is that a fair observation.

So you are unable to prove your claim that the Ten Commandments are 100% Jewish in origin.

And I am not able to convince you that their complete origins predate Judaism.

So while you insisted that these Ten Commandments were a strong piece of evidence that Judaiism was an original 'handed off by god' concept. You have not offered any proof of that whatsoever.

Mind you, by your own bibles assertion that 'Nothing is new under the son', you further contradict your own claim.

Your attribution is unable to support its self.

Occams Law precludes that this piece has become invalidated and is thusly discarded.

So what we have left are the 'Telephone game' rumors and stories from Sumerian mythology as the remaining basis for your claim that Judaism came from 'god'   Jun 28, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca
"You have not offered any proof of that whatsoever."
=> I offered some strong evidences but you don't accept them...

"Mind you, by your own bibles assertion that 'Nothing is new under the son', you further contradict your own claim."
=> You don't understand this sentence, that's the reason you believe you can say that.   Jun 28, 2011
Rich LaDuca – It is you who presented the standard for what should be accepted as proof / evidence in this conversation.

You have denied the validity of many items using stringency that is thinner than water. Yet what you offer is even thinner than that.

What you have offered as evidence does not even come close you your own standard.

It is you who demand and expect solid evidence... So either provide it or disavow your claims.   Jun 28, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Regarding 'Nothing is new under the sun', Judaism says that the Torah existed before the world and God created the world according to the Torah so indeed, nothing is new under the sun.   Jun 28, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Self referential is not factual.

Statements like what you shared only exist to shore up inconsistencies.

For example...

1) I am the boss, you do everything I tell you to do.
2) Any questions, see rule number one.   Jun 28, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Perhaps this will help illustrate why I am not accepting what you offer...   Jun 28, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Here is a fairly concise version of how the Egyptians adopted The Code of King Hammurabi.

The Egyptians referred to it as the '42 Principles of Ma-at'. or the 'Admonitions of Maát'

They predate the Ten Commandments by 2000 years or so...
And this one compares the two items

These documents do exist and can be viewed by the public...

Here is a different translation showing how they correlate with the 10 commandments. Moses was an Egyptian (he was adopted by an Egyptian royal family) and would have been familiar with these principles:

I. Thou shalt not kill, nor bid anyone kill.
II. Thou shalt not commit adultery or rape.
III. Thou shalt not avenge thyself nor burn with rage.
IV. Thou shalt not cause terror.
V. Thou shalt not assault anyone nor cause anyone pain.
VI. Thou shalt not cause misery.
VII. Thou shalt not do any harm to man or to animals.
VIII. Thou shalt not cause the shedding of tears.
IX. Thou shalt not wrong the people nor bear them any evil intent.
X. Thou shalt not steal nor take that which does not belong to you.
XI. Thou shalt not take more than thy fair share of food.
XII. Thou shalt not damage the crops, the fields, or the trees.
XIII. Thou shalt not deprive anyone of what is rightfully theirs.
XIV. Thou shalt not bear false witness, nor support false allegations.
XV. Thou shalt not lie, nor speak falsely to the hurt of another.
XVI. Thou shalt not use fiery words nor stir up any strife.
XVII. Thou shalt not speak or act deceitfully to the hurt of another.
XVIII. Thou shalt not speak scornfully against others.
XIX. Thou shalt not eavesdrop.
XX. Thou shalt not ignore the truth or words of righteousness.
XXI. Thou shalt not judge anyone hastily or harshly.
XXII. Thou shalt not disrespect sacred places.
XXIII. Thou shalt cause no wrong to be done to any workers or prisoners.
XXIV. Thou shalt not be angry without good reason.
XXV. Thou shalt not hinder the flow of running water.
XXVI. Thou shalt not waste the running water.
XXVII. Thou shalt not pollute the water or the land.
XXVIII. Thou shalt not take God's name in vain.
XXIX. Thou shalt not despise nor anger God.
XXX. Thou shalt not steal from God.
XXXI. Thou shalt not give excessive offerings nor less than what is due.
XXXII. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.
XXXIII. Thou shalt not steal from nor disrespect the dead.
XXXIV. Thou shalt remember and observe the appointed holy days.
XXXV. Thou shalt not hold back the offerings due God.
XXXVI. Thou shalt not interfere with sacred rites.
XXXVII. Thou shalt not slaughter with evil intent any sacred animals.
XXXVIII. Thou shalt not act with guile or insolence.
XXXIX. Thou shalt not be unduly proud nor act with arrogance.
XL. Thou shalt not magnify your condition beyond what is appropriate.
XLI. Thou shalt do no less than your daily obligations require.
XLII. Thou shalt obey the law and commit no treason.

The links I shared contain more details...   Jun 28, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca Regarding unicorns, they exist(ed)...

Regarding the 'Admonitions of Maát', I don't understand how the two translations can be so different, do you? For example I was unable to find "Thou shalt remember and observe the appointed holy days." in the other collection. Why?

Again that the obvious principles from the Ten Commandments can be found in older codex is not a proof that the Ten Commandments were not given by God to Moshe on the Sinai Mount.   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – This is probably one of the biggest failures to separate fantasy from reality I have seen in quite a while...

Regarding unicorns, they exist(ed)..."

That statement has inserted you in to the Laughing stock hall of fame!!!

Though It does one other thing for for both of us...

It puts Unicorns and the Ten Commandments in the same category...

And it shows that your version of reality is based on a child's bed time stories... And I don't mean really cool ones like this one by Adam Mansbach:   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca It is your right to believe this... But the Torah explains that unicorns exist(ed) and their skins were used for some purpose during the peregrinations of the Hebrew People in the desert.
I will make you laugh again but sirens exist(ed) too.   Jun 29, 2011

unicorns and sirens!

LOL! that is a HOOOT!!!   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab I am glad I made you laugh... Still it is the truth and eventually you'll see it.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – That unicorns exist?? Do you understand how ridiculous you sound??   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab
I said exist(ed)... I am not sure they still exist.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – Not sure they still exist? Well at least you are skeptical about something!
Lol   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – Tell me about the unicorns, B.   Jun 29, 2011
U-Ming Lee – I didn't realise unicorns existed, I've always been made to believe that they were just mythical. What does the Torah say about them?   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – So there is zero, like zero doubt in your special mind that unicorns walked
this planet.

It wasn't a translation error, or a fable, a symbol or a metaphor for
something else.

But horses with magical horns were walking about ancient Palestine??   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab
Do you believe in the theory of the evolution?   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – I believe in the theory of evolution as much as I believe in the theory of
gravity and germ theory.   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab
So you believe in it...
If you believe in it, are you aware that there are a lot of species which disappeared during the evolution?
If a lot of species disappeared during the evolution, why unicorns can't be one of them?   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – I guess for the same reason I don't think mermaids evolved and were

And if there was a race of horned equestrians, there would be lots of
evidence, including intermediate species.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – B, are you talking about a naturally occurring species of unicorn, or a
magical horse?
The distinction is important.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – B, what about Pegasus? Did they exist too? Or is that just silly?   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab –   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Does the Torah explain germs and gravity... If not... There is no way that a faithful Jew is ever going to accept that there are germs or gravity.... It's not in the Torah.

God damn goy with their germs and gravity... Spreading lies and trying to steal Jewish souls!

At least Jews have... ... to protect them!   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Though maybe Jews hunted down and killed all the Unicorns because "their skins were used for some purpose during the peregrinations of the Hebrew People in the desert."

What did Jews use the skins of 'sirens' for?   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab who talked about a magical horse? I am talking about naturally occurring species...   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – I don't know about Pegasus :-)
But as biologists say that some big dinosaurs flew, some kind of horses could have done it at some point too ;-)   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca Jews didn't use the skins of mermaids as far as I know...   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – That's the rub, B; because if the Torah said that Jew tents were made of
mermaid hide, you'd believe it whole heartedly.

Which is why nobody treats you seriously   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – So just some 'siren' fillet done in a lemon butter sauce... a sprig of dill on top. And maybe some tarter sauce (made from kosher ingredients of course.)

Would a Rabbi have to bless a meal like this?   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab Because I am sure the Torah is the truth...   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – To quote Sean Connery, "Boy, I think you might be legally retarded"   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – You can think whatever you want but I am right :-)   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – U-Ming Lee I missed your comment. What do you want to know?   Jun 29, 2011
U-Ming Lee – It's just the first time I've heard of the unicorn as a real creature. I think maybe it's not the unicorn as it is popularly known, i.e. a horse with a single horn, but more like some sort of single horned creature? Was wondering what the Torah had to say about that.   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Is that link meant to add some form of credibility?...

Where exactly in the Torah is there mention of a Unicorn?   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – That says it is mentioned in the Talmud, not the Torah... There is supposedly 1500-1800 year gap between them... And the great flood was supposed to have occurred about 300 years before the Torah was produced.

So the time between the Great Flood and when Rabbis started writing the Talmud is about 2000 years...

And all those years later the best they could come up with is that a single unicorn held on to the Ark by its horn. And this is somehow pertinent to Jewish Law... That speaks volumes.

... And you believe this crap? It never occurred to you that this stuff could have been a fictional story?

Look at what Tolkien came up with living in the 1970's England... There was far less in the way of distractions in the dessert centuries ago...

These folks who wrote this stuff were either not very creative or were certain that the collective IQ of their audience must be pretty low if they thought themselves convincing.

You are sounding less and less like a grown man and more like an 8 year old girl to be so gullible.

And whats even worse is that you actually consider it as factual, yet question the validity of eyewitness accounts of things that happen in your own backyard.

The saddest part is that you refuse to find out for yourself... Your opinions have all been provided to you and your perspective is not your own.

That you posses the propensity to call any other human being a deluded or crazy person is either you preaching to the choir or shows that (at least in Israel) the inmates are truly running the asylum.

I personally suspect it is the latter of the two.   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – "the same as the great horned mammal known as "Re'em" in many places in the Bible (Job 39:9-12; Ps. 22:21, 29:6; Num. 23:22, 24:8; Deut. 33:17, et al)."
=> This is from the Bible and some from the Torah itself.

the "tachash" mentioned in the Bible (Exodus 26:14 et al) as an animal used for its skins, particularly to make the curtains of the Tabernacle, as a colorful unicorn that only appeared at that location in the desert for Moses to use for the Tabernacle, and afterward became extinct in that location. It is also assumed to be a kosher mammal.
=> This is from the Torah.

I was even not referring to the Talmud but to the Torah itself so your whole comment doesn't answer my point.   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – By your own standards for what convinces you... Your own assertions cannot be considered as reasonable enough to convince anyone.

Neither the Bible or the Torah contain anything other than parables and stories meant to convey a concept. These writings are stories. They are not meant to be taken literally. The value in them is no different than those written by (attributed to) Aesop. You waked away with a 'moral of the story.   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – The Torah can be understood at 4 different levels and the literal level is one of them.   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Adam R Sweet Do we really need another social network?   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – So many things that can be taken literally, most certainly should not be taken literally. At the top of that list are the Torah and the Bible. Failing to recognize this, is why folks like you cant distinguish fact from fiction, reality from fantasy.

You have demonstrated this type of disorder consistently and from many angles. You are living in a proverbial cartoon.

The Unicorn and Mermaid thing just drove it home.

Please don't try and subject any small children to your version of rationality. Children who are exposed to this type of abuse are the ones who end up on drugs and / or become violent sexual deviants later in life because they never got a grip on reality.   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca You are really funny...

"Children who are exposed to this type of abuse are the ones who end up on drugs and / or become violent sexual deviants later in life because they never got a grip on reality."
=> You can probably do a study and you'll find that children born and raised among religious Jews are less on drugs and less become violent sexual deviants later in life than many (I almost said any but it was too arrogant ;-)) other ethnological group.

Again the Torah has got four levels of understanding and the literal one is one of them and the simplest one but even this one is too difficult for you ;-) Just kidding...   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – And that literal one seems like that is where you are stuck. In cartoon land!
I like how you said 'almost', so as to not leave yourself out I guess...   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca You are the one living in a cartoon land believing that out of chaos, order can be created randomly... This is so illogical that I wonder how a regular guy can believe this is the truth.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – faith..... odd stuff indeed.   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Logic can not be applied to religion.
What chaos?

Terms like chaos being used to sell religious rhetoric to weak minded, insecure and easily manipulated.

'JOIN OUR RELIGION TO SAVE YOURSELF FROM CHAOS' else be doomed to a life of torment and SATANS HELL FIRE.

Also, please give us money and spread the word.

And you call illogical, those who see this as bullshit.

fear mongering fucks.   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca I don't talk about saving yourself from chaos... I am talking about the creation of the world. At the first instant of the Big Bang the universe was a chaos and you believe that out of this chaos, order appeared in a random manner. If this is not faith, I don't know what it is :-)   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – as opposed to a superbeing using magic?   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab, do you really believe that chaos becoming order randomly or by mistake is more plausible that something/someone guiding chaos into order?   Jun 29, 2011
john g – "Logic can not be applied to religion" Absurd. That is a pretty narrow view of religion. I suppose there is no logic in how they came up with things like yoga? No logic in how Taoists cultivate Chi? Likewise it is absurd, narrow, and really really stupid to be dismissive of faith with the completely foolish, sophomoric idea that reason and science are the only things with explanatory power.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – I think saying chaos became order shows that you don't understand the early universe or cosmology.

besides, unicorns did it is an acceptable explanation to you - if those words were written down a couple thousand years ago.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – when water freezes into ice - is that chaos (liquid state matter) becoming order (crystalline solid state matter)   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab And obviously you understand early universe or cosmology better, right? :-)
The problem is not about the change from chaos to order but the fact that it is done by mistake or in a random manner. Regarding your example of water freezing, there is no random. If you try to freeze water in the same way twice, the results will be twice exactly the same.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – If you try to freeze water in the same way twice, the results will be twice exactly the same.

no, actually - the quantum states will be different and planck scale differences will occur.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – and yeah - I have studied physics, astronomy, and cosmology - I have read Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking - I think I do actually know more about the early universe than you do.   Jun 29, 2011
john g – Lets not get into "God does not play dice with the universe," quantum mechanical reality sidetracks. God does in fact play dice and a whole lot more so that you can repeat the exact same experiment and get very different results.   Jun 29, 2011
john g – Since Ryan IT Lab has read so much Einstein he should certainly be able to elaborate on Einstein's beliefs in the cosmology and philosophy of his fellow seminal Jew genius, Baruch Spinoza.   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab
"I do actually know more"
=> you should have wrote "I believe I know more"

Anyway I can't understand how you believe the creation of the universe happened by mistake.   Jun 29, 2011
john g – He could have more accurately said "I think I do know virtually more" rather than actually know more. Indeed, how is "actually" knowing more different than just plain old knowing more?   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab, this drawing is completely false... Many scientifics are theists and love to study the world to understand how things work. To understand how things work is exactly what the science is about and this doesn't compete with the religion which doesn't answer to how things work but to why things work that way.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – This picture of a bunny is completely false!
lulz ^_^   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – The picture is not false, what is false is the message this drawing tries to convey...
Atheists are arrogant, they believe they are more clever than theists and it is obviously false. The average IQ of the Atheists is not bigger than the average IQ of the Theists...   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – wrong again -> Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – Also -> The average IQ of the Atheists is not bigger

that is the funniest thing you have said all day! lulz!!!   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – it isn't measured in bigness - you dolt!   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Bigger, higher... Sorry English is not my mother tongue... Am I an idiot because of that?
@Ryan IT Lab, you believe it is higher?
I was not talking about geniuses, I was talking about an average.
You know why very intelligent people tend to not believe in God?
Because they are arrogant and they believe they are Gods ;-)   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – but yes, every time intelligence is measured against religiosity - the Higher the IQ score, the less likely they will believe in gods.   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Is English your mother tongue?
I gave you an explanation why the higher the IQ score, the less likely they will believe in God...   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – because you think.... that we believe we are gods????
yeah, the dolt remark stands, ESL or no   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – In my country 15-20% of people do not believe in god.
In some countries the percentage is higher - even the majority are atheists in some countries.
Why do you think that is - what reasons do people have for being atheists?
Is it because we all think we are gods?   Jun 29, 2011
john g – Let's do a sample from Mr. IT Lab's reading list. Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking. Of the three Einstein is not an atheist and has by any measure the highest intelligence and vastly more historic influence and significance. I guess Mr. IT Lab did not really read too much about Einstein or guys like J Robert Oppenheimer. But back to the IT Lab trio, Carl Sagan as agnostic scientist..."An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – And referring to something that occurred before time (and so therefore not completely understood /relatively unknown)... Calling it 'The Big Bang' and claiming it must have been god is an 'argument from ignorance'.

Not knowing or understanding something is no reason to attribute it to an imaginary anything... It is OK to not have an explanation for everything... That the human mind naturally is intolerant of a vacuum is how the unanswered started to be attributed to 'god' in the first place. Everything from infections to lightening... Then Jews come along with their ritualistic kosher unicorn curtains.


john g
Faith and Logic cannot occupy the same space. They are diametric both in concept and in definition.

Yoga is not a religion... It is a meditation. Yoga is Sanskrit for Union or Yoke. Indian Vedics would practice Yoga for long periods in preparation for even longer deeper meditations that could last days... This practice was introduced to the West by none other than Aleister Crowley.

The whole 'Chi' thing is not part of the Tao Te Ching... Read it yourself if you don't believe me.

That there are non-secular versions of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc. Is a demonstration of how simple lessons are easily turned into codified, edified and administered products. This is where Chi energy 'and-all-that' comes from.

And don't get me started on Hinduism... What a fucking mess that is... Good thing there ARE Vedics... Let me tell you! (lol)

You are going to have to try pretty hard if you want to debate Eastern philosophies with me... I have dedicated the past 30 years or so studying and teaching them. Better still. give up now.

As far as the I.Q. of Atheists... The members of my local chapter ALL call themselves Atheist.

I have been a dues paying member since I was 15. My Mom insisted that I join when she found that I was reading a collection of Carl Jung's essays. She already knew by then that I could (self taught) read electrical schematics and diagrams etc...

I bring that up only to prove a point...

Stupid Atheist... I.   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Wrong Einstein WAS an Atheist...

From a Jewish background, but was able to figure out how stupid the idolatry and hypocrisy was that is inherent to religion.

Apparently Einstein was also so arrogant that he thought he was a 'god'

Or it could be that preists and rabbis etc telling their flock that Atheists are 'arrogant' and that they think they are 'gods' is just good business and job security.   Jun 29, 2011
john g – Sorry Rich LaDuca you don't know what you are talking about. Shall we begin?   Jun 29, 2011
john g –   Jun 29, 2011
john g – Why do you think I brought up Spinoza you idiot.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
That means he - Einstein just to refresh your insectlike memory - believes in an impersonal God, like Brahman. You dumbasses really have a hard time with that concept.   Jun 29, 2011
john g – Rich LaDuca is evidently too lazy and stupid to even bother to read the google links that he posts.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – I'm a big fan of Einstein, and like most thinking people, his views on gods changed a lot during his life.
If you would like that to be the direction of this thread - I don't mind.

But it is very clear that he was non-religious and did not believe in a creator for the majority of his life.   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – We shall...

'' is registered to 'Arnold Lesikar' who also owns ''

"A websearch for Professor "Arnold V Lesikar" and "Albert Einstein" should lead to many more such sentiments by Einstein collected by Professor Lesikar. Yet, because Einstein was apt to call Nature God, dishonest Christians are always trying to corral him for their dubious cause."

I don't try to imagine a God. It suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
~~ Einstein, letter 1953

To assume the existence of an unperceivable being… does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world.
~~ Einstein, letter to an Iowan student

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests.
~~ Albert Einstein

In another conversation Lesikar shares this Einstein quote:
And in an interview with Professor William Hermanns, he said: "I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar." As to what one could believe in, the answer was simple enough. "I believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can't. You know them to be true but you could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap."

Einstein was most certainly not a deist... He affirmed that he was not able to explain how he came to understand everything he postulated... But he was not calling it 'god; at all...   Jun 29, 2011
john g – I guess Spinoza was really an atheist too, along with Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin and Pascal. This is really a giant waste of my time to bother responding to morons like Rich LaDuca.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – john g - you misspelled intelligent conversationalist.   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – More quotes...

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)

For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

Plenty more...

Shall we continue?   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – @Rich - that is all nonsense, why? because I don't want to recognize it   Jun 29, 2011
john g – Rich LaDuca - Yet again we reach a point of hopelessness with your abject ignorance.
Believe whatever bullshit you choose. Same as it ever was.   Jun 29, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – ^--- la la la la la can't hear you la la la la ---^   Jun 29, 2011
Rich LaDuca – ORLY?

What part of what I have shared is false? At what point did I display a lack of factual reasoning or as you call it 'ignorance'

If I have presented bullshit... point it out.

Show me one thing that I posted about your claims that hasn't been or cant be proven.

I even provided citations where available.

What I suspect is that the only way you can dismiss what you cant argue against is to call it bullshit... This also allows you to keep the tide with the fairytale 'god' you use to justify what you cant understand or don't want to deal with.

Facts do tend to disrupt...

Stupid, arrogant, ignorant, bullshit, god, Atheist... I.   Jun 29, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – It is funny for me that Atheists believe Theists are stupid... This is factually false.   Jun 30, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – based upon what facts??   Jun 30, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – based on the fact Theists are as intelligent in average as Atheists.
And even if it is less (I don't think it is), the average IQ of Theists is not at stupidity level.   Jun 30, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Baroukh

What are you basing "the fact Theists are as intelligent in average as Atheists" on?
Where can your facts be verified?   Jun 30, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – I am in contact with many people and I didn't see any divergence in the intelligence level between these two populations.   Jun 30, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Well, you called it a 'fact', yet in actuality... It was an observation or an opinion. It is what you believe... But that does not make it factual at all.

You have already illustrated that you have a hard time with contrary facts (and opinions) and now you are calling your own opinion a fact.

As the saying goes:
"Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

"Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts"

Calling an opinion a fact is how people are mislead and lied to. This is most likely why you think Unicorns are real. It is the nature of religion to create 'facts'. In this way the (just as ignorant) religious leaders are able to placate their flocks desire to have answers for what they cant figure out on their own.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing / ignorance... Waiting for knowledge, understanding, perspective is O.K. Effort is sometimes required to gain the information.

Making shit up and calling it factual is deleterious, damaging and fraudulent. Calling one who points out the fraud a liar, doubly so.

Stupid, arrogant, ignorant, bullshit, god, Atheist, doubly so ... I.   Jun 30, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca Could you please provide me with FACTS proving my opinion is wrong?   Jun 30, 2011
john g – Facts are stupid things for Rich LaDuca who continues to insist on things like the atheism of Albert Einstein. Likewise Mr. IT Lab, who is a big Einstein reader, concludes he "did not believe in a creator for the majority of his life."
I suppose then this book written by Israeli physicist Max Jammer who was a personal friend of Einstein is all lies:
pp. 48:

"When Einstein was once asked to define God, he gave
the following allegorical answer,
I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a
pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written
those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The
child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is.
That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most
intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws
but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited
minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism,
but admire even more his contribution to modern
thought because he is the first philosopher to deal
with the soul and body as one, and not two separate
Or see Jammer's many footnotes like 132 on pp 151 where he addresses the topic.
I guess a statement that begins: "Not only was Einstein not an atheist but his writings..."
means that he really was an atheist when his writings are read by the Rich LaDucas of the world.   Jun 30, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – john g The problem is that it is not possible that Einstein was not Atheist, he was too intelligent to be a Theist ;-)   Jun 30, 2011
john g – Given Einstein's fondness for heretics like Spinoza it is unfortunate that Einstein did not have enough free time to read the collected works of Mark Twain. Certainly not his newly released autobiography. As a Presbyterian Protestant heretic Twain gives the current crop of scientificist atheist authors the collective stature of General Tom Thumb.   Jun 30, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Baroukh
"Could you please provide me with"...

This further demonstrates my assertion related to "what they cant figure out on their own."

And in this instance you are expecting the the world to provide you with an explanation for what you don't understand. The world does not owe you an explanation.

And Ryan already provided links to the facts... Here it is again:

john g
The previously posted quotes still stand up as a testament to disprove your insistence that Einstein was a deist.

Collectively (and demonstrated by Baroukh here and elsewhere) the way religion is presented is / as: The blind faith adherence to a collection of stories that are only loosely connected to historical events and others that use allegory to present a lesson, taken literally.

Einstein did not subscribe to this. That fact is well known... Insisting otherwise is grasping at straws. And trying to unravel your claim by way of semantical inconsistencies only further proves that you are trying to force an opinion in to where only facts will fit.

'Jammer also notes that although chapter three reflects the opinions of "prominent theologians and scientists," Einstein himself may well have rejected all arguments based upon them.'

Seeing 'god' as existing within the universal benevolence we humans could (and should) share is something that most can appreciate. This appreciation does not require recognizing a supernatural being or inserting fairytales about unicorns etc.

That any rational person needs to believe in unicorns or an Ark that held all the animals really cheapens the level of rationality such a person could possible posses or display.

That benevolence has been bypassed and its absence justified is probably the biggest factor in what makes it easy to deduce that the 'god' that religions sell, could not exist.

It is the vehemence of your insistence that there is a 'god' that works against your argument. It is the lack of factual evidence that makes you into an angry hypocrite.

Your deep need to validate a concept that (you did not create and) was forced on to you as an infant... Leaves you desperate to convince others to agree with you. And you use ambiguity and uncertainty to sway your argument. When that fails you switch to invoking anger, accusations, and insults. When that fails, you move on to demonizing.

Stupid, arrogant, ignorant, bullshit, god, Atheist, doubly so, accused, insulted, demonized ... I.   Jun 30, 2011
john g – Rich LaDuca - I did not say or insist Einstein was a deist. YOU Rich LaDuca, moron that you are, do insist that he was an atheist and I have shown that to be false. Perhaps your unique understanding of atheism includes persons who say, "I'm not an atheist." No doubt your understanding of atheism and religions in general is far beyond that of Albert Einstein and myself as well. Given your self styled delusional notions of concepts like the scientific method, epistemology, philosophy and religion, this is certainly the case. Nevertheless I am certainly correct in pointing out your idiocy.   Jun 30, 2011
john g – Rich LaDuca's response valid? He gives a one page wiki thumbnail (without even bothering to comment) to answer my posting a link to with an entire .pdf of the book along with a quote from Einstein that absolutely contradicts him. How is that in any way remotely valid or even comparable? Wiki as a source as opposed to Princeton? Gee, didn't Einstein actually spend some time there at Princeton? Like maybe they know alot about him, more than even Wiki!   Jun 30, 2011
Rich LaDuca – I provided a lot more than one link... And a retired Teacher from Princeton is no more significant than one from any other school. Hammers opinion does not supplant Einsteins words (such as those I quoted). That '' is involved is meaningless, it is not a leverage point, other than for you, grasping at straws to try and prove a point that simply is not true...

I read the Max Jammer book, but from the first sentences Jammer identifies that he is postulating:
In his autobiography, Einstein wrote that "the essential in the being of a man of my type lies precisely in what he thinks and how he thinks, not in what he does or suffers." Had we strictly complied with this statement ,...

This same postulation continues throughout and Hammer labels it as opinion frequently.

Very little of the book is focused on what Einstein actually said. and what quotes are included are from his early life... This is what the book wrests on.

I can easily see by the opinion Jammer presents, that Einstein was likely deist in his younger years. Though it is common for maturity and wisdom to eventually displace that with the objective and pragmatic view of an Atheist... This same progression is seen when comparing Hammers opinion with quotes of Einstein's later life.

That Wiki quoting Jammer not only proves the point I was making but it dismisses your claims. Jammer provided a postulated opinion. While not contrived, his book was not about anything but his opinion of a Young Einstein.

Einstein grew up and abandoned this fairytale... The same one you are apparently still stuck in... Grow up.

god is nothing more than an excuse, a scapegoat for mans ignorance, and violence. Convenient to have an imaginary force to blame it all on.

Maturity allows the viewer to set aside the fantasy and see the underlying message. 'There is no need to assign a supernatural presence to this concept...' This is the same thing that Einstein was saying... When he speaks about Nature.

What a brilliant and beautiful man.   Jul 1, 2011
john g – Unbelievable. Beyond ignorance. Bellicose stupidity. Rich LaDuca is a fine example for atheist rationality.   Jul 1, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Hide behind insults all you want. If that is the best way you can conceive to argue your point, it is perfectly consistent with how logic and faith are diametric and what a conflict of the two produces in the mind of the deist.

At wits end you resort to name calling.

I present you with facts and I am ignorant. I back up those facts with reasoning and I am bellicose and stupid.

You respond to those facts and reasoning as a blathering idiot rather than addressing them.

And, you may want to better understand bellicose before you go insulting someone as you have done more than once here..

None of your claims have proven the ability to stand up. And your core assertions are without merit beyond faith.

Faith is one thing, but you present yourself as blindly faithful and belligerently so.

Keep coming with the insults so you can further prove your belligerence. Continue with holier than thou attitude to show just how spiritual you really aren't.

Meanwhile I will stick to verifiable facts to balance out your inability to process contrary information regardless.

Maturity allows the viewer to set aside the fantasy and see the underlying message. 'There is no need to assign a supernatural presence to this concept...'   Jul 1, 2011
john g – I see, my quoting Einstein saying "I'm not an atheist" when asked to define God is proof that that he was really an atheist, at least according to the logic and beliefs of Rich LaDuca, You have certainly have uniquely bizarre notions of atheism and general logic that is for sure.   Jul 1, 2011
Rich LaDuca – So the single quote you found in one document is somehow more significant that the numerous quoteS I shared... Not to mention others included in the links I shared and countless others that are easy enough to find on your own. Not that you are going to put effort in to seeing your mistakes... I'm doubting that you actually read Jammers book.

You have certainly have uniquely bizarre notions of Einstein and general logic that is for sure.

You are grasping at air and calling it solid... I'm not surprised by this,,, That is what faith is all about.   Jul 1, 2011
Rich LaDuca – The insults started from elsewhere and were aimed at mine and Ryans Atheist perspective...

"atheism is very stupid"
"You dumbasses really have a hard time"
"responding to morons like Rich LaDuca"
"hopelessness with your abject ignorance. Believe whatever bullshit you choose."
"Facts are stupid things for Rich LaDuca"
"YOU Rich LaDuca, moron that you are"

Bayan - I see you as an intelligent and enlightened person, and I take it that you view god and faith as a template for humanity not to be blindly accepted (From my reading the Koran, this is my understanding of what Mohammed originally taught).

To the contrary, this 'john g' (who is not willing to use his name on line) and Baroukh seem to blindly accept on 'faith' some rather disturbing concepts... Unicorns for one... But the list is endless, and includes using god and faith to justify what is happening in Palestine.

Where compassion, understanding and tolerance belong, these are the personality types that want to think of themselves as compassionate, understanding and tolerant. But their behaviors and attitudes consistently show otherwise.

You most certainly do not belong in that category. It is my understanding that perception of faith is nothing like theirs. I don't think you would be giving yourself the credit you deserve as an individual comparing yourself to them in such a way.

Watching these kinds of compassionate, understanding and tolerant people fumble over their own rationality to the point of having only insults left, is, for me a continuation of character studies I will employ later on...   Jul 1, 2011
john g – fyi "atheism is very stupid" is from Carl Sagan. Do not attribute it to me. Let me put that in context for you: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

I do accept, in fact I will insist, on claiming full attribution for:

"responding to morons like Rich LaDuca"
"hopelessness with your abject ignorance. Believe whatever bullshit you choose."
"Facts are stupid things for Rich LaDuca"
"YOU Rich LaDuca, moron that you are"   Jul 1, 2011
Rich LaDuca – In the meantime, not one part of what I pointed out has been proven inaccurate.

I do accept, in fact I will insist, on claiming full attribution for:

Watching these kinds of compassionate, understanding and tolerant people fumble over their own rationality to the point of having only insults left, is, for me a continuation of character studies I will employ later on...

That all you have are insults shows you as baseless, and crass. That you would rather attack than defend shows that you are incapable of independent thought on the subject. The belligerent way you react to facts and reasoning that present contrary opinion, shows you to be of limited intellect. In all these ways you further demonstrate what I am pointing out... So thank you... And thank you again for making it so easy for me.   Jul 1, 2011
Rich LaDuca – If not Muslim I would have guessed Gnostic. I was not too far off.
I have only a vague understanding of Druze... But that is probably not surprising.
Have you red the 'Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagels?
It is the result of gospels that were found at Nag Hammadi.

It presents an amazing perspective on the Jesus that was known well before the Catholic Church waged war on anything they did not approve of.   Jul 1, 2011
john g – A very interesting AE quote shows how even back before WWII he was dealing with and angry about atheists quoting him and worse, claiming that he was one:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." p.p. 516 of Ronald W. Clark, Einstein the Life and Times

Evidently this is still a problem.   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – As you can prolly imagine, atheism was different in the 1920's -

From a correspondence between Ensign Guy H. Raner and Albert Einstein in 1945 and 1949. Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest: "I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth."

But by today's standards - he prolly would have identified himself as one   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – people have been bringing Einstein into atheist arguments for almost 100 years

I used him to talk about cosmology - not by saying because he is a great mind and an atheist - and because of that all smart people are atheists - I would never make such a claim.

Many smart and good people I know believe in god, in their own way (although nobody I respect has ever claimed unicorns exist - LOL)

what he believed was unique - because he was such a great mind. It prolly will never fit in the modern definitions of theist or atheist.

But he certainly did not believe in a personal god - one who watches people - or guided the jews out of Egypt - or flooded the world.

he was way to smart for that noise   Jul 2, 2011
john g – Clearly AE did not like lies of any sort being fabricated about his beliefs. That included everyone from Jews to Jesuits and Atheists. I keep saying repeatedly that he did not believe in a personal god and that includes the larger part of humanity now and in the 1920s. He believed in an impersonal god and that does not make him an atheist in any era by any generally accepted definition.
If your personal definition of atheism includes belief in an impersonal God then that is a
meaningless definition at best. AE was certainly not agnostic either. He felt his discoveries supported his ideas of god and he wanted them to be a basis for a more modern religious science. That is the context for his very famous quote about science w/o religion is lame religion w/o science blind.   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – I have no problem with people who believe in an impersonal god.

it is usually exactly the same awe I have with the natural universe.

and as long as we all don't believe in the type of god who judges people, commands them to eat certain things, flooded the world, scrambled language at the tower of babel (<--- never happened), and so forth - we get along great.

what they call god, I call wonder and awe - and we get along.

I just don't like people who say that they KNOW what god is and what god wants.

I don't like homophobes who use scripture as a precursor to hatred and violence.

I don't dig on people who say that the garden of eden was a literal place on this planet, and claim that the earth was once entirely flooded.

I am an atheist - I do not believe gods exist; but I have no problem with peaceful believers who do not try to thrust superstition or fables off as truth   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – the type of atheism that I am a part of simply didn't exist in Einstein's time

genetics and evolution theory were not as developed.

I can totally see a 21st century Einstein being my kind of atheist   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – and the quotes Rich delivered backed up the more modern definition of atheism than anything else - which was his point   Jul 2, 2011
john g – Well I can give you plenty of examples of impersonal god belief groups that you would not exactly want to have as next door neighbors vis-a-vis some of the most fire&brimstone Billy Jim Bobs, the Osmond family (as long as they keep the crappy singing down) etc.   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – Yeah - and I don't dig on scientologists either - what's your point?   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – people who are fire and brimstone types do not fair well with me - you can believe that   Jul 2, 2011
john g – The point is that it is how they behave and not what they believe.   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – people who keep they beliefs (bigfoot, aliens, unicorns, fairies) to themselves get no static from me.

but people who insist they are right (homeopathy, crystal healing, tarot) receive my skepticism.   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – john g - if you had someone on your stream who believed in crystal healing and would argue with you about the crystal's magical healing power - how would you deal with it?   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – john g - you are right - it isn't what you believe - it is how you act.

and the way you act (and how you behave in posts), makes you not someone I respect   Jul 2, 2011
john g – In the US at least I can't think of any belief based things that are outlawed. In China as a counterexample I am fairly certain that the practice of something like Falun Dafa is illegal by most standards. For the US the example of it being illegal to resurrect an Aztec sacrifice cult is not valid. You can have all the Aztec ritual you want up to the point of human sacrifice or advocacy of violent overthrow of the lawful government of the United States of America. The closest things now in the US I see are hate speech laws. The Aztec cult will get into problems if they insist on saying certain things.   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – The Aztec cult will get into problems if they insist on saying certain things

Nope - not if they only say things.

If they do animal cruelty - that is against the law   Jul 2, 2011
john g – I don't think PETA or any local law enforcement official has ever taken on voodoo groups as a test of animal cruelty laws. Anyway, human sacrifice is a proxy for all things illegal such as animal/child abuse, church of the meth lab, etc.
As far as how I "behave" in posts, this is the fucking web not reality. I could just as well be a computer or an alien for all you know. Like it is makes a difference that I have more respect for the Alien as an innocent animal vs. the more human like Predator who wants to kill everything else for sport. If you are a big Predator fan then fuck you.   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – I don't think PETA or any local law enforcement official has ever taken on voodoo groups as a test of animal cruelty laws

the quote here is I don't think

because if you bothered to google this - you would find many cases where people engaging in animal sacrifice or torture were, in fact, tried and convicted.

dammit boy, use your brain.   Jul 2, 2011
john g – OK, I don't BELIEVE voodoo groups who like to make and take drugs , in the same way as native Americans got a pass for doing peyote and other drugs as part of the religion, have ever been legally challenged. The point is I can't come up with a single example of a group outlawed for beliefs in the US. You can have a church of the sacred dogfight as long as you don't have real dogfights, feature dogfight videos, etc. You can probably even get tax exemption and keep it even after they bust your church for dogfights.
The way things are going on the internet it looks like some of these content provider groups will get outlaw status. If you allow a Mr. Hands shows the kids how to make playground landmines, the little home political candidate assassination kit, razor fragments for teacher, luggage bombs 123, etc. on you servers then you stand a pretty good chance of getting shut down even with free speech. So web behavior it is not entirely virtual reality- behavior w/o consequences. I'm sure someone has compiled a list of web inspired crimes, disputes that lead to murder and mayhem, google fuck up leads to arrests, torture and murder, etc.
The way I see it all versions of "STFU stupid" are pretty mild by comparison and really a very much needed thing. To be the snark lord of STFU seems to be a major obsession of these social nets.   Jul 2, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – U mad bro?   Jul 2, 2011
john g – I gave up being angry about things a long time ago.   Jul 2, 2011
john g –
I enjoy making the conjecture first and then seeing it proven via the web.
Or vice-versa   Jul 2, 2011
Rich LaDuca – The concepts and acts noted in those links are not new. Same passenger, same road, same destination, same stops along the way... Just a newer vehicle in regards to Facebook (electronic communications of that type)

And the wiki about Santería is yet another example / demonstration of how absurd the beliefs some hold about religion and god have evolved.

The same religious mindset that that justifies; killing (animals or people - for god), insists that Unicorns and Mermaids exist(ed), what foods to eat, etc... Are cultivating a dangerous escape from truth and reality. Those that take the reins of such causes will stop at nothing to manipulate others to their cause... And because we are on the subject... The cause at hand being Zionism...

That exact religious mindset has been manipulated to justify what Jews are doing in Palestine... These actions fall so far outside of the natural world and a 'personal god' that it is just as abhorrent as the slaughtering of animals or humans in the name of god and calling it a sacrifice. And it is being carried out for the exact same reasons.Because 'god' told them too... And unicorns I presume.

All because of a story that someone created in the past... And said it came from 'god'... For some that is all it takes to be convinced... Those adherents have no concept of the way a personal god fits into the natural world... They are just happy to have something to believe in, someone to follow, an excuse to not have to think beyond their nose, an answer to what they are not bright enough to figure out.

All the while these folks can find a group to call an enemy (to strengthen their bond) and be guided to shun, hate, and attack them. Be they a different religion, different color oe nationality, or Atheist...

I proposed to my wife the other day this:

Many women worship chocolate... This is how men are becoming their enemy.

She lovingly punched me in the arm and took a big bite of chocolate graduation cake! Seemingly to prove my point.

These same attitudes towards non-believers is frequently displayed by 'the faithful'. In the face of contentious or contrary opinions they take an even bigger bite of their chocolate and lash out at those who don't eat it with them...

"atheism is very stupid"
"You dumbasses really have a hard time"
"responding to morons like Rich LaDuca"
"hopelessness with your abject ignorance. Believe whatever bullshit you choose."
"Facts are stupid things for Rich LaDuca"
"YOU Rich LaDuca, moron that you are"

The cake is a lie!   Jul 2, 2011
john g – Unicorns are in the same category as black swans and white whales. Nothing precludes the historical existence of Unicorns. That is a pretty simple case I think and not in the proof of a negative category either. Simple minded atheists like Penn Jillette love to make a trivial can't prove a negative argument but mess it up by making it an elephant in the car trunk. The point is to make it a leprechaun in the car trunk or anything else absolutely fictional. A Cerberus with a 666 tattoo in the trunk of the car of Penn Jillette? An alien nuclear orbital tea kettle, whatever. Somebody could in fact put a baby elephant in his car trunk. If you want to be hardcore you can insist that if God wants to put a Cerberus in the trunk of Penn Jillette's car and have his sidekick doing the tat on it he/she or it can do it.
Now, Rich LaDuca continues to insist that Albert Einstein was an atheist. That is not a Unicorn, a Cerebus, anything in that category. You might as well say he was Christian or Muslim and try to defend that. Total bullshit even with the most liberal modern or historical definitions of atheism. Now he wants to drag Zionism into this and say how that is representative of a religious mindset that justifies killing. Since when does the religious mindset have an exclusive on the justification of killing? Not only that but, typical for Rich LaDiuca, he has the argument reversed. It is not the Jews using the religion to justify killing and terror, it is the other way around. Israel uses basic power and politics just like the US and every other major nation state for waging war, assassination, etc. The Jewish state does not advocate Muslim genocide last time I checked and you can't say that about the neighboring states.   Jul 2, 2011
john g – Square one is at least back on thread topic. By the way, I have many ex-pat Lebanese friends who do know all about Druze religion, practices, culture, everything. I was not able to get a photo of a really nice 5 point star medallion I got a glimpse of but that is probably for the best. I am satisfied just sticking to the basics of Islamic culture, arts, how to not get in trouble travelling in that part of the world-that kind of thing.   Jul 2, 2011
Rich LaDuca – "The Jewish state does not advocate Muslim genocide last time I checked"

ORLY! Where did you check?

If you'd have asked the Spaniards... They didn't advocate genocide in
South America in the late 15th on through most of the 16th centuries.

If you'd have asked the Federal government of the early U.S.... They Also didn't advocate genocide of the Natives in North America.

In both cases they found ways to justify what they did (the root cause being greed) and used their collective version of 'god' to make it all fine and dandy with the 'Almighty'.

This is EXACTLY what is happening in Palestine. And it is all fine and dandy with the Jews (well Zionists anyway) version of 'god' based on a litany of absurd reasons that just don't sand up to objective rational under any form of fair scrutiny.   Jul 2, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – How boring is this thread! I think I will stop participating in such threads on Buzz.
Here are the facts:
- Albert Einstein was not an atheist despite being extremely intelligent.
- Unicorns could have existed at some point of history and if you believe in the theory of evolution, you must agree that it is possible they existed. If I would have told you the Torah discussed about a crab which looks like a strawberry (The Torah doesn't talk about this and it is only an example) you would have make fun of me and say that this doesn't exist. Still such a species was found lately:
- I am still waiting for a proof Theists are collectively less clever than Atheists with an average IQ below.
- Israel doesn't advocate Muslim or Arab genocide and the comparison with other cases made by Rich LaDuca is pointless. This is simply false and if they did, they are simply not good at it. During the last 63 years, Israel killed a ridiculous number of people (while defending itself) in comparison to the cases provided and to many conflicts during that time.   Jul 3, 2011
Rich LaDuca – I think you are doing a GREAT job of proving just how clever theists are... If only in what you label as 'facts'... As of yet, you have not provided anything whatsoever in the way of evidence for your facts.

What you have done is show that deists are committed to allegory and rhetoric to replace facts... As if the term 'fact' was somehow ambiguous enough to accommodate opinion and rumor.

And the number of times I have insisted on the same treatment of information that you insist on... you wane away.

From where this conversation started and I was hoping that you could somehow show that you were less than a hypocrite who endorses the killing of Arabs... You have not only failed to do that, you have shown yourself and others with the mindset you share, to be narrow-minded and incapable of gathering perspective.

Whatever it takes you cling to a faith that allows you to kill in the name of god.   Jul 3, 2011
john g – "From where this conversation started and I was hoping that you could somehow show that you were less than a hypocrite who endorses the killing of Arabs.."
I think you were hoping he was something MORE than a hypocrite. At least from where the conversation started and. Wherever that is. And frankly, who cares.
So whatever it takes for him to cling to faith, it's not surprising then that he get bitter, he cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like him.   Jul 3, 2011
Rich LaDuca – "people who aren't like him"

And there is the division that breeds the hate that fuels the wars that kill the people 'god' is 'supposed' to love... There is the disconnect from sanity.

Vive la différence, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose   Jul 3, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca I am sorry but your sentence:
"Whatever it takes you cling to a faith that allows you to kill in the name of god."
doesn't apply to Judaism.
Today there is no way to kill in the name of God if you follow Judaism.
The only case Judaism tells you to kill someone if when this guy is on its way to kill you and this is not done in the name of God.   Jul 3, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Let me unravel that for you...

The Torah is (according to Jews) the word of 'god'.
The Torah is the basis Jews present as the reason they are in Palestine.
Israel defiantly employs deadly force against those who protest Jews being in Palestine.
The Torah is the basis Jews present as the reason they are in Palestine.
The Torah is (according to Jews) the word of 'god'.

Ergo... "Whatever it takes you cling to a faith that allows you to kill in the name of god. "   Jul 3, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Again a proof you are a biased liar Rich LaDuca
"Israel defiantly employs deadly force against those who protest Jews being in Palestine."
If you were not a biased liar you would have written:
"Israel defiantly employs deadly force against those who try to kill Jews in Palestine."   Jul 3, 2011
Rich LaDuca – But you JUST said...
"there is no way to kill in the name of God if you follow Judaism."

I'll even update what I unraveled... correct me where I am wrong...

The Torah is (according to Jews) the word of 'god'.
The Torah is the basis Jews present as the reason they are in Palestine.
Israel definitely employs deadly force against those who throw rocks at Jews in Palestine.
The Torah is the basis Jews present as the reason they are in Palestine.
The Torah is (according to Jews) the word of 'god'.   Jul 3, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Maybe what Baroukh is saying is that there really are no actual Jews in Israel.

They are Zionists... Must be a new soft drink flavor... Definitely not Jews though!

If they were Jews they would not harm a fly!   Jul 3, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – Ergo, all the Jews are in New York   Jul 3, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Again a proof you are biased and a liar...
Violence induces violence.
Stop the violence (including throwing rocks which can kill) and the violence will stop.
We are sorry, we learned to defend ourselves. We didn't know before.   Jul 3, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Bayan Rafeh "Arabs were not even there in the first place"   Jul 3, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Bayan Rafeh Invaders invaded, right?   Jul 3, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Bayan Rafeh Invaders were invaded again...   Jul 3, 2011
john g – Sorry Rich LaDuca, that antipathy to "people who aren't like him" applies if he lived in the rural US dealing with economic hardships as understood by Barack Obama. However in his oratorical brilliance Obama shows he understands the key to peace in all the Mideast. Much like ignorant rubes in the US clinging to guns and religion with festering hatred of outsiders in their cherished homelands, the real factors are economic and social. Indeed, it would be far less expensive both in treasure and blood for Israel and the US to turn a place like Gaza into a socialist paradise of Obamacare, free higher education, green energy projects, whatever it takes. If that means Israel must revert to pre 1967 borders and construct public housing, social services and green (we will of course provide the proper shades of green) energy factories, then this is clearly what must be done. That is what we all know what must be done. What must be done for a policy that is more than just a the hope for the change of peace, despite what some cynics say who refuse to live in a peaceful world.   Jul 3, 2011
Rich LaDuca – "Again a proof you are a biased liar " And a hypocrite...

"there is no way to kill in the name of God if you follow Judaism."

But we Jews will cherry pick what we want to follow...

I guess there must a 'Whatever is convenient clause in the Torah'...

We are sorry, we learned to defend ourselves. We didn't know before.

Along the same lines as...:

We are sorry, we learned to defend ourselves eat pork. We didn't know weren't hungry before.

We are sorry, we learned to defend ourselves fuck sheep. We didn't know weren't horny before.

You get the picture...   Jul 3, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Great! ANOTHER Republitard Foxfag trolling on Buzz.

Direct from the mouth of Sean Hannity, 'Fox and Friends', Rush Limbaugh...
"socialist paradise of Obamacare, free higher education, green energy projects"

I'm expecting quotes from the (now unemployed) Glenn Beck to follow in order for you to support the opinion you have had thrown at you and repeated incessantly and have adopted as your own .

Israel has produced a policy that includes continually provoking Arabs, then calling themselves the victim. Presumably hoping that their ruse will go unnoticed and then they can continue stealing land by force and killing off those who oppose them (while claiming that those they killed were the aggressor and just had to be killed)... Of course the killing is apparently not being carried out by actual Jews...

Because Baroukh says that Jews aren't allowed to kill.   Jul 3, 2011
john g – Better to write coherent English in any Republitard Foxfag troll hell then blather in atheist paradise with a sentence like: "From where this conversation started and I was hoping that you could somehow show that you were less than a hypocrite who endorses the killing of Arabs.."   Jul 3, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Correction...

ANOTHER Republitard Foxfag grammar Nazi trolling on Buzz...

lulz ^_^

Do you proof read as well? I am currently looking for editorial input and content / structure revisions for one of the books I am writing. Between my publisher and my peers, I am getting some great feedback so far!   Jul 3, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Bayan Rafeh The indigenous population was not arab...   Jul 3, 2011
Rich LaDuca – The indigenous population was not called arab.

Otherwise, where did all those who are now called 'Arab' come from?   Jul 3, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – From Saudi Arabia...   Jul 3, 2011
john g – Here are some title suggestions for a few of the many LaDuca tomes:
"Less Than Hypocrisy. How Publishers Take Advantage of The Mentally Impaired."
"Circle of Jerks. Peer Review In the Age of Social Networks."
"STFU Stupid, How I Discovered I Was Really a Genius, What Publishers Don't Want You To Know."
"Circles of Jerks. How Google Won The Social Network Wars by Stealing My Ideas"
"How to Command Respect From Complete Strangers On The Internet. The IT Lab Way"
.....   Jul 3, 2011
Rich LaDuca – "From Saudi Arabia..."

So where did the people in Saudi Arabia come from...

I was always under the impression that the area referred to as 'The Fertile Crescent'... You know... The area referred to more recently as Mesopotamia... Was where the Agrarian concept started... That area is commonly referred to as the 'Seat of Civilization'...

Wouldn't that precipitate growth outward into the Arabian Peninsula as well as radiating out in to what we refer to as Palestine.

john g Your argument about theists having as high an IQ as atheists is being proven thin by your juvenile attempts at insults. You obviously have nothing of value to contest or you would add something of intellectual value... apparently (and demonstratively - Speaking of Circle Jerks) you lack such possessions... This explains a lot too.   Jul 3, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca
"So where did the people in Saudi Arabia come from..."
=> Why can't the Arab people be born in Saudi Arabia, not coming from elsewhere?   Jul 3, 2011
Rich LaDuca – So just suddenly Arabs?...

Millions of them... Seems like Jews would have come up with something more imaginative.

I mean I understand that things like thinking up unicorns is quite an act to follow...

But simply Suddenly Arabs... That story line needs work...

What is wrong with what I suggested? At least that has supporting documentation ad an artifact record.   Jul 4, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca
Arabs come from Ishmael, the son of Avraham with his maid.
Since the time Ishmael was born, they could easily be millions.
If Ishmael settled in Saudi Arabia, what is the problem that the Arab people was born there?   Jul 4, 2011
john g –   Jul 4, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Bayan Rafeh Seriously this is common knowledge...   Jul 4, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – The same common knowledge as unicorns?   Jul 4, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab No, for unicorns, I know that this is not common knowledge. Still people believing in the theory of evolution should accept that it is possible unicorns existed and disappeared.

Regarding the Arab People, it is common knowledge that it was born in Saudi Arabia. 1500 years ago, almost all Arabs were still living there.   Jul 4, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Bayan Rafeh You can't say that the Jews were Arabs because these are two distinct Peoples.
Jews never decided that this Land was theirs. It is God that decided it and to give it to the descendants of Yaacov (Israel). This happened more than 3000 years ago.   Jul 4, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – ......coming from the same story as the UNICORNS!   Jul 4, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab, right, so ? Do you think no species disappeared from the earth during the evolution? Are you convinced it is completely impossible unicorns existed at some point?   Jul 4, 2011
Ryan IT Lab – Just putting things into perspective   Jul 4, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – @Ryan IT Lab, Regarding your perspective, I am sure that God decided to give this Land to the Jews looks more impossible than unicorns to you.   Jul 4, 2011
john g – I think God needs to stay out of both the real estate business and acting as judge of cultural beauty pageants. I have no problem with God in the Unicorn ranching business as long as they are more like Alpacas and lack any magical powers whatsoever. Giving them magical powers, which will always be beyond the scope of evolutionary theory, puts them in the same category as Chimeras and satanic goats. It might even put them in unfair, ugly conflict with groups like Legion possessed mad swine.   Jul 4, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Unicorns... so much for the fossil record finding evidence of a beast that was to large to fit on Noah's Ark... But was hooked on the side of it (well two of them, male and female - unless they were hermaphroditic... Then just one, I guess). And after all that. god killed off such a magnificent beast... Or Jews killed them all off to use their skins for ceremonial curtains... In either case... That's fucked up!

That Jews hold a belief system that is so full of unprovable (beyond faith) assertions, is (naturally for anyone not brought up hearing these stories) highly suspect to say the least.

That there are a plethora of archeological finds that show tangible evidence of a natural explanation (that is contrary to what Jews advertize,) is at least objective.

Where is the 'disconnect' between that can be proven and what cannot be proven. And how can it be that the provably (by fact and evidence) inaccurate is still given priority by some?

Faith? Simplistic stories written by dessert dwelling migratory Egyptians, that predate archeology?

Would those stories be the same if archeology were around 3000-4000 years ago?

The Catholic Church tried their hardest to destroy anything and everything that was contrary to the perspective they were selling. For the same reasons, Jews like Baroukh refuse to move beyond rationalities like unicorns and 'suddenly Arabs' to explain what was once (centuries ago) a complete mystery.

These mysteries have been solved, but accepting this is bad for religion because it means less reliance on the supernatural and a greater focus on the natural.

It is the reliance on the supernatural that feeds the 'disconnect' . So unicorns and 'suddenly Arabs' are allowed to make perfect sense regardless of anything contrary.

Mystery and magic ~ termed 'Faith' and turned in to violence, segregation.

Bayan I currently have two books in the works (and that has proven to be quite an undertaking) that I have been working on for 7 and 5 years respectively. My print deadline for one of them is 01 May 2013... One is a work of fiction, the other is the non-fiction backdrop of the other. I will keep you posted!

It was suggested that a Facebook page or some other web presence be put out there. But my publisher and I agree that keeping it under wraps is the best course. The peer review / editorial process is being done by the publisher... Then back to me for revisions, then back to them... This takes a while...   Jul 4, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?   Jul 4, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Evolution is no longer a Theory.

Evolutionary algorithms (Genetic algorithms) replaced / updated Darwins theorem in the late 90's.

I subscribe to the proofs of evolution.   Jul 4, 2011
john g – "Evolution is no longer a Theory" Right. "Darwins theorem" I did not know Darwin was really a mathematician and that evolutionary biology advances by theorem proving.
What a fucking idiot.   Jul 4, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca
If you believe in the theory of evolution which is still a theory despite what you think about genetic algorithms, you must admit that there were a lot of evolutions between the existing species that existed and must have disappeared. Still you don't have fossil proofs for most of them and you still believe in the theory of evolution. I call this faith ;-)   Jul 4, 2011
Rich LaDuca – No... The 'missing link' was discovered in the early 90's too... That set of discoveries is what validated the Evolutionary algorithm. Evolutionary algorithms were proposed in the mid '70's and predicted the genetic lineage that was formulated / postulated by Darwin. More recent (2003) Genetic mappings have uncovered exactly why the predictive model is accurate.

Darwin receives credit for these advancements, because it was his postulations and published works that eventually evolved (sic) in to the 'Evolutionary algorithm' and the 'predictive model'

"What a fucking idiot."

Also, the 'Evolutionary algorithm' has ITS origins in economics... But I digress.

I wont fault you for being unaware of modern scientific realities... But you could (should) have done your homework before before spewing out 50 year old opinions.   Jul 4, 2011
john g – My objection to so many people like Rich LaDuca is that they really don't know anything about the things they claim to believe in and then go on to make obviously stupid, sophomoric statements then refuse to back down. What am I supposed to do, be nice to him in some kind of PC charade of respect for his opinions? That's ok Rich, you really are bad at grammar and spelling? No. I have dealt with his BS for long enough, even in this thread, to know it is way beyond that and points to fundamental boorish ignorance. Really, how well do you think LaDuca would do on any test that you care to give about any of these thread topics such as evolutionary biology, science in general along with specifics like math and physics, history, religion, etc? Who would be willing to bet anything on his getting anything specific correct? How about if he writes an essay about what it means to be atheist. How ridiculous would that be?   Jul 4, 2011
john g – Listen up LaDuca, you fucking moron, off the top of my head I can tell you all about important evolutionary biology concepts like meiotic drive, genetic drift, batesian and mullerian mimicry and more without having to google, wiki or do anything other than recall what I learned with people who do this kind of science as a profession. I also specifically do math models based on genetic algos for trading systems which are frankly boring in comparison to travelling around in the field doing Biology research. STFU stupid.   Jul 4, 2011
john g – Bayan Rafeh - Evidence? Please. What, do you want a full recap of all the definitive links, facts and quotes I provided, like from, Carl Sagan along with definitive biographies of Einstein? What kind of evidence do you want that more than a few nations in the Mideast actively advocate genocide against Jews? Oh, "wipe off the map" just means (JUST!) that they want to see the end of the state of Israel. That is total horseshit and everybody knows it. Like Baroukh said if Israel is in favor of genocide then they sure aren't very good at it as they are one of the world's most advanced technological nations.   Jul 4, 2011
Rich LaDuca – "you fucking moron", "STFU stupid"

Yep... Am exemplary way to prove a point! Especially when you got nuthin' to really add.

"I can tell you all about important evolutionary biology concepts like" unicorns?

john g On a more personal note (less negativity) I'm guessing you are part of the movement. A lot of what you shared previously seems like what I would expect from them... Not my cup of tea at all... To each their own.   Jul 4, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca
I was not talking about the missing link... but about the missing linkS between all the existing species on earth.   Jul 4, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Ahhh, I see.

Even still if we just look at the 'Unicorn' specifically... Shouldn't there be a more extensive amount of evidence about such a creature? As large and magnificent a creature as what Jewish mythology teaches seem like there would have been countless examples depicted by the various civilizations that contributed to the archeological record.

So missing linkS or not... There is a huge gap in consistency that makes it impossible for me to accept that there was such thing as unicorns (or mermaids) existing outside of some wonderful and beautiful story telling. And it probably comes as no surprise that I am not alone in this observation...

Where as the lineage that comprises primate to homo sapien (sapien) is much easier to observe... Even for the skeptic who sees but does not accept the consistency because they insist that there must have been some supernatural intervention.

Do you agree that the 'Fertile Crescent' that includes what is collectively called Mesopotamia was where Agrarian society began?

By the way that Wiki is a fascinating read if you have the chance...   Jul 4, 2011
Rich LaDuca – If not to serve as a testament to the I.Q. of (some) theists... This certainly demonstrates how easily the less 'critical thinking' enabled of our species can be convinced of something completely unpravable... and how they can act in hindsight...   Jul 4, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca
"Shouldn't there be a more extensive amount of evidence about such a creature?"
=> If we believe in the evolution theory, we may accept there are many in-between species that existed from which we don't have any evidence today and many of them were probably large and magnificent. Don't you accept that?

"Where as the lineage that comprises primate to homo sapien (sapien) is much easier to observe..."
=> That it is easier to observe doesn't mean other lineages don't exist...

Thanks for the story about the rapture, people believing that the rapture will occur on that day are completely gullible and you can't use this to determine the average IQ of Theists. Another opposing piece of evidence is the number of Nobel prizes received by Jews in comparison to the size of this population.   Jul 5, 2011
Rich LaDuca – In many things, I am, as I said, skeptical in the absence of evidence... Hence the reason I refer back to archeological evidence as a means of proof.

Reports of 'giant' octopus are an example of an animal that I was skeptical of, until fairly recently that is. When these ten merer long monsters were being caught and brought back to land for study.

The absence of evidence allows for an objective form of skepticism. I call it skepticism because I also recognize that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

What generally turns a skeptic in to a non-believer is either a consistent absence of evidence that renders a claim to look absurd, or that a claim is either observably or demonstratively false due to evidence. with in that is the consequence of lifelong learning that includes the ability to accept that evidence can come along that will alter your perspective.

What I had hoped to do with that article was to demonstrate how clinging tightly to faith can become so overwhelming (for some) that anything that intercedes can crush the faithful if they are unable to accommodate the contrary with something else to take on faith to fill back in the cracks made by fact, prove and evidence. Rapture spouting folk are obviously an extreme example of this.

Imagination being the key to inventiveness... I'm sure you can see how I would look at Jewish mythology as requiring a vivid imagination to not only create but to learn as well. The visualization the student must cultivate in order to appreciate the stories in their full glory is more easily harvested in a young and expanding mind. This cultivated imagination is also seen in (non-Hebrew) children who's parent read stories to them starting at a young age as well... I don't necessarily accept that it is related to religion as I attribute it to parenting skills. This is further enhanced by teaching the child to understand more than one language (Hebrew and others for you, Italian, Calculus and Sanskrit for me. Calculus, French, Spanish, and German for my kids),

That type of trained mind has a jump start on many intellectual endeavors. And recognition such as Nobel prizes that result. These prize winners can all thank a backdrop of adults that engaged them when they were children. I don't think that it was supernatural causes.   Jul 5, 2011
john g – I'm sure the visualizations harvested by LaDuca will not help him to fill back the cracks left by the contrary facts which I have interceded to crush his accommodation of the contrary with something else. He dogmatically sticks to his cracked visualizations of reality and simply keeps repeating it. This no doubt served him well as a child learning both Sanskrit and Calculus in the manner of the idiot savant only without the characteristic prodigy.   Jul 5, 2011
Rich LaDuca – john g

An exemplary way to prove a point! Especially when you got nuthin' to really add.

On a more personal note (less negativity) I'm guessing you are part of the movement. A lot of what you shared previously seems like what I would expect from them... Not my cup of tea at all... To each their own.   Jul 5, 2011
john g – Rich LaDuca,
This is the second time you posted that link in this thread to old guys blowing each other.   Jul 5, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Well that is what you remind me of!

Your insults amount to you fellating your self. I'm sure it makes you feel good... Though it amounts to nothing of value to anyone other than you. Your head is full of yourself, and you are obviously enjoying the taste.

Stop trolling   Jul 5, 2011
john g – I remind you of a senior gay man blowfest? That seems like an odd thing to reminisce about given the topics I cover but to each his own as far as personal choices go.   Jul 5, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Then we do agree on that much... The "the topics I you cover" are an odd thing!

Odder still is you thinking you are actually covering anything at all... Other than an assortment of meaningless insults, you are remiss to offer anything.

So there you are fellating your self... at least you and the topics you cover are well acquainted.

Just keep it to yourself... AND... Stop trolling.   Jul 5, 2011
john g – "The "the topics I you cover" are an odd thing!" Like love be is many splendid things. Like facts are stupid things. Nostalgically cruising gay porno photos then sharing them with all of us is is a Rich LaDuca thing. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it is way off thread topic.   Jul 5, 2011
Rich LaDuca – Aaaannnd it's still in your mouth... troll   Jul 5, 2011
Rich LaDuca – john g lemon party photo in your Picasa album?...   Jul 5, 2011
Rich LaDuca – So... Who wrote this?

JERUSALEM -- Software developed by an Israeli team is giving intriguing new hints about what researchers believe to be the multiple hands that wrote the Bible.   Jul 7, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Interesting...
"In other words, there's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices."   Jul 7, 2011
Rich LaDuca – That is certainly one perspective...

Different voices...

I'm sure you can see why I had to laugh a bit... It sounded kind of schizophrenic to me when I first read that part.   Jul 7, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca Who said that God is not schizophrenic? ;-)   Jul 7, 2011
Rich LaDuca – lol... Indeed.... even a godless atheist like me can see that.

who needs more proof beyond looking at people... and of course the platypus.

I read into the statement as though the researches were trying to not picture / frame their work in any light that might offend the spiritual sensitivities of the benefactors who fund such projects.

Considering the prevalent theology in and around Jerusalem... Testing the bible in such a way could, depending on the results, make the researchers in to heretics. could it not?   Jul 7, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca "could, depending on the results, make the researchers in to heretics. could it not?". I don't think there is such a risk (at least from Judaism). Very religious people would dismiss conclusions and that's all. Nobody would ever do a Jewish Fatwa to kill people because of such a study. Judaism is not Islam.   Jul 7, 2011
Rich LaDuca – AaaaaKKKkkk...
No! no no! I didn't mean 'heretic' and in "kill the"...

I just wondered if (and it is not uncommon that) funding could be effected if those (more pious) who would "dismiss conclusions" felt the money was not spent on a venture they considered worthwhile.

If that possibility existed, that would add to the reasons for a sentiment like this:
"In other words, there's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices."

Not to say that the researchers were not faithful... But the project could be seen as questioning the source of the stories in the bible as well. And statements that were contrary to popular opinion could be considered negatively. Thus impacting funding etc.   Jul 7, 2011
Baroukh Mendelsohn – Rich LaDuca There is no such risk to funding... I am pretty sure no one funded this research with the aim to have a proof the Torah was written with a single hand.   Jul 7, 2011