Elad Nehorai, an orthodox Jewish blogger, has an inane article at the Huffington Post arguing that atheism is a religion. But he blatantly distorts what atheism is in the process. And to make it even more annoying, he writes with a cloying faux-intimacy.
OK, atheists. Let’s have a talk. Pull up a chair, sit down, relax.
There’s so much I want to say to you in so little time, so let’s just get straight to it.
We’re not so different, you and I. Me, an Orthodox Jew. You, a non-believer. We both argue vehemently for our points of view, we both have a certain vision for the world, we both think we know the truth about life.
Sure, just start right out by showing that you’re a moron. “We both have beliefs about things, so we’re a lot alike.” Well yes, and we both breathe oxygen too; that hardly makes us alike when it comes to the substance of our positions.
Let’s look at the arguments atheists make: they say there’s absolutely no evidence for the existence of G-d, and that the burden of proof is on the believers, etc., etc. Now, these are great arguments, and I will be the first to admit that my belief is beyond logic.
But atheism is not agnosticism. It doesn’t claim to simply point out the fallacies of belief. Instead, it has created a belief system out of not believing. It takes a defiant stance, saying that there is absolutely 100 percent no chance there is a god in the world.
So, let’s be honest, dear atheists. Do you really believe that your argument is based around science, around logic, when you say that there is absolutely no chance there is an intelligent design behind the universe?
Yes, by all means, let’s look at the arguments atheists make. Can you name any atheist who takes the position that there is “absolutely no chance there is an intelligent design behind the universe”? I can’t either. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous and influential atheist in the entire world, emphatically does not take such a position. What he would say, and what nearly all atheists do say, is that there is no evidence to compel such a belief. Isn’t it fascinating that he says he wants to look at the arguments atheists make but doesn’t bother to actually cite any such arguments?
As soon as anyone makes such a stance, and makes it unequivocal, they are going from the world of logic to the world of belief. We’re both religious, you and I. The only difference is that your belief is based on the assumption that everything you see and touch and feel is real. I base my belief on the assumption that not only is the tangible world not real, but that books thousands of years old and men with beards know more about the universe and spirituality than I do. Yeah, I get it, that’s a bit crazy, and easily argued against in the world of logic and science. But so can yours, my friend, so can yours.
Quantum physics, ironically, has already made a good case that all we see and touch and feel isn’t real. So, even science disagrees with you. Now, I know you’ll be able to bring about a bunch of scientific evidence to prove me wrong even in that respect, but the truth is that that argument would end up being circular. We would continue to debate and debate and get nowhere, just like every debate between religion and atheism.
Except this debate isn’t between religion and atheism; it’s between your religion and the cartoonish version of atheism you carry around in your head, which you prefer because it’s so much easier to argue with than what atheists actually say and believe.
Because at the end of the day, no belief will ever be 100 percent validated by evidence. That’s why there are democrats and there are republicans. That’s why some people like Pink Floyd and some people like Justin Bieber (G-d help us).
Holy shit, what a fucking idiot.
69 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
Brett McCoy
July 13, 2012 at 1:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Quantum physics, ironically, has already made a good case that all we see and touch and feel isn’t real.”
Nooo… it hasn’t. Where do you learn about quantum mechanics, Deepak Chopra? Read some Feynman, fer crying out loud.
cjtotalbro
July 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Already pulled down by the author.
I guess the religiously orthodox have no problem talking to imaginary people.
Maybe he thought it might be a good idea to talk with a real live atheist rather than his pretend version of one. I volunteer!
Randomfactor
July 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Quantum physics, ironically, has already made a good case that all we see and touch and feel isn’t real
Leaving aside his misunderstanding about quantum physics, it also makes a better case than classical physics does that there’s no controlling intelligence.
There is absolutely-100-percent no CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that there is an intelligent design to the universe.
Come up with some, and we’ll change our conclusions.
randyc
July 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I still think that Bill Maher came up with the best line:
Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.
Raging Bee
July 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
OK, atheists. Let’s have a talk. Pull up a chair, sit down, relax…
That’s not cloying faux intimacy, that’s condescending faux authority — pretending to talk down to us like we’re just foot-stamping children.
Quantum physics, ironically, has already made a good case that all we see and touch and feel isn’t real.
No, it hasn’t.
Now, I know you’ll be able to bring about a bunch of scientific evidence to prove me wrong even in that respect…
How does he know this? Because he already knows he’s provably wrong. Duh.
…but the truth is that that argument would end up being circular. We would continue to debate and debate and get nowhere, just like every debate between religion and atheism.
Gee, whose fault is that? The guy who keeps on repeating the same crap over and over and ignoring what the other party is actualy saying, maybe?
Raging Bee
July 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Already pulled down by the author.
So it has. What a fucking coward.
revjimbob
July 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Inane article… Huffington Post…
Surely shome mishtake?
tricycle
July 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, the article has been removed from HuffPo but it’s still out there at http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/11/atheism-is-a-religion/
The comments are good.
The Lorax
July 13, 2012 at 2:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He lost me at “lets have a talk”. After that, I didn’t need to read the rest… I knew what was coming.
Gotta admit though, I was taken aback by the quantum mechanics thing. I expect this sort of talk from homeopaths and new age apologetics, but not rolled into the “science can’t prove god doesn’t exist” argument.
Also, why did he censor “God”? Anyone else wondering that?
Raging Bee
July 13, 2012 at 2:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Now, I know you’ll be able to bring about a bunch of scientific evidence to prove me wrong even in that respect, but the truth is that that argument would end up being circular.
So when he wins an argument, he wins; but when he loses an argument, the argument is curcular and pointless and solves nothing.
So, let’s be honest, dear atheists.
Go ahead, dear rabbi. We’re just waiting for you to join us…
Brett McCoy
July 13, 2012 at 2:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Also, why did he censor “God”? Anyone else wondering that?
A lot of Orthodox Jews (and even some non-Orthodox) won’t write out “God” and put a dash in it. I don’t know the veracity of this reason, but I was told one should not write out in full any of the names of their god (Yahweh, YHWH, God, etc) because the written name might end up becoming defaced or erased or whatever.
tubi
July 13, 2012 at 2:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@9
Because he’s an orthodox Jew and he’s not allowed to write out the full name of God. Or some crazy shit will befall him.
Let’s test it out:
If I don’t post a reply today, you’ll know it’s all real.
tubi
July 13, 2012 at 2:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dang nabbit, too slow.
And I forgot Yahweh.
Yahweh Yahweh Yahweh Yahweh Yahweh Yahweh
Raging Bee
July 13, 2012 at 2:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tricycle: I love the last (so far) comment there:
Look, I actually KNOW a paranoid schizophrenic, and he is a hell of a lot more reasonable than this superstitious hack. But maybe that’s because my friend knows he has schizophrenia, and takes his medication.
And now for a slight thread-jack…
Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.
I pretty much agree with this; but for ConLaw purposes, we’d all better be prepared to say, with one voice, yes, atheism bloody well IS a religion, with all the legal and moral rights we ascribe to religious beliefs and believers. The more we deny atheism is a “religion,” the more the bigots are likely to say “Atheism isn’t a religion — the atheists say so themselves — therefore ‘freedom of religion’ doesn’t apply to atheists.”
Raging Bee
July 13, 2012 at 2:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…I was told one should not write out in full any of the names of their god (Yahweh, YHWH, God, etc) because the written name might end up becoming defaced or erased or whatever.
Maybe they apply the same precaution to their best logical arguments: they can’t show us the REAL definitive proof that they’re right, because their proof might be defaced or erased or whatever.
Dr X
July 13, 2012 at 2:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I believe unequivocally that Chicago’s Red Line ‘L’ service is frequently interrupted based upon my experience waiting on platforms and sitting on stopped trains between stations. No logic, just a direct observation behind my belief. So that belief is a religion? Per Raging Bee, the Rabbi is full of faux condescending authority; not a good position for someone who is offering idiotic arguments.
matty1
July 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
‘Freedom of religion’ is a poor way of expressing what should be protected anyway, I prefer the more inclusive ‘liberty of conscience’ – the point is that the law should concern itself with actions not opinions, if you want to think that God made the world in seven days, or that Elvis lives in your TV, or that both the prior beliefs are absurd you should not be treated differently by the government on that basis. I don’t mean that other people shouldn’t be equally free to argue against you, only that they shouldn’t bring the power of the state to punish you – and no this is not endorsing ‘teach every view in schools’ teaching is an action and can be regulated without touching opinions.
By making it about only religious opinions, or political or whatever it may be we miss the broader point that it is not the proper role of government to control the opinions of private citizens on any topic.
fastlane
July 13, 2012 at 2:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hey, I’m just glad he didn’t continue with hooking up electrodes and “this won’t hurt a bit.”
Do I get extra points for Godwinning a thread about an Orthodox Jew?
matty1
July 13, 2012 at 2:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The version I got was a bit more involved, first in Hebrew YHWH is written without vowels and Orthodox Jews were only ever supposed to try and pronounce it in the Jerusalem temple, strictly speaking because of this the original vowel sounds are lost and Yahweh and Jehovah are more recent attempts to guess at them.
The habit of writing other titles (not personal names)for YHWH without vowels e.g G-d, L-rd developed as a kind of mental note to remind people there was a rule against saying the name.
gingerbaker
July 13, 2012 at 3:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Atheism may not be a religion, but it is a protected religious viewpoint, isn’t it?
Frankly, I don’t know why atheist organizations do not avail themselves of the government subsidies offered to religious groups.
We ought to demand every damned privilege, every seat at the table, every piece of the pie, and demand every consideration we can get our hands on. That is how we could realize our political clout, which, currently, we pretty much squander.
geraldmcgrew
July 13, 2012 at 3:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wait…what? He believes the physical world isn’t real? Then why does his god put all those ridiculous rules in place about what goes on in the “tangible world”? For example, if the tangible world isn’t real, then how can one violate the Sabbath by working during it? Since your physical being and the world it’s interacting with aren’t real, it’s all an illusion and his god is punishing people for an illusion. Likewise there’s no difference between a shellfish and a cow; neither are real.
Gee, it’s almost like the Rabbi hasn’t really thought this through…..
hexidecima
July 13, 2012 at 3:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rabbi, we are not the same. You are maliciously ignorant and a poor liar. And I know that my position that there is very very likely no magical god behind the universe is supported by science. I can’t say that there isn’t one, but if there is, it’s not your xenophobic, murderous god either. If you think your claims that there is a god (just the one in your supposedly magical torah, please, not some vague handwaving) are suported by any evidence at all, please do supply it.
It is hysterical that the poor rabbi tries to claim that quantum mechanics says things “aren’t real”. I do wish he would take up my challenge of holding a white-hot piece of steel with his bare hand and tell me how unreal it is. Ah, solipsism, the last refuge of the theist.
Sqrat
July 13, 2012 at 3:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I suspect that the good rabbi and I share the religious belief that Jesus of Nazareth was not the son of God. We could call our shared religion “ajesusism.”
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
July 13, 2012 at 3:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@19:
Strictly speaking only Yahweh is a guess at what the original vowels were. Jehovah is simply an error that comes of trying to pronounce the original consonants of YHWH (in their German version, hence “J” for “Y”) using the vowels of “Adonai”, the word that is used in place of the ineffable name of God in Hebrew recitation. This came about because the medieval Masoretes, when adding vowel points to the consonantal text as a guide to correct pronunciation, pointed YHWH with the vowels of Adonai as a reminder of which word was actually to be pronounced.
Kevin
July 13, 2012 at 4:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Isn’t it time that argumentum ad quantum make its way into the list of logical fallacies one must avoid in order to not sound like a total nincompoop?
Raging Bee
July 13, 2012 at 4:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I prefer the more inclusive ‘liberty of conscience’…
Fine — but you know damn well how the teatards will respond to that, don’t you? Liberty of conscience is not in the Constitution that Jesus handed down to the Founding Fathers so nyah nyah!
Reginald Selkirk
July 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Holy fucking shit. The current crop of Republicans have no use at all for evidence. They are in full reality denial. Creationism, climate denial, giving even higher piles of money to rich people will magically create more jobs, even though it obviously hasn’t. Etc. etc. etc.
Michael Heath
July 13, 2012 at 4:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re “liberty of conscience” . . .
Some of the framers were making some of their arguments based around the more expansive term, “freedom of conscience” in place of religious liberty; including James Madison. It’d be interesting to come across an essay that reports on why the framers of the 1st Amendment incorporated religious freedom in that amendment rather than freedom of conscience.
Perhaps they did so to more tightly correlate the prohibition against establishing a state religion. If that was the case there was a sacrifice in protecting our more expansive right of conscience to better protect against us against theocratic threats.
jimmiraybob
July 13, 2012 at 5:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I see that you pre-empted my vehement argument for oxygen. I guess I’ll go for beer instead. Go BEER!!1!!
…..AND PorkSTEAKs!!!1!
It’s a regional thing.
tomh
July 13, 2012 at 5:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ #14
for ConLaw purposes, we’d all better be prepared to say, with one voice, yes, atheism bloody well IS a religion, with all the legal and moral rights we ascribe to religious beliefs and believers.
Courts have recognized that atheism is the equivalent of religion for the limited purpose of protecting First Amendment rights, but courts have never ruled that atheism actually is a religion. An atheist organization cannot file for an automatic tax exemption as a religious one can, or file suit under RLUIPA or take advantage of other specific religous exemption clauses. And forget about faith-based grants.
Of course, First Amendment protection is not guaranteed either. After all, Justice Scalia wrote, in McCreary County v ACLU of Ky, (a 10 Commandments case), that “the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.” A few Romney appointees to the Court and Atheists could easily lose what few protections they have gained in the last 200 years.
jimmiraybob
July 13, 2012 at 5:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Did anybody else think that the rest of this was going to be “and think of England.”
abb3w
July 13, 2012 at 5:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For those curious as to how the HuffPo circus went before the piece got pulled, the comments can be found (somewhat ugly) here, despite the main article having been pulled.
Much as with the copy over at Algemeiner.com that tricycle found and linked @9, the comments were pretty good. Looks like about nine pages worth of people mostly suggesting he was a fool, with only a couple posts with any agreement.
Tony aka The Psychic Octopus
July 13, 2012 at 6:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tubi:
Is that like saying ‘Candyman’ or ‘Bloody Mary’ 3 times in the mirror?
John Horstman
July 13, 2012 at 6:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@12:
No, it’s because he’s an orthodox Jew AND an idiot. Rabbinical consensus holds that digital media are ephemeral in nature, like speech, and are therefore not permanent enough in nature to invoke the prohibition. Also, only the True Name Of God, the Tetragrammaton, is forbidden; “God” certainly isn’t, nor is Yahweh*, nor any of the anglicized Jewish euphemisms (nor their Hebrew originals) like Elohim or HaShem or Adonai, which were specifically used to avoid using the True Name. Even uninflected Yodh-He-Waw-He (in Hebrew) is fine – that’s sort of the point.
*This one’s actually less clear; the reconstruction of the vowel punctuation is sketchy at best, so “Yahweh” may not be accurate, and it may not be a very good transliteration. I’m also unclear on whether transliterations are banned, or only the ‘correct’ Hebrew script. Anyway, “Yahweh” might actually fall afoul of the rule, which is specifically why I use it when referring to the particular god. Jehovah is a really bad translation/transliteration, so it’s definitely okay.
Zeno
July 13, 2012 at 6:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In addition to censoring “God” as “G-d” because of their superstitions, the really hardcore cases have to contend with all of the religion-tinged placenames in states where Spanish influences once reigned. That is, they feel compelled to say “S. Cruz” instead of “Santa Cruz” because “santa” means “holy” and it’s just plain wrong for humans to designate things as holy. I guess only g-d can do that.
benjamincano
July 13, 2012 at 7:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Aaaaaaaaand it’s gone.
mandrellian
July 13, 2012 at 7:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If the HuffPo has taught me anything (apart from how to run a successful website based on effective slave labour) it’s that -most- of the people who criticise atheism haven’t the slightest goddamned understanding of what it is – or what it is NOT.
Also, as a regular visitor at Jerry Coyne’s place, it seems many rabbis who have a problem with non-believers aren’t any better educated about them than your average Young-Earth Fundie who blames us for all the world’s ills and accuses of being as faith-headed as they are. Whatever happened to the famous rabbinical wisdom? Do these guys not bother to read what atheists say before telling us we’re wrong? Sigh.
mandrellian
July 13, 2012 at 7:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Woooow, clicking that link reveals:
Either the good rabbi was embarrassed at having written such utter shit, or “at the request of the blogger” means “at the request of the editor, who requested the blogger request removal”.
Either way, way to stand by your convictions.
RealityBasedSteve
July 13, 2012 at 7:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As I told a friend who kept trying to run the “Atheism is a religion” line by me… “Atheism is a religion in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby”. It was fun to watch him move his mouth up and down, but not be able to actually get anything out.
RBS
iknklast
July 13, 2012 at 8:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As an atheist, I have no problem saying – or writing – God (God God God God, as someone earlier said), but boy, don’t ask me to say Beetlejuice 3 times! (Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice) Nope, nothing happened, guess Beetlejuice is no more real than God. What a disappointment.
margaretwhitestone
July 13, 2012 at 8:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It was removed by the author. How much do you want to bet his next article will be one whining about how mean atheists are, and how he had to pull his last article because of them?
raven
July 13, 2012 at 8:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Nice try with Yahweh but the real god is Brahma. Or is it Thor? Odin? XIPSIDSIM?
If god really cared about how people pronounce his name, he could just tell us. This is a task well within a first grader’s capability and most of the 7 billion people alive.
Robert B.
July 13, 2012 at 9:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
RAAAAAAAAAAA NOOOO WAAAARGARBL
PHYSICIST SMASH
Quantum physics makes a good case that the fundamental nature of reality doesn’t have much to do with the intuitions and heuristics of the Mark I Plains Ape. Given that those heuristics were developed to deal with things like antelopes and tribal politics, not electrons and photons, this is not terribly surprising. It certainly doesn’t mean the world around us isn’t real, as if corresponding to human prejudices was some sort of standard of existence.
grumpyoldfart
July 13, 2012 at 10:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
His blog has been cached by Google:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pBvPdq8UOOkJ:www.huffingtonpost.com/elad-nehorai/atheism-is-a-religion_b_1648136.html
sqlrob
July 13, 2012 at 11:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Are you related to this guy?
cactuswren
July 14, 2012 at 12:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And at the Algemeiner site I get
Which means my comment never made it out of moderation:
dingojack
July 14, 2012 at 1:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tubi – [basso profundo] ‘Stone him! Stone him! Stone him! Stone him!’
(-’ll br-ng th- b-ng)
:) D-ng-
dingojack
July 14, 2012 at 1:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hey Rabbi – Dingo’s Religion-spotting Rule of Thumb: if your narrative postulates supernatural being or beings of infinite or near infinite power that must be worshipped, it’s a religion – (if it doesn’t it’s not).
Dingo
Aliasalpha
July 14, 2012 at 5:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So dingo, does that mean that my demand to be worshipped as the apex of humanity mean that I’m a religion? I’m off to apply for tax exempt status!
dingojack
July 14, 2012 at 6:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Aliasalpha – I know supernatural beings are supposed to ‘move in mysterious ways’ – but you’re going to claim your tax exemption late on a Saturday evening? ;)
Dingo
thisisaturingtest
July 14, 2012 at 8:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t understand the Pink Floyd vs Justin Bieber thing. What does musical preference have to do with belief? I’m a huge Pink Floyd fan (Justin Bieber, not so much), but I don’t believe in them the way he believes in g-d. It’s interesting he should make that analogy- almost as if, to him, what you believe is really just a question of what you like.
jayarrrr
July 14, 2012 at 8:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh no he didn’t! He didn’t make the “Argument from The Quantum” did he? Yes he did. Yep, if you don’t want to have to say “I don’t know” just say “Quantum Physics!”
“We’re not so different, you and I. Me, an Orthodox Jew. You, a non-believer. ”
Well, he’s right. We’ve both been through many years of therapy, me, to cope with parental and spousal abuse. Him, to deal with his obsession about wanting to fuck his mother.
laurentweppe
July 14, 2012 at 9:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Let’s make things simple: what would be the most gut-twisting, maddening, leave-you-frothing-at-the-mouth sentence?
A. I believe in God.
B. I believe in Rebecca Black singing talent.
You may deny it in public, but we both know that deep down you want to declare Holy Jihad against those wicked rebeccist heretics.
thisisaturingtest
July 14, 2012 at 9:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Laurentweppe:
I just think it’s interesting that he, in effect, admits that religion, and religious truth, is no more “absolute” than musical preference- it’s just what you like, or maybe were raised with (didn’t take in my case- my dad loved old-time country music, Hank Williams, etc; and my mom was a huge Tom Jones and Engelbert Humperdinck fan. My musical taste, until I was about twelve, was “meh, I don’t care”- until the day I heard “Whole Lotta Love” blasting from the radio for the first time).
And don’t you be dissin’ on Rebecca Black!
sqlrob
July 14, 2012 at 10:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@dingo:
I agree with the first statement, I don’t agree that the inverse is true however. You’re stating Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism aren’t religions.
dingojack
July 14, 2012 at 10:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Originally they weren’t as they postulated no supernatural power(s), as time went on religious idioms and memes became encrusted onto them – thus now they are religious*.
Dingo
—–
* using my hopelessly simplistic ‘rule of thumb’
[Appreciate the irony of that saying in this instance. Consider where it came from.]
matty1
July 14, 2012 at 10:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dingo
sqlrob
You’ve lost me there, Buddhism I can see but surely Shinto and Hinduism postulate supernatural beings, are you going on the infinite power bit since different gods can check each other? That seems a bit of an ad hoc addition that implies only monotheisms are religious.
dingojack
July 14, 2012 at 11:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Matty1 – RE: Shinto and Hinduism
- of course your correct, I’ve had a big day and I think I’m getting at little too tired.
Dingo
dingojack
July 14, 2012 at 11:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
D’oh – ‘your correct’ should be ‘you’re correct’. See what I mean?
:) Dingo
tricycle
July 14, 2012 at 11:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
LOL. The atheist hounds have really driven the foxy rabbit to ground. First, he pulls his essay from HuffPo and now it’s been disappeared at Algemeiner. I can understand Huffington Post as a difficult place for this drivel to survive, but Algemeiner should be a safe place, don’t you think?
By the way, on Algemeiner’s front page you’ll see a tab on the right hand side listing the Most Popular Today stories. Number 3 is an article from May, 2011 entitled “Seriously, Aren’t Atheists Embarrassed by P.Z. Myers?”
Marcus Ranum
July 14, 2012 at 11:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You’re stating Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism aren’t religions.
Various flavors of buddhism most certainly do have supernatural beings!! Including the oft-recycled dalai lama and the religion’s godlike founder who stepped out of his mother’s side, etc.
Shinto asserts that the Japanese imperial line descended from Amaterasu – a god.
And hinduism? Are you trying to tell me that an elephant-headed dude is not supernatural? Or a hot destroyer goddess like kali is just some chick who works at starbucks?
American buddhism has stripped a bunch of religious ideas in translation but still remains heavily supernaturalistic. Even the notion of enlightenment (being at one with the universe) is supernaturalistic at its core (and, if you think about it, is pretty silly, as well)
I do think it’s a good sign that some religions implicitly acknowledge that religion is stupid, by trying to pretend that they’re not religions. Of course, if you want to be a part of a non-supernaturalistic social group – try: a local bowling league, book club, wine-tasting club, habitat for humanity, etc.
matty1
July 14, 2012 at 12:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As I recall Buddhism is tricksy not so much on the supernatural as on the beings to worship bit. There are two main flavours of Buddhism – Thervada in which you gain enlightenment or a better rebirth by your own efforts at meditation and following Buddhist ethics and Mahayana where you can get at least the rebirth bit by following various Buddha’s in a way that looks a lot more like worship.
Western versions tend to take Thervada and further strip out some of the rituals and mantras leaving little but the meditation as distinctive. A cynic might suggest that this stripped down Buddhism is actually designed to be easily slotted into other (mainly new age) belief systems as an add on.
gingerbaker
July 14, 2012 at 1:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sure about this? I recall reading something about one of the major atheist org’s in the U.S. saying that they qualified,but were not going to apply, for these types of benefits.
tomh
July 14, 2012 at 3:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ #63
Sure about this? I recall reading something about one of the major atheist org’s in the U.S. saying that they qualified,but were not going to apply, for these types of benefits.
Someone may have said this but I’ve never heard of a court that agreed with it.
abb3w
July 14, 2012 at 3:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Since the author seems to be trying to drop this travesty down the memory hole, the entirety seems to be mirrored here, with more commentary on how stupid it is.
A glance at the cache of the Algemeiner copy seems to list Zachary Lichaa as the author instead of Elad Nehorai. Pseudonym? Plagiarism? Glitch from the cache of a removed page? Dunno.
I’ll note the author has claimed on twitter that he took the piece down because it was “too divisive”. Sorry, it was hardly “divisive” at all — almost everyone who commented came down on one side. Rather, it was what I’d call “hopelessly wrong”.
However, he also claims to have learned something. Color me skeptical.
sqlrob
July 14, 2012 at 11:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Of course they do. But he stated beings of infinite / near infinite power. That they are not.
dingojack
July 15, 2012 at 12:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
sqlrob – see ‘his’ #56 for Buddhism (not all three mentioned).
thanks,
‘Him’
—–
PS: Can Buddha create stone so large he can’t roll it? ;)
bachalon
July 16, 2012 at 12:05 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As someone who’s seriously studied Theravada Buddhism in English and Pali, I can tell you that the bodhisattas aren’t really like gods as most people think. They are born, they age, they get sick, they die, and are reborn again like all beings.
That being said, the transcendent ideal of Nibbana is more what pushes Buddhism into the religion ground for me, however it’s not “being one with the universe.”
The Tathagata’s teachings on the matter are somewhat vague as it’s beyond words and all prior experience.
As for Mahayana, it’s far too similar to “traditional” religion for my taste, most especially Pure Land (I’ll spare the lecture but in brief: through devotions to one particular bodhisatta, one can be reborn in the Western Heaven. In Theravada, the only way to achieve that is the abandonment of 9 of the 10 fetters that bind one to samsara. That particular pure abode is one of the few that the Buddha was not reborn into for obvious reasons).
As Matty said, Mahayana is far more devotional, though a lot of that has to do with the later sutra additions to their canon.
stace
July 16, 2012 at 10:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Or Biggie Smalls (South Park).
1)Say Something Stupid. 2)Delete It. 3)Fail at Understanding the Internet « Foster Disbelief
July 15, 2012 at 8:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] at Dispatches from the Culture Wars the other day, Ed highlighted an inane post by orthodox Jewish blogger Elad Nehorai, who was using [...]