Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[Minimalist]

The reason that xtians misstate jewish beliefs is fairly clear. What reason do jews have to misstate their own?

Don't get me wrong. I've known lots of jews and most of them think the torah is a pile of shit, too. But they know it doesn't make the claims that the xtians say it does.

[rsb]

The reason that xtians misstate jewish beliefs is fairly clear. What reason do jews have to misstate their own?

Don't get me wrong. I've known lots of jews and most of them think the torah is a pile of shit, too. But they know it doesn't make the claims that the xtians say it does.

You are not really saying that the entire body of the Jewish religion is not self preserving and will not respond to alternate theologies are you?

Judaism(reform), like some Buddhism and Unitarianism, accept atheists members who observe their traditions or whatever. So on that front alone those 3 are really cool, and each for other reasons. But seriously, no ulterior motives exist in any jews? All of the theological arguments of Buddhism, Unitarianism, and reform Jews are therefore factual. Does that include all prior members of all 3 that existed in prior history? I really don't know where to start.

[*Deidre*]

Why the overselling?

I don't think it's so much 'over selling' as it is 'reacting' or responding to religion being so in everyone's face these days. It's in politics, it's trying to (continue to) shape our laws, ''Creationism'' is trying to compete in school classrooms against science, etc.

I think that it's more of a reaction, and it's a needed response otherwise, religion will steam roll into everyone's lives, and it has no place doing that.

If religion remained private, and kept to itself, I don't think anyone would have a problem. I don't. If someone wishes to practice a particular faith ...that's their right. But, don't push it into politics and government and the public educational system.

So, to me, it's a reaction to religious zealotry.

[rsb]

The real lumberjack Paul would have to be "The Character" in the story with substantially the same history. As it would be, a possible "real" Paul Bunyan would not have had any history of the life told in the story but rather a completely different one. Thus he is not the "character" in the story. The story remains non-historical, just like Jeebus!

The existence of the historical guy would remain history or not or unknown, irregardless of any myths.

The possibility of a different life story is not only believable, but it would be completely unprecedented in human history for him not to have a different story even if he was a modern public figure. I would simply not believe it.

So I guess without knowing the details, I can't predict exactly how it would be different and have no evidence. That seems to both agree and disagree with your position, but I hope I actually am on the same page.

---

Why the overselling?

I don't think it's so much 'over selling' as it is 'reacting' or responding to religion being so in everyone's face these days. It's in politics, it's trying to (continue to) shape our laws, ''Creationism'' is trying to compete in school classrooms against science, etc.

I think that it's more of a reaction, and it's a needed response otherwise, religion will steam roll into everyone's lives, and it has no place doing that.

If religion remained private, and kept to itself, I don't think anyone would have a problem. I don't. If someone wishes to practice a particular faith ...that's their right. But, don't push it into politics and government and the public educational system.

So, to me, it's a reaction to religious zealotry.

Well perhaps. I think it is a mistake to adopt the big lie, propaganda techniques, or irrational arguments just because religious people do (I am not saying anyone in this thread is doing that please dont slap me). Likewise if we identify arguments made by atheists that lack credible backing, maybe we should move them to theories and investigate further. Maybe there is a historical text that will be a bombshell for many theologies. I find it encouraging to note that geneticists at BYU are active in disproving the genetic origin of the native americans as told by Joe Smith, and Israeli archeologists are disproving their own history in the torah. Perhaps their commitment to morality and truth is winning over their commitment to their theology. One can only hope.

[Minimalist]

No, they are full of shit, too. Judaism reformed itself when the Romans burned the temple to the ground and all of a sudden they needed a whole new modus operandi. Rabbinic judaism was born...sans temple.
But they did not embrace any of this jesus stuff. Oh, a few desultory lines were written into the talmud but, as you have said, Y'shua was such a common name it is tough to know who they are talking about. Certainly, there is no recognizable jesus as claimed in the so-called gospels.

The DSS give us a window into jewish thinking from the second century BC to the first century AD. So what? Throughout the whole time that the Romans were kicking their asses there were large jewish communities in Alexandria and Babylon. The jews in Alexandria did fairly well for centuries and the jewish community in Iraq lasted until 1947 when the shit hit the fan. The Masoretic texts they produced are reasonably similar to the DSS - although not letter for letter perfect as xtians love to claim.

Nonetheless, when jewish scholars point to their books and say "this is what they mean" it has to count for a bit more than these asinine xtian interpretations which turn the "suffering servant" ( meant to be Israel ) into friggin' jesus. Xtians pick a line out of the text and say "Yup... THERE'S JESUS" and the jews say "Bullshit." I've got to go with the jews.

[rsb]

Nonetheless, when jewish scholars point to their books and say "this is what they mean" it has to count for a bit more than these asinine xtian interpretations which turn the "suffering servant" ( meant to be Israel ) into friggin' jesus. Xtians pick a line out of the text and say "Yup... THERE'S JESUS" and the jews say "Bullshit." I've got to go with the jews.

Sorry, I disagree, I only believe archeologists that old. As far as I am concerned that whole era is rightfully prehistory.

If a jew or other person says bullshit on a factual basis, they may be right if their facts are right, if they say so based on their stupid theology, they are just stupid.

On a related basis, what evidence do you have that Ra (the Egyptian sun god) was not real in jewish theology. We are almost ready for the age of aquarius baby, the 12th cycle on the myan calendar is upon us, lets here what the jews have to say about that to disprove it. Or perhaps we can constrain ourselves to facts.

Lest get naked in the sun to worship Ra!

[*Deidre*]

I don't think it's so much 'over selling' as it is 'reacting' or responding to religion being so in everyone's face these days. It's in politics, it's trying to (continue to) shape our laws, ''Creationism'' is trying to compete in school classrooms against science, etc.

I think that it's more of a reaction, and it's a needed response otherwise, religion will steam roll into everyone's lives, and it has no place doing that.

If religion remained private, and kept to itself, I don't think anyone would have a problem. I don't. If someone wishes to practice a particular faith ...that's their right. But, don't push it into politics and government and the public educational system.

So, to me, it's a reaction to religious zealotry.

Well perhaps. I think it is a mistake to adopt the big lie, propaganda techniques, or irrational arguments just because religious people do (I am not saying anyone in this thread is doing that please dont slap me).

How are atheist/agnostics adopting a 'big lie?' They are merely telling the truth. I don't agree in becoming an anti-religion zealot, that I agree with you.

Likewise if we identify arguments made by atheists that lack credible backing, maybe we should move them to theories and investigate further.

All an Atheist needs to do is ask religion to provide evidence. Atheists don't need to provide proof or back up their assertions. Not sure I understand what you mean by that.

Maybe there is a historical text that will be a bombshell for many theologies. I find it encouraging to note that geneticists at BYU are active in disproving the genetic origin of the native americans as told by Joe Smith, and Israeli archeologists are disproving their own history in the torah. Perhaps their commitment to morality and truth is winning over their commitment to their theology. One can only hope.

That's pretty cool and yes...one can only hope!

[rsb]

...

Likewise if we identify arguments made by atheists that lack credible backing, maybe we should move them to theories and investigate further.

All an Atheist needs to do is ask religion to provide evidence. Atheists don't need to provide proof or back up their assertions. Not sure I understand what you mean by that.

...

Point 1, big lies and such, I am just saying that we need to be critical and skeptical of atheist arguments, not say amen or anything that resembles that. Not trying to drag nazis into the argument.

Point 2, quoted, I just don't agree I believe that is any rational person's duty, let alone one who says they love nerds, to seek the truth. And to teach. You can't just rest on a lazy philosophers argument that you "win" the "debate". If that works sure, if you can teach with it sure, but you really have to do more if you can. It is really more like as your grandchildren are standing on the shoulders of your children who are standing on your dead body sunk into the muck we came from, what will you have given them?

Point 3, ya always encouraging to see religious people acting righteous, for a change.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

No, they are full of shit, too. Judaism reformed itself when the Romans burned the temple to the ground and all of a sudden they needed a whole new modus operandi. Rabbinic judaism was born...sans temple.
But they did not embrace any of this jesus stuff. Oh, a few desultory lines were written into the talmud but, as you have said, Y'shua was such a common name it is tough to know who they are talking about. Certainly, there is no recognizable jesus as claimed in the so-called gospels.

The DSS give us a window into jewish thinking from the second century BC to the first century AD. So what? Throughout the whole time that the Romans were kicking their asses there were large jewish communities in Alexandria and Babylon. The jews in Alexandria did fairly well for centuries and the jewish community in Iraq lasted until 1947 when the shit hit the fan. The Masoretic texts they produced are reasonably similar to the DSS - although not letter for letter perfect as xtians love to claim.

Nonetheless, when jewish scholars point to their books and say "this is what they mean" it has to count for a bit more than these asinine xtian interpretations which turn the "suffering servant" ( meant to be Israel ) into friggin' jesus. Xtians pick a line out of the text and say "Yup... THERE'S JESUS" and the jews say "Bullshit." I've got to go with the jews.

According to the Babylonian Talmud the Jews accused Jesus of all sorts of despicable acts. They also claim to have killed him using five different methods. They don't seem to be Jesus fans.

[rsb]

Searching for the talmud and torah have never been so much fun! Like book of mormon study with history thrown in.