Comprehensive coverage

A country haunted by demons LA: Israel Democracy Institute: 80% of Jews in Israel believe in God

This is what happens when we abandon the souls of our children to Chabad and Breslav - the Gutman Center at the Israel Democracy Institute conducted a survey for the Avi Chai Israel Foundation to examine the Jewish image of Israeli society in terms of the level of religiosity, faith, values ​​and religious customs and traditions

God creates man. William Blake, painting from 1795 from Wikipedia
God creates man. William Blake, painting from 1795 from Wikipedia

Comments of the editor of the science site

 The abandonment of the public arena to Breslav, Chabad and the like, the disappearance of real science from the curricula and the media and the New Age atmosphere in which many of our elected officials give their signals. In the survey that follows three decades on the degree of religiosity of the Jewish citizens of Israel, there was a retreat, after an improvement a decade ago, to data even worse than those two decades ago.

Perhaps this explains why the state's leaders hesitated for decades to address the problem of anxiety and radicalization among the ultra-Orthodox themselves until we accepted the exclusion of women, the Beit Shemesh riots (including an attempt to lynch a poster of commercial ads, because she is a woman). In any case, the question is whether it is not already too late, and we have already lost the country. Will Yair Lapid also cooperate in the end like his father who signed an agreement with the Federal Ministry of Defense in which in the end only the side of the secular concessions was realized in the agreement while the religious ones did not budge an inch and even exacerbated the religious coercion?

Will the politicians once again submit to our rhetoric that any demand from the ultra-Orthodox to stop being constantly anxious and contribute to security and the economy constitutes anti-Semitism? It seems they are comfortable surrendering.

post Scriptum. To understand my intention regarding Chabad and Breslav, one must read the last paragraph of the announcement of the Israel Democracy Institute.

I seem to be getting pessimistic with each episode added to this series.


Below is the official announcement of the Israel Democracy Institute


The third Gutman-Avi Chai report by: Arian Asher, Kiser-Sugarman Ayala
Year of publication: 2012, series: Gutman Center publications

The Gutman Center at the Israel Democracy Institute conducted a survey for the Avi Chai Israel Foundation to examine the Jewish image of Israeli society in terms of the level of religiosity, faith, values ​​and religious customs and traditions. The survey was conducted in 2009 and is a continuation of two previous surveys on the same topic that were conducted in 1991 and 1999. The three surveys create a unique sequence in the field of studying Israeli Jewish religiosity.

The report is based on a representative sample (according to the data of the Central Bureau of Statistics) of the adult Israeli Jewish public (age 20 and older). The sample included 2,803 interviewees. Head of the research team: the late Prof. Asher Arian; Data analysis and writing: Ayala Kiser-Sugarman.

The report will be presented on Sunday, Thursday of Shavat, 29.1.12 at 20:00 at Beit Avichai. Click here for details

Below are the main findings of the Gutman report:
Between the years 1991-1999, a certain decrease in affinity to the Jewish tradition was measured, compared to the years 1999-2009 in which an increase in this affinity was measured, until a return to the values ​​measured in 1991 and even beyond them. For example, when it comes to preserving tradition: in 1991, 24% of the respondents said that they "preserve to a large extent" the tradition, in 1999 19% of the respondents reported this, while in 2009 there was an increase to 26% who testified to themselves that they preserve the tradition to a large extent .

The interpretation given in 1999 for the decline in attachment to tradition was based on the influence of the great immigration from the United States. It is possible that the slowing down of the decline measured in 2009 is evidence that the immigrants assimilated into Israeli society and adopted to one degree or another the Jewish customs and Jewish tradition. At the same time, this decrease can be attributed to the increase in the demographic share of the religious and ultra-orthodox in the general Jewish population. However, it is important to emphasize that while the ultra-orthodox and the religious testify to themselves that they observe the mitzvot more than before and are closer to tradition, those who defined themselves as non-religious secularists and anti-religious secularists did not testify to themselves that they "became stronger" in maintaining customs and lifestyles related to the Jewish tradition.

The statistical data show that although the stronger the Jewish identity, the greater the extent of the existence of Jewish customs, but also Israeli Jews who define themselves as secular and not anti-religious, or even anti-religious secular, observe some of these customs. It turns out that Israeli Jews are largely loyal to Jewish rites of passage (circumcision, Bar Mitzvah, "Sheba" etc.); Fewer respondents, although still to a fairly high degree, report keeping kosher (76%), not eating leaven on Pesach (67%), fasting on Yom Kippur (68%), lighting Shabbat candles (66%) and holding Kiddush on Shabbat night (60 %).

Holiday customs. The large majority of Israeli Jews (85%) believe that it is important to celebrate the Israeli holidays according to tradition, but they do so selectively. The vast majority (90%) think so about the Passover order, and a high percentage (82%) indicate that they usually light candles on Hanukkah. Lower rates tend not to eat leaven on Pesach (67%), fast on Yom Kippur (68%), hear the reading of the Book of Esther on Purim (36%) or perform tikkun on the night of Shavuot (20%). At the same time, the majority of Jewish Israelis wish to maintain personal freedom of choice and the holding of weekday activities on Shabbat in the public sphere: more than 60% support the holding of sports and cultural activities on Shabbat, 58% support the operation of public transportation and the opening of shopping centers on Shabbat. Also 51% support the introduction of civil marriage.

Kosher customs. Most Jewish Israelis eat kosher food at home (76%) and outside of it (70%) and testify that they are careful not to eat pork under any circumstances (72%). The common reasoning for not eating pork is religious.

The status of women. The data show significant differences in this regard between the groups: 67% of the ultra-Orthodox believe that it is good if the man is the breadwinner and the woman takes care of the home and family, compared to only 35% among the religious who believe this, 23% among the traditional, 18% among the secular who are not anti-religious, and 20% among the Secularists are anti-religious.

Israel and the Diaspora. In 1999, a loosening of solidarity was observed compared to 1991: in 1991, 76% of those interviewed believed that the Jewish people in the Diaspora and the people in Israel have a common destiny, compared to 68% who believed so in 1999. In 2009 the loosening was halted and more Israeli Jews believe that Jews in Israel and Jews in the Diaspora have a common destiny (73%). Most of them (81%) also agree with the claim that without the Jewish religion the Jewish people would not have continued to exist to this day. However, more than half of the respondents agree with the statement that the Jewish people in the State of Israel are a different people than the Jewish people in the Diaspora.

Attitude towards non-orthodox currents in Judaism: most Israeli Jews (61%), agree that conservatives and reformers should have a status equal to that of the orthodox in Israel.

Perceptions about conversion. Most of the respondents (87%) support the possibility of immigrating to Israel and immediate acceptance of Israeli citizenship for Jews. However, only half of them (53%) support this option when it comes to non-Jewish spouses, and even less (43%) when it comes to grandchildren of Jews whose only grandfather is Jewish. However, there is broad agreement (93%) with the opinion that a Jew can be a good Jew even if he does not observe the Jewish tradition. In general, it can be said that most Israeli Jews (73%) accept the official position in the State of Israel that supports Orthodox conversion as a way of recognizing a person's Judaism (even if he is not observant), and lower rates (48% of respondents) accept non-Orthodox conversion.

Differences by origin. According to the 2009 survey, most Mizrahim define themselves as traditional, religious, or ultra-orthodox (total: 73%), while most Ashkenazim and "mixed" (those born to parents one of whom is Ashkenazi and the other Mizrahi) are mainly non-religious seculars (66 % and 56%, respectively). Respondents of Mizrahi origin reported more than the rest of the respondents about the observance of all the customs examined.

Differences according to income level. In general, the higher the level of income of the Jewish Israelis, the lower their attachment to tradition. Most of those with a much higher income than the average define themselves mainly as non-religious secularists or anti-religious secularists (62%), compared to 48%-39% in the other groups of respondents. On the other hand, most of those with a lower than average income define themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox (61%).

Immigrants from the United States. In all aspects examined, the immigrants from the Commonwealth of Nations were found to be significantly secular compared to the rest of the Israeli Jewish population: a very high proportion of them define themselves mainly as non-religious secularists and some of them also as anti-religious secularists (total: 79%), compared to the rest of the Jewish population in Israel (total All: 43%).

To what extent do you believe or not believe that... , 2009

To what extent do you believe or not believe that... , 2009 - Survey by the Israel Democracy Institute and Beit Avi-Chai, 2009
To what extent do you believe or not believe that... , 2009 - Survey by the Israel Democracy Institute and Beit Avi-Chai, 2009

(The proportion of respondents "believes wholeheartedly" or "believes but sometimes doubts")

Throughout the years (1991, 1999 and 2009), two main trends can be pointed out on the topic of religious belief: in questions about general belief, such as the belief that there is a higher power that directs the world, there was a slight increase; And on unique Jewish questions, such as the belief in the coming of the Messiah, there was a decrease in the proportion of believers in 1999 compared to 1991, and this decrease was "corrected" in 2009 and returned to its level in 1991.

Download the full report



  1. In science you are allowed to be skeptical, but evolution has been proven in trillions of experiments, and if one experiment contradicted it, it would fall. And see it's a miracle for 160 years, not a single such experiment was successful, although many tried.
    Therefore, this Torah can be regarded as a scientific fact. The skepticism of the people on the site you sent us is due to religious motives, not a motive to know the truth.

  2. Amit.

    Forgive me if I got a little carried away, but I was really interested to know what you mean when you say: "The serious part of the world of science has long since rejected this theory (evolution) completely".

    And to your questions:

    1. What preceded the well-known "explosion"? - Do not know. (I don't believe anyone else either).

    2. What preceded it? Where did it all start? - same as above.

    3. How does the denial of the existence of a creator of the world fit with the law of conservation of energy? -same as above.

    But I don't understand how you were able to conclude from this that: "On the path of negation, the only answer is that there is a creator for the world".

    And especially, a Creator who is good and benevolent and wants our good.

    Because the answer to your 3 questions can also be "don't know yet", as until 200 years ago we didn't know what the law of conservation of energy was that you mention, and until 100 years ago about the big bang.

    So after I answered your questions, could you answer my one question:

    Who is "the serious part of the world of science that has long since rejected this theory (evolution) completely".


  3. A colleague who stands in the center of attention...
    I realized that you like to be amazed and amazed and that you let your sense of wonder dictate your intellectual worldview. It's your private business, and a man will live by his faith. But you try to force this style on me too. When someone Googles my name they may find it in close proximity to your ideas and get the wrong impression that I am collaborating with you. Please stop contacting me with stories like this.

  4. Amit, now just a simple question - how many medicines has religion brought to the world compared to the theory of evolution.
    This simple fact changes the whole picture for you and you owe your life to the scientists you so despise.

  5. fellow bystander,

    If you want to have a serious discussion there are some rules that are used in any scientific halachic or political discussion. If you make a claim you must cite your sources. did you find it Has this been posted anywhere? Is this a verse from the scriptures? In this sense, a theoretical discussion is not at all different from a scientific discussion. After all, you wouldn't come and say "as it is written" without indicating where it is written, would you?

    Now you came and made a simple and easy to test claim "the serious part of the world of science has long since rejected this theory (evolution) completely". If you want to continue a serious discussion please show what this claim of yours is based on?

    There is no attempt at cynicism or rhetorical argument here, but an attempt to build a serious discussion.

  6. Yuval Chaikin - Unfortunately, my long answer to your questions is "awaiting confirmation"... Apparently someone feels threatened by the arguments I put forward...
    Israel, allow me not to refer to you, save the cynicism and academic arrogance for your "scientist" friends.
    And now let me ask you - if we assume for a moment that your fascinating and fictional theory of evolution is true, even though the statistics completely disprove it, what preceded the well-known "explosion"? And if you discover a certain process or event that preceded it, the exact same question will remain - what preceded it? Where did it all begin?
    How does denying the existence of a creator of the world fit with the law of conservation of energy? On the path of negation, the only answer is that there is a creator for the world. But it's getting a bit tiring to repeat the same arguments in front of a crowd of deaf people.
    You ask sarcastic questions, season them with sarcasm and arrogance but you have no answers to speak of what I asked.
    You look down on anyone who doesn't think like you and don't really give room for serious discussion because you simply aren't open to accepting or trying to understand something that doesn't coincide with your (lack of) belief.
    I would love to hear real arguments for the questions I raise. I have already gotten to know your rhetoric and I must admit that it is not impressive, maybe the opposite. It was probably said about you, "A fool is better than a wise man in his own eyes"...

  7. Amit

    "The serious part of the world of science has long rejected this theory altogether, simply a statistical improbability"

    I agree with R.H.'s question: who, what, when, why aren't they telling us anything??!?

    Who is that serious part of the world of science? where is he? At Harvard? Oxford?

    Or maybe the bench in the courtyard of Zaranoga Passage XNUMX?

  8. A fellow onlooker...
    It's been a long time since I heard such a solid, clear and strong argument as the one you brought. Harini stands in front of him excited and thrilled and speechless.
    By the way, you didn't answer the questions I posed to you. All of a sudden I hear them and realize that our conversation is over. Oh what a pity

  9. fellow bystander,

    Interesting what you say. Can you give some names of the important and serious and respected scientists who reject the theory of evolution?

  10. Yuval Chaikin
    Oops...I looked at your comments and saw that you still worship Darwin's theory of evolution. The serious part of the world of science has long since rejected this theory altogether, simply a statistical improbability (obviously).
    By the way, before women "evolutionarily" developed the flexibility in their pelvic bones, would they have simply died during childbirth?
    It seems to me that I have already given you more examples that show how illogical the theory of evolution is, I hope you were able to see the end of my words.
    In the book "The Origin of Species" Darwin says that the most serious argument that can be made against his theory is that there are not enough stages in the fossils, which show the development process of a certain species, and for this he asks to be patient because, the study of fossils was at the beginning and therefore not all the proofs needed to verify a theory have yet been found The evolution.
    So I ask you, more than 100 years later, when every centimeter has been dug up and studied, isn't it time to throw the theory of evolution in the trash?
    The most important, serious and respected scientists have already done this…

  11. Yuval Chaikin - I admit that my writing is seasoned with a lot of irony and cynicism, but don't give yourself permission to focus on the bland and ignore the main point. The table and the fabric are not only "complements" but an attempt to explain to you in a logical way that it is not possible for anything to exist without something that created it, which is the reason for its existence.
    Even if you research another 100 years non-stop and find proof of the big bang theory, the question will always remain - what preceded and caused it, what is the source of the energy and material from which the physical reality in which we live is built (if we ignore for a moment the spiritual reality without which even matter has no existence). Even if you find and prove the existence of an "atom in Genesis" or any esoteric theory put forward by the speculators who call themselves "scientists" (not disrespecting the practitioners of empirical science but all the thinkers of the unfounded theories) the question will still remain as to where that atom or that beginning came from.
    And if you take another step forward and "zoom out" and look at yourself, you may realize that you are dealing with technical details but missing the main point - there cannot be a world without a creator as everything has a reason and a purpose, and there is no "existence from nothing", so that the "existence" is Reality must be created by something and it is not possible that it was just always there or created from nothing.
    Do you want me to show you how the Creator works???
    Look around you, you are part of a wonderful and complex world in which countless physical and biological systems function in harmony and improbable perfection and you ask me how the Creator works?
    Who created the star systems in a way that would allow life on Earth without being burned, frozen or destroyed by asteroids? coincidence? Do you understand a little about statistics? I guess not, if you don't conclude from what is happening around you that it is far beyond coincidence.
    How does the ant know to truncate the mechanism of germination in the seeds it collects for food if someone did not produce and prepare it for this? Did she learn it in compulsory kindergarten from her parents?
    How does a beetle (whose name I forgot) know how to create a mixture of 4 chemical substances from four separate organs in the exact quantities and doses needed to produce a miniature chemical explosion designed to repel enemies? evolution? Did she get there by way of trial and error and died on the way or did someone create her that way? What is the logical conclusion?
    (and again) What is the unexplained force that moves the electron around the nucleus of the atom? What would happen if the same force stopped for a fraction of a second? The end of the world... do you think it is a coincidence that the greatest scientists and philosophers of mankind came to the conclusion that there is a creator of the world?

    Regarding your comments, let me explain some of the concepts I used, lest you think I chose words randomly or recklessly:
    Bina, according to the wisdom of Judaism, is the ability to understand one thing from another. as distinct from wisdom or knowledge. Intelligence is a tool that helps to draw conclusions beyond the obvious and obvious. Intelligence helps a person to understand from observing, understanding and studying the universe, and not from "blind faith", that there is a creator of the world. To see the stamp of the artist in his work, from celestial bodies of enormous dimensions, through biological systems to the smallest atom. To think that all of this was created by itself (we simply haven't found out what preceded the big bang yet, but wait and see...) and without a creator, this is illogical, illogical and unthinkable.
    Ego - is very relevant, because there is no person in the world who is not 'infected' with excess self-importance at one level or another and who is not adversely affected by it. In our case, the ego of the scientist or the theoretician, interferes with reaching objective truth. In order to reach objective truth, a person must shed every agenda and every prejudice and look at reality in the cleanest and purest way possible to really see things as they are. A scientist or academic who lives in the ivory tower of the university and longs to publish another "discovery" or breakthrough (after all, the fate of his career and prestige depends on it), is strongly influenced by this need and often esoteric research based on chicken's knees will lead him to far-reaching "conclusions" A sect that has no trace of truth in it. That's why the word "ego" is very relevant.
    The ego also fixes a person in his ideas in such a way that he cannot accept a reality that does not coincide with his opinions or assumptions.
    I also tell you that many times, those who deny the existence of the Creator do so out of a reluctance to acknowledge the existence of something that is superior to him and his understanding. For, 'How can there be anything in the world that I cannot understand, with all my wisdom and degrees and academic achievements?' – Ego…
    What about you? You asked some critical questions but said nothing. Do you believe or not believe or don't know?
    Do you consider yourself intelligent? It's hard for me to understand how a sane person, whatever he may be, does not understand that there is a creator for the world. Maybe the 'ego' is the most likely explanation. It takes a considerable measure of "inner honesty" to look at ourselves and admit to the touchiness of our dimensions (for example the ego) and I do not exclude myself from the rule...

  12. A fellow onlooker...
    First, technical notes: I am not impressed by analogies and metaphors. What is evidenced by the table and the fabric, as well as the computer or Man-Dho's indecision whether to laugh or cry, is not relevant to the actual discussion. The use of words such as "inner honesty", "intelligence" and "ego" do not seem relevant to me.
    The statement that there is a Creator of the world is meaningless if the person who says it cannot show how the Creator works. This is equally valid for those who deny the existence of the Creator if they cannot come up with a good alternative.
    It seems to me that you believe that the existence of a creator is the only logical conclusion that can be reached, and only after I reach it can we continue the discussion. If I see correctly, and yet you want to continue litigating, would it be useful to change your approach?

  13. Yuval Chaikin, there is indeed one logical and logical conclusion and that is that there is a creator for the world. As the table testifies to the carpenter and the fabric to the weaver, all the more, the world testifies to its creator.
    After you understand that this is the only logical conclusion that can be reached from observing the universe and asking the questions without fear and without biasing the mind by one agenda or another, we can continue the dialogue. For example, if I show you a simple laptop and tell you that it was created as a result of a storm + earthquake in an intel parts warehouse (or alternatively the well-known story about a model of the solar system built by the famous astronomer Isaac Newton - familiar?) you will surely say that I am a liar or a fool. That's why I tell you that those who look at the universe and refuse to understand that there is a creator of the world, must be one of the two - a liar or a fool, and this has nothing to do with his intelligence and the level of his scientific education, because unfortunately the thought of common sense can be biased and distorted by countless reasons and factors that originate in the human soul.
    When I recall the theory of evolution we grew up with as if it were a proven scientific truth, in the stories about the molecule that 'decided' to multiply and became a single-celled creature (laugh or cry? Do you know how many mechanisms and systems there are in even the simplest single-celled creature???) about the mammals that developed gills Or about the fish that turned into mammals, I can't help but chuckle with empathy at the biology teacher... You can continue to explore the world and its components, devote your whole life to studying the formation of galaxies and the universe, come up with theories about great compensations, about a shrinking and expanding universe, about evolution and about quantum theory. If you have intelligence and inner honesty, you will understand, like the great scientists and philosophers in history, that one must be a creator of the world (e.g. Einstein, Descartes, Newton and more). And if you don't have intelligence and inner honesty but arrogance and ego, you will continue to grope like a blind man in the dark, even if you are considered a great scientist and a huge genius, these are nothing but empty titles (by Stephen Hawking). Sometimes a small child can understand something that a learned professor fails to see, and the reason is that the small child has not yet developed an ego that prevents him from seeing things as they really are.

  14. A fellow onlooker...
    I will not pretend to say that I have answers to all your questions. Furthermore, I also believe that science has not yet found answers to some of these questions.
    But I have a question to ask you: do you draw any conclusions from the fact that your questions have no answers?

  15. First time here, I came by chance and read many of the comments. A fascinating dialogue indeed, I got carried away into it... I wanted to ask the 'knowledgeable' atheists among you a number of simple questions that have been bothering me for a long time:
    How is it possible to have energy without a primary source (law of conservation of energy)?
    How can the formation of any thing, even the smallest (the universe, for example) without a creator?
    What drives the electrons around the nucleus and enables the physical existence of any material, living, growing or inanimate?
    How is it possible that our sages knew how to calculate the whitewash cycle to the precision of a thousandth of a second (!)? After all, they didn't deal with science... maximum Gemara 🙂
    Doesn't it seem strange to you that the appearance of brain waves in a fetus at the age of 40 days as discovered recently by modern technology is surprisingly parallel to the differences in purity laws in Jewish Halacha between a woman who aborted a fetus 40 days old or older and a woman who aborted a fetus less than 40 days old?
    And to end briefly (because I could go on and on...and more) - is it really possible to statistically explain the infinite complexity of the living systems in the universe as a result of evolutionary development by random genetic mutations and natural selection (according to the theory of evolution) that started from one 'explosion' big???
    And if so, what is the source of energy for this wonderful explosion? Yes, our neighbors also often blow us up and lately mostly each other, but so far I have not seen that anything but destruction, destruction and human suffering (sarcasm) has resulted from this...
    Requesting a serious, matter-of-fact and non-condescending approach please...

  16. Not the most skeptical news I've come across...
    If I had come across it on some third-rate news site like Walla or Nena Mila, but here?

    Not so relevant…

  17. You reject!! Lucky that's the case. Show some intelligence, the world was not created from nothing. We the Jews are supposed to serve as an example to the other human beings equal to us with the help of human and religious laws that we have received. We thank God/nature/universe for creating us and our ancestors - and if you have a different opinion you have no right to be called Jews (it has long been not a nation but a religion because of the possibility of conversion!)

  18. Wow, Yuval... what nostalgia 😀
    Definitely a fascinating and entertaining article.

  19. withdrawing from the site,

    In general, I agree with the calls to keep the site scientific and not to mix religion or politics. However, what you wrote is really, really, really outrageous. Especially two things:
    1) "For the purpose of your claims against ultra-Orthodox, no, this is so passa" - what passa? What phase? Maybe for the ultra-Orthodox it's a shame because surely those who get free money think it's a shame to talk about it. If you don't mind, this is probably going to be the main issue in the upcoming elections, so what's wrong here?

    2) "How is Avrach at a yeshiva different from a master's student or a doctoral student at an academy? Shall we start measuring how productive each of them is?” - This claim is particularly irritating. I don't need to tell you that a student serves in the army, makes reserves, pays taxes, pays property tax and finances his studies. In the future he will probably increase his wealth and accordingly pay more taxes. The chance that he will invent or contribute to the well-being of life in the country is relatively large. In contrast to Havrach, you will simply add "no" to each of the sections.
    The audacity of your robbed Cossack simply crosses all limits. In fact, you are saying what Eli Yishai said when he was asked to divide Beit Shemesh into two cities - "The ultra-Orthodox don't pay property taxes, so the ultra-Orthodox city will be poor!" Do you understand?
    By the way, please don't start confusing the brain that what I'm talking about is "Orthodox hatred" or "anti-Semitism". Equality is all that is asked for. As far as I'm concerned, we are brothers and live as you wish. However, there should also be equality between brothers. And Israel should be equal like any democratic country in the world. After all, in the USA the ultra-Orthodox work and fulfill their duties like any other citizen, why can't it be the same in Israel?

  20. To all visitors, this is an average of one article per month (out of over a hundred), you are welcome to skip it.
    By the way, the timing was not determined by me but by the events, and believe me there were many events that I wanted to comment on and I didn't. In light of these comments I am sorry for that.

  21. I should mention that I also think the subject of science vs. religion is unnecessary on the site. It is not interesting, unwanted and disturbing. I go in to read about science, not about comparing it to religion.

  22. To David - short news has a place on news sites that have no significance to the archive, on a scientific site it is desirable (not always possible) to go deeper.

  23. Hello to retire.
    There is much to be said for each of the naiveties you have revealed in all these sections.
    A. No contradiction? After all, there is an entire industry whose purpose is to prove the superiority of religion over science, and to present science in a crooked way so that it fits the requirements of the maverick. The religious fanatics are 99% of the religious, after all, you can't accuse all lawyers of being dishonest because 90% of them are......
    B. As I answered to another commenter - the separation between science and responding to attacks on science is artificial and the whole thing is designed to prevent Internet surfers from reaching the real scientific arguments on issues that some worry will be controversial even though there is controversy in science (the age of the world, evolution, the beginning of life, global warming). On a scientific website, you need to make sure that the scientific truth is on a scientific website and not any other statement pretending to be the truth. And this should be said loudly and clearly, not with apologies and bickering.
    C-1. Dear public indeed. There is a difference between them and master's students on two levels - one - the duration of the studies, no humanities master's student studies all his life, at some point his scholarship is stopped. and b. the quantity. Have you seen that whole neighborhoods are built for literary critics, or that property tax concessions are given to psychologists?
    C-2 I also care what they teach, because if they teach a lie, they shouldn't be embarrassed and say that they are being told the truth, and the worst part is that they are not being taught part of the truth. It's worse than a lie. Because they study unproductive things they also condemn themselves to a life of poverty and welfare (compounded by the injustice of not paying taxes). - That's why there is a Knesset, but to stop it there is a Supreme Court, which is also neutered, and its recommendations, such as stopping the Tal Law, are not implemented in the hope that the judge will change, and they will also determine the outcome and the weather. The playing field does not really play in favor of the sane people, but only for the organized lunatics.
    d. Again - an entire public should not suffer because of 90% of it.
    The position on a scientific website is that the science-oriented ignorance of 50% of the population hurts the rest of the population, and it suffices to mention examples such as the prohibition of organ donation, irrational opposition to abortion, and all kinds of other religiously motivated things in which Israel lags behind. As soon as those with an anti-scientific view silence the criticism with various means such as money, threats, etc., this leaves the media in Israel poor in scientific coverage, therefore it is essential to have a site of this type.
    The Israeli skeptic has been part of the science website since day one.

    post Scriptum. You see the sore spot for you - criticism of the Jewish religion, but the site has similar criticisms of Christianity - mainly in opposition to evolution and even Islam. And why should supporters of alternative medicine be disadvantaged, the criticism of them should also be removed, and what about reading in coffee or communicating with spirits? Why does a certain religion have immunity from criticism that other religions and beliefs do not?
    And besides, the main point of the current article - data from the Central Bureau of Statistics. If the data is scary, shouldn't it be said? Should we just give dry data and let the public decide?

    By the way, there is an answer to your approach called "live and let live"

  24. The science site is the only place where people who hear about something supposedly scientific can go and find the truth. What the deniers want is to neutralize this one place from all kinds of flavors and artificial divisions of what is scientific and what is not. Defense against an attack on science is also scientific.

  25. I warmly agree.
    And to mention, in the aforementioned Gutman report, only 3% (and sometimes 2%) declared themselves as anti-religious.

    And another suggestion for improving the site:
    Something I know from the Galileo monthly - the maximum demand in the public is for many diverse and short scientific news. If you don't want to reduce the length of the articles, you should open a separate section for flashbacks. I'm sure that following this the admissions graph will skyrocket.

  26. to my father,

    I also think that "religion and state" is not a scientific subject, maybe 'political science' but it is not really a science... In the past I was also against personal attacks on the website and presenting issues in a non-scientific way (deniers, skeptics, trolls and other vegetables).

    Is there any way, please please please, that you will keep this site scientific?

  27. Dear Mr. Blizovsky,
    A. There is really no contradiction between Judaism and science. Attempts to create a false representation as if there is indeed a conflict, stem from a desire to resemble Western liberal movements that went against the Christian religious establishment, (which opposed even Galileo, so that going against the Christian establishment was justified)

    B. I gave you some free business advice, if you are addressing an audience on matters of science, why do you have to constantly mix your opinions on religious issues? Religion and science move along two parallel lines, don't try to bring them together by force for the purpose of promoting private agendas or for the purpose of strengthening other ideas ("hey the phantasies are against science, - so of course I'm right about the rest")

    C. As for your claims against ultra-Orthodox, no, that's so far fetched, let's once and for all close the corner of claims against ultra-Orthodox in the hope that I might be able to continue to enter the website (which was really great until recently).
    1. Your statements towards this dear public are not clear, how is avrach in a yeshiva different from a master's student or a doctoral student in the academy?
    Shall we start measuring how productive each of them is? Is a person measured only by how much money he makes?
    2. What do you care what they study?, if you claim that later they receive allowances because of socioeconomic poverty - go out and claim
    Regarding the laws of the State of Israel that allow this, why do you claim against the public and not against the law?
    3. The state transfers transfer payments to many sectors, and to various cultural and religious services, correct?
    productive? This is what the Knesset is for, this is the democratic system and this is its cost. You have wives for a good method

    d. The statement "because it's not pleasant for you to hear that you are lazy" was out of place even in a talkback and certainly not from a self-respecting website owner, generalizations about an entire public are not very intelligent.

    This debate can be continued much longer, and it may have a place (you are welcome to open a blog of Avi Blizovsky's thoughts on religion and state) but in my opinion it has no place on a scientific website.

  28. The media doesn't invent anything, on the contrary, there is a lot of harassment by the ultra-Orthodox to the secularists that doesn't make it to the media at all because the journalists are tired of hearing about it. You should ask Michael what is happening near his house, for example.
    Both Michael and I talk about personal information.

  29. My father, you are once again distorting reality, the government did not surrender to the ultra-Orthodox.
    In my opinion, those who hate ultra-Orthodox, they have surrendered to the product of hatred.

    And the government, it does not surrender at all, the governments have always acted according to purely egoistic considerations. And it has nothing to do with the ultra-orthodox. And all those governments are secular governments.
    So the only ones you have to direct your claims towards are the legislators of the secular laws. Or, the media may be just making things up (which it usually does)

  30. Michael, did you notice what you did? You addressed what I said, not the main point.

    And the main thing is that the country, which is secular and democratic, gives money to someone. Why are you complaining to that person? Contact the state. After all, if they gave you money, you would take it.

    The only plausible reason for all this incitement is internal hatred that needs to be expressed towards someone, so the media inflames the hatred and invents all kinds of delusions as if the ultra-Orthodox set the laws in the country, and the innocent and stupid public follows the media. without asking questions.

  31. Point, if you had read my responses to the articles of the daily capitalist in NRG you would know that I am the last one in favor of the capitalists. I also criticize them for their disdain for the environment.
    One justified criticism should not come at the expense of another criticism. What do you think the ultra-orthodox will say to the seculars? We are going to conquer you, but don't you dare give us back, because there are other problems in the economy."
    And by the way, I say on every possible platform my opinion about the government and its shameful surrender to the ultra-Orthodox, even where it shouldn't be.

  32. point:
    I find a moment to devote to the science site and I need to find such nonsense?
    Imagine if I were to say now that I think all this incitement about the plundering of capital by the tycoons with the cooperation of the state is meant to hide the plundering by the ultra-Orthodox?
    As a matter of fact - it's clear that your entire response is pointless, but since I've already responded to the other things more than once, I decided to make it easy on myself and only address the concluding nonsense.

  33. Father, what do you want from the ultra-orthodox?
    The state is a secular state, and will direct the accusations towards the state.
    I really really don't understand why you point the accusations at the ultra-Orthodox.
    It also has nothing to do with ultra-Orthodox Knesset members. The country is a secular and democratic country.
    If you were offered free money, wouldn't you take it? It's hard for me to believe.

    In general, it seems that this whole campaign of incitement against the ultra-Orthodox came to cover up huge extortions that the capitalists are conducting with the cooperation of the state.

  34. All attempts to establish a religious site that would teach science were petty and failed, because apparently science and religion do not go together. You didn't succeed with legal threats to change the site's line, you won't succeed with threats of abandonment either, my data from the last two years says exactly the opposite. The blog is really not abandoned.
    And apart from that, my criticism that the ultra-Orthodox do not study core studies, and are not qualified to work, is not anti-religious. There are also many religious people who think so. I don't think idleness is such a sacred thing that it shouldn't be visited. What you want is for those who think that the ultra-Orthodox should study science and be competent to work to shut up, because it doesn't please you to hear that you are lazy.

  35. Dear Mr. Blizovsky,
    Your views towards the Jewish religion, and the fact that you bother to voice them all the time on your site, caused me a few months ago to except your site clerk. I went in now to see if anything had changed, and unfortunately apparently not.

    It seems to me that you still haven't decided whether you want to make a business out of a unique scientific website, or whether you want to give free rein to anti-religious graphomania in an abandoned blog. A check on Google also shows that the site is doing much less well in the last two years, for your attention.

    The former science reader
    (And by the way, also an observant Jew, who smirks slightly in light of the pathetic link you make between religion and lack of education)

  36. My father, I do not agree with your statement, belief in God (below it is divided into two types - belief in the creator of the world, and belief in the overseer) can also come from knowledge of science.

    For me, the thought and recognition that there is a direct Creator came during my engineering studies at the Technion for scientific reasons only and without any external influence.

    I don't intend to explain my argument here, but your article here surprised me badly, both in the ability of deduction and in being biased on the side of the extreme secularism that is no less predatory than the religious one.

    In conclusion, please stick to the facts and please refrain from publishing personal opinions, they have no place in a serious scientific journal.

  37. Yehuda:
    As someone who deals with rabbis - it is not at all surprising that you make such demagogic claims.
    Generally - there is no approach to religion.
    There are quite a few who leave the question who return to repentance, and if you take into account that the size of the ultra-Orthodox population is smaller, you realize that the rate of exiting the question is greater than the rate of returning to repentance.
    The relative growth of the population that believes in nonsense is solely due to an increased birth rate and the phenomenon of the captive baby.

  38. As someone who is also a little involved in mahbatyot, I can say that the sacrifices to religion are not due to the education provided in the state schools, but in spite of this education. Parents send their children to religious schools because they are anxious for their safety. This also applies to the Jews living abroad who send their children to religious schools for this reason.
    Another reason for repentance is the permissiveness that harms the ability to establish a healthy and solid relationship. I mean that free sex and "porno" are indeed enjoyable for the time being, but they have a high future price and many people feel that living according to the Torah will improve their quality of life.
    It cannot be denied that many problems that are common among the general public are relatively rare among the religious public and among the ultra-orthodox.
    In conclusion: if you want to be secular, at least do it well.

  39. Beyond the article that Aryeh pointed to, one can find many more objective reviews (such as those that were not written with the funding of the publishing house to be used as an advertisement) about the book.
    for example:
    Yuval Steinitz's book is also mentioned here and receives the "compliments" it deserves.
    And here is another review:
    And a quote from it:
    "In conclusion, although Steinitz's arguments are sometimes strong, the flaws in them are numerous to the extent that makes his position unfounded"

  40. Point and lime:
    The book is extremely stupid and its logic is screwed up.
    I remember it clearly.
    It has nothing to do with the conclusions.

    Can you, period, point to any place where I rejected an argument just because I didn't like its conclusions and without pointing out the error in the chain of arguments or did you just decide to donate psychology to us on a dime?

  41. Yair - Can I give some detail according to the scroll of Esther? And what do you think anyway?

  42. Hadar,
    I heard a lecture by Yuval Steinitz about God, I also read the title of his book. If you want a comprehensive clarification of the essence of God, read the book of Esther

  43. To Michael
    1) I read that Dr. Steinitz's first book An Introduction to Philosophy was declared by the British Association as the best introductory book to philosophy in the world. Is that how stupid you think he is?
    2) Regarding the issue of the ultra-orthodox - I also think they are guilty and so is the government, but it's not strange to you that you correspond about this between dozens or hundreds who read you and between us it's not really effective - maybe you'll learn to fight with courage like a really big demonstration.
    3) I also read that about 8500 Yeshiva students do not enlist every year (is this the figure?). So on the road maybe protest against many tens of thousands of other dodgers of all kinds for all kinds of reasons. What about the Arabs who could, for example, do national service? What about all the duplicate budgets that go to sectors that only serve themselves? Of which none of this goes to the citizen who supports them. Doesn't all this disturb your rest?

  44. Michael, Yuval Steinitz's book is not stupid at all.

    Your objection seems to be that he reaches conclusions that don't suit you.. That doesn't make a book stupid.

    The book is interesting and I think everyone should read it. After Descartes' logics, and then to start studying philosophy.

  45. What's more - I also have complaints about the "police" in the parable and that's why I participated in the effort to create an alternative.
    In the next elections we will see if the problem is with the elected officials or the voters.

  46. jubilee:
    And I repeat and emphasize that when a thief is caught, he must first and foremost be punished and only then check if there was also an omission by the police.

  47. Hadar:
    I read the book many years ago and do not remember much of it.
    What I do remember is that it is one of the stupidest books I have ever read.

  48. Has anyone read the book "Scientific Logical Rocket to God and Back" by Dr. Yuval Steinitz
    And can have an opinion?

  49. If the Jews lay down their weapons, etc.: True, we are a small and cursed people who are forced to live on the sword and at the mercy of one power or another.
    The rule that guides most creators is simple: they give you - take; They take it from you - run away. Whoever does not follow this rule barely survives or does not survive at all.
    I emphasize again: it is not the population of the "Free Eaters" that should be attacked, but the system that enables the system.

  50. Jubilee (
    First of all - I would not entrust others to serve me.
    I never did and I never will.
    I don't understand why you think I would do that.
    I don't think you would do that either.
    Besides - your claim is somewhat similar to the claims against a person who takes a medicine that kills the bacteria instead of scolding the laws of nature and dying.
    The bacteria do what they know how to do.
    They kill the victim but, in a way, they are better than the ultra-Orthodox because they do it to survive.
    They have no choice.
    The ultra-Orthodox have a choice and the fact is that there are ultra-Orthodox who have noticed this (and even you have noticed them - according to Amslam or Halbertal).
    And one more thing to say: my above comparison to the laws of nature is not entirely accurate because the laws of nature cannot be changed - but your claim is also not accurate from the beginning because I am actually working for change.
    Arguing with the ultra-Orthodox (and with those who defend them and say that it is all the fault of the members) is one of the things that must be done to bring about this change (I do not argue with bacteria).

  51. Here too there is a fundamental difference, as Haomer said:
    If the Arabs lay down their arms, there will be peace tomorrow. If the Jews lay down their weapons, there will be a massacre today.

  52. The difference is that Judaism has no problem with Islam or Iran, and does not call for their destruction.

  53. I am dyslexic. Until I was in sixth grade I devoured books, sometimes four or even five a day. Then the librarian of the Witso library decided that I was already an adult, and gave me adult books. Since then I stopped reading, because the letters were small. Only nowadays, with the invention of Acrobat Reader which allows me to enlarge the letters as I wish, I started reading tiny here - tiny there, but I have not yet returned to that mythological doubt.
    With us, this song had a natural continuation, and please don't ask me why this is:
    And you hug hands
    without reaching out for help,
    without extinguishing the fire of the flame,
    The fire of the town.
    In the Galilee at Tel Hai
    Trumpeldor has fallen
    In the name of our people in the name of our country
    Hero Yosef fell...

    We all live by our faith and in the end we also die. Why is it so far reaching as far as the ultra-Orthodox and the scientists? Even here, the prophets of the active ether, the gascom and the dark matter particles, will fulfill their quota of days in a few decades.
    And why can't the Iranians and their destroyed Jewish leader, Ahmadinejad, be allowed to destroy what will be destroyed anyway? And that Judaism is better than Islam?

  54. jubilee
    All of the above, and one must also add - dyslexia.

    Otherwise why: "There is no riding on dragons of any color and there is no conquering horses or killing maidens."?

    And for that matter:

    Maybe I'm naive, but I think the ultra-orthodox believe with complete faith that they are the ones who protect the people of Israel.

    According to them, all these tanks and planes are quite unnecessary. My strength and the strength of my hand. They are the ones who kill themselves in the Alah of Torah, but it is natural that they are entitled to public support, like any other permanent person.

    The religious public raises their eyes towards them with respect, like an engineer to a pure physicist or an accountant to a pure mathematician, and if we sharpen the analogy, even the pure mathematicians and physicists are usually eccentric, dress strangely, have a strange sparkle in their eyes, and live modestly.

    Well, then what's the problem, each man and his faith, no?

    The problem is that the Iranians launched a third satellite yesterday. They are progressing quickly. The advantage of the religion of science over the religion of faith is that it works. almost always. And so that we don't once again stand armed with siddur and tefillin in front of guns and bayonets, we should get over ourselves, and quickly.

    Or like the words of the song "The Town is Burning" from 1938:

    And you hug hands
    without reaching out for help,
    without extinguishing the fire of the flame,
    The fire of the town.

  55. jubilee:
    Indeed, I did not read Bio Shitin - but that is not the problem.
    What I forgot to read was the last few pages.

    It is true that in cosmic dimensions - everything that happens here is a passing episode - but this is the only episode we have.

    The world is not really getting worse.
    In fact - just like the State of Israel, it suffers from a demographic problem of a high natural proliferation of ultra-Orthodox of all kinds.
    The sane part remains sane and grows slowly.
    The ultra-orthodox part is growing, becoming horrifying.

  56. Israel! Again, as is your wicked habit, you send me to search in the fields and vineyards? I already explained that I did indeed read well, so which one were you referring to?

    ADD - attention deficit disorder

    ADD, attention, concentration and hyperactivity disorder, a disorder characterized by a lack of concentration and attention and sometimes hyperactivity (often diagnosed in children)

    • ADD – Analog-Digital-Digital

    A term describing the digital process of creating an audio CD

    • ADD – Apostrophe Deficit Disorder

    A disorder manifested in a situation where a person is unable to use apostrophes

    • ADD – accumulated degree days

    A figure calculated by summer temperatures (agriculture and legal anthropology)

    I loved the bears 🙂 cute for God's sake as long as they don't carry weapons of war (I wonder if my response would have been delayed if you had brought the seventh letter, as I intended 😉 ).

  57. The new computer and its papers 🙁
    From everything! As Hana Kehat says: "It doesn't smell good." Fight you with the streimels of the windmills and your clean eyes show the real culprits. The ultra-orthodox do what they know how to do given the right situation and conditions. You would also take from the state if it offered you. And who are you shouting hams!? Not about the government system that distorts things, but about the ultra-Orthodox who behave as one human being. One should not sow blind hatred towards a large group of people and towards their faith - no matter how stupid it may be. The method needs to be changed. Jubilee speech
    *And it is not clear to me how my response was not delayed. It is not because I wrote the explicit name without iodine

  58. From everything! As Hana Kehat says: "It doesn't smell good." Fight you with the streimels of the windmills and your clean eyes show the real culprits. The ultra-orthodox do what they know how to do given the right situation and conditions. You would also take from the state if it offered you. And who are you shouting hams!? Not about the government system that distorts things, but about the ultra-orthodox who act as if they were one person or a mother

  59. I read well. You are in a hurry to make a sentence and you didn't read well through the shit. You will be forgiven, since you are busy with holy work.

  60. jubilee:
    You have not read well.
    I wrote earth horror. Not warming up.

    Shai Raviv:
    Rabbi Zamir brings lies and in almost every sentence of his you can find a contradiction to logic.
    It seems to me that neither you nor a "skeptic" who is anything but a skeptic have read or heard Sam Harris.

    But your position is clear nonetheless.
    After all, it is clear that those who support the "morality" of the situation in which an ultra-Orthodox minority enslaves a secular majority for its protection and sustenance does not understand what morality is.

  61. The fight against global warming? I don't think Earth really cares what the guests do. We are just a passing episode. Our benevolent host was here four billion years before we arrived and will be destroyed four billion years after we leave. The same applies to the anxiety of the country. The secular state of Israel is a guest for a moment in an anxious world.

  62. Leshi Raviv

    I did not find the mentioned article by Sam Harris, but on the face of it it is clear that atheism (in various shades) is not an ideology that guarantees a moral high ground. The three known secular countries of the twentieth century—Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China—committed crimes against humanity on an unbelievable scale (in the name of their secular ideologies).

    I also doubt Sam Harris's ability to do statistical studies at all, this is because he conducted a study on a correlation between some brain activity based on a research group of 15+15 subjects (see the SAM HARIS entry on English Wikipedia). It is clear that this is not a representative sample from which any definitive conclusions can be drawn, because the sample is too small, at most it is an academic research draft (which needs more extensive research).

  63. To my knight friends, R. H. and Israel,
    Today my back is busy. Until further notice, there is no riding on dragons of any color and there is no conquering of horses or elimination of maidens.

  64. Yifat,
    Harini is patiently waiting for substantive answers.
    I'm sorry you didn't like my answer to the question you asked. You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. You are welcome to specify what you did not like and I will try to fix it.

  65. Machel
    Rabbi Zamir also provides data.
    Harris is cherry picking like a nightingale. The correlation of belief in a higher power is irrelevant to the state's level of morality.

    Is the Czech Republic really a more moral country than Switzerland?

    Latvia more moral than Malta?

    Is Bulgaria more moral than Austria?

    Is the level of morality in Hungary and Luxembourg equal?

    Read about the level of crime and corruption in these countries.

    There is no connection between the level of atheism and the morality of the state.
    Try to find supports for your world view in objective real world data and not depend on preacher presentations.

  66. It's nice that a fan found you in the end.
    Of course you didn't answer. There were no reflections but questions.
    By the way Yuval - a constructive tip (not to get hurt) will perhaps replace the pathetic picture. He looks like someone patting himself on the chest and "thinking" he is smart.

  67. Shai Raviv:
    I thought Sam Harris would tell the truth and he did and backed up his words with data.
    One exception does not change the trend.

  68. By the way, Yuval, sorry for the brevity.
    I have no choice but to write briefly and you must have noticed that I hardly ever find time for the science website and the comments I write - if at all - are written in the dead of night.
    I was simply asked to devote more time to other fronts of the fight against the devastation of the planet.

  69. jubilee:
    In the meantime, we have seen what happens in our neighbors when mechanisms that suppress faith have been removed.

  70. jubilee,
    Medieval England missed a wonderful knight by several centuries. Tell me, what do you do in your free time? Riding a white horse slaying dragons and saving virgins right?

  71. R. H.,
    According to her name, she sounds gentle and sensitive to me. I phrased it that way just so as not to hurt her feelings. I said "from the heart" and I didn't say "lack of reason". I asked her nicely to answer factual questions. I also thanked her in advance for her willingness not to share her private thoughts with us (I did not say "don't tell us stories"). Do you think I didn't behave well?

  72. Yifat,
    What is relevant that many doctors or scientists are religious? Is this proof that Rabbi Zamir's words are true? Do the doctors and religious scientists agree with him? From my limited experience and acquaintance with some religious scientists and doctors, I got the impression that this is not the case (however, unlike you, I will not make a commitment because you did not do a comprehensive survey on the subject).
    What is relevant about my education or that of others? I ever asked you what is your education? All I wanted was that if you make an argument, show the evidence. What Rabbi Zamir said, with all due respect, is not enough. Einstein was also wrong. By the way, if you really read Rabbi Zamir, you would see that, unlike you, he does try to prove his words.
    What is answering from the heart? A simple argument came up "There are findings that are described in the Torah long before they were discovered by scientists" and then an even simpler question was asked "What are those findings?"
    This was never answered. What is from the heart? Maybe: "I feel there are some"? Or from the heart: "Inside me, for some unknown reason, I have some vague feeling that this is the way things are"? Do you think there is such a thing as answering yes/no questions or quantitative questions from the heart?

  73. Yifat: Please get the necessary books. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you would not share your heart's thoughts with us.
    RH: Waiting patiently?

  74. Yuval, I don't need to justify. I ask questions and unlike others I think I have certain answers (religious or secular).
    In order to reply to him, I have to get the books and read them again (you can see examples on the Internet or on the Hidavrot website). In any case, there is no doubt that scientists are quoted there, and I read that Dan adapted it to a joke book or to the toilet, and I was interested in what his education and training was (and R.H.'s as well) that he is like that See answers from scientists. (I still haven't answered) However, I repeat that many doctors and scientists are religious and even ultra-Orthodox (see also Dr. Shemer Avner, who is considered brilliant and has returned to repentance in recent years) and many are secular, so you will find stupidity on both sides. It is not a permanent situation where a person became a doctor/scientist and came back with a question. Sometimes, as I mentioned, it's the other way around.
    You also didn't really answer why a doctor or scientist would hold onto his belief, the answer you offered doesn't really convince me. I don't think it's a deep need but something they believe in and their truth.
    By the way, regarding the left and right part, I read an article by a doctor (also on the Hidan website) that it is about parts that one part is "busy" storing information and the other part that needs rest, for rejuvenating things, and therefore the same doctor recommended
    that in order to get the brain to operate in the most efficient way, our time must be divided according to the relative share of the sides of the brain.
    The ratio is the part of the brain as I imagine the right is 15% and the left 85% and therefore he recommended dividing the time into 85% "brain work, and 15% rest and pampering (a little reminds me of the ratio between working days and a weekly rest day - I'm not claiming - just a little to upset the annoying ones 🙂

  75. Yifat,
    Where did you see disrespect from me or from Dan Shamir? After all, you are the one who is condescending and condescending. Until now, apart from Heg and Kels, I have not yet read a single substantive argument backed by observations or results for your claims. If you can't then at least ask your engineer friend what is so serious and thought provoking and maybe we will finally get some kind of factual answer?

  76. Yifat, you are also a serious person (fact: you read articles in "Hidan" and comment on them 🙂 )
    To your question: I believe that the need for belief in the sublime and obedience to a supreme being is deeply embedded within us, as well as in many other creatures, and is transmitted through genetic inheritance. Man, in particular, is a very complex creature. We have two hemispheres of the brain, each of which is responsible for responding to the phenomena of the world around us. The responses are many and complex, but I associate them with two main categories, intellectual (left half) and intuitive (right half). These are separate categories and different from each other, and from this point of view there is no reason to wonder how a person can possess two behaviors which prima facie contradicting each other.

  77. I wrote eight sentences and answered with "that's just not true". It seems to me that my understanding was sufficient to understand which of the sentences you meant, but in the future, at your request, please specify specifically.
    And true. You're right. In countries where education is developed, it is possible to renounce religious belief. But try giving it up in a country like one of our neighbors, and see what you get.

  78. To Mr. Blizovsky - it is indeed nice that "the skeptic" gives a platform for many opinions.
    To Mr. Chaikin - I appreciate and thank you for your answer. I will ask you to really try to explain based on your view that "science beats the religious myth time and time again" to write why then there are still serious scientific and medical people who are still religious. What then is the basis of their belief. Please don't answer that it is their business. This is the discussion and if possible try to think in their place what motivates them. I know some of them as very serious people and I am true. And they don't look like people who follow the herd. By the way, I talked yesterday with an acquaintance who is a serious orthopedist (not religious) due to the need to explain to my son the subject of joints and the spine, he explained very well how things work, but regarding the question of where nature has such a super sense to worry about and "produce" From the beginning everything is true and complex that should lead to survival and existence, he said that this is the difference between secular and religious doctors and of course this intelligence is found in every human cell.
    I would really appreciate it if you would answer my request because I really want to think more.
    About a year ago, we were thinking about how those members "left" "society" and became ultra-Orthodox religious, and what characterizes those converts, some of whom are highly educated and some of whom are not at all. What characterized each of them, who was also secular in nature with completely independent thinking and completely free from society and the flock - just to you know
    From the days of Greek philosophy (and the Mobbe), and in my opinion long before that, through other scientists, and Maimonides, and even to this day, as I understand Professor Brock who wrote that to this day, no one knows why these forces exist and why, and I suppose this is what also motivates the religious scientists.
    To R. H. - My reaction to Michael was due to the fact that in the community I live in (a secular community in Sharon) and in general from my acquaintance with the national religious community and according to the media you can see how much they contribute in the army (in every elite combat unit, in pilots in the Hubals and more)
    I do not connect to the mystical side of religion and there are many currents like me in Judaism. I do think things like "don't lie" "stay away from those who speak lies", don't slander" (there's a lot of slander in that). Does Michael really believe as he wrote? Isn't there a shred of truth in his words - the sector is disappearing? Just recently enlisted? And when they... (what a false generalization), betrays the reason for the mobilization?
    As I wrote, this is a generalization intended to appeal to those who do not know the reality - I give credit to Michael for knowing enough and "only" trying to mislead the readers with generalizing lies, I really ask myself how he allows the public who reads his comments to be so disrespectful (and where is his truth) and what The value of his comments on other topics?
    Your statement that I am appropriating Jewish culture is complete nonsense.
    To R. H. Valdan - Can I ask what your training is that you are so inclined to underestimate the responses of scientists quoted in "Bereshit Bara" and Rabbi Zamir's books "The Revolution" regarding the relationship between religion and science?
    I talked this morning with a friend who is an aeronautical engineer by training and who in recent years has been a convert who read The Revolution and who thinks that the things written there are serious and thought-provoking. So what?

  79. Machel
    What did you think Sam Harris would say to his "believers"? Is atheism immoral? 🙂
    Each stream invents correlations to pat itself on the back.

    He invented a correlation that simply does not exist

    Estonia, the country at the top of the list - literally the light of morality

    Human trafficking in Estonia is a human rights issue and area of ​​serious concern[citation needed]. A 2008 report issued in the United States has found that human trafficking continues to be "a significant issue in Estonia."[6]

  80. Yifat,

    You're still evasive. Both Dan Shamir and I read Rabbi Zamir's words and on the other hand we also read some other things and formed an opinion. You probably haven't even read Rabbi Zamir, let alone scientific articles, because already throughout countless long responses you can't produce one small example of a scientific finding that was discovered in the Torah. Note that you brought the above argument, so please stand behind it.
    By the way, what arrogance and what arrogance are you talking about? It's just the opposite! You claim "I can say on a similar topic that some of the arrogant people here do not know Judaism and its culture at all." So who is arrogant here? What do you know about the knowledge of Michael or others here on the subject of Judaism that you so despise? Where does your arrogance come from to appropriate Judaism or Jewish culture for yourself? As the saying goes, "Tali Kora understands your problems" (yes, a great expert, where exactly is this said?)

  81. jubilee:
    This is simply not true and I have previously referred you to Sam Harris' lecture where he cites reports showing that the most atheistic countries are also the most moral countries (and no! they are not falling apart).

    There are all kinds of parasites that live at the expense of human society and not every such phenomenon is symbiosis - sometimes it is simply a disease.

  82. For hawks from both poles: belief in God is not about "what" but about "how". We do not know how the world was created and we are building mounds of hypotheses. Science beats the religious myth time and time again, and the religious establishment frequently finds itself on the defensive. It's not new. Already Saadia Gaon, in his essay "Beliefs and Opinions", is required to address this issue. The term "intelligent creator" takes on and unfolds form, and in every generation there are those who find order in the randomness of creation and method in the madness of evolution.
    Judaism, and even more so Islam, focuses on social phenomena when God's role is only to serve as a necessary glue. Remove from the equation the all-powerful intelligent creator who examines the kidneys and the heart, and you get total chaos. Belief in him, however false, lives in symbiosis with human society; The explanation for the strengthening of false belief is completely Darwinian, but this fact in itself does not negate the importance of belief. .

  83. Ifat
    First of all, forgive me for setting a challenge and then claiming that you don't really know and that doesn't sound very serious.
    I read Berashit Bara about 15 years ago and I can only say that the author (Aviazer if I'm not mistaken) shows flexibility in the book that goes so far as to realize jokes in order to reconcile his two opposing worldviews.
    I have also read everything that Mr. Zamir wrote and it will be a joke for the intelligence of the site readers that I will discuss it at all, but I definitely recommend his writings as joke books for bathrooms.

  84. to R.H
    I referred you because of my lack of time and maybe it could also interest you.
    What I did notice is that many of the commenters, like Michael, can quote Professor Sompolinsky as if it were an absolute truth that cannot be disputed and must not be second-guessed. It is clear to you that there are religious scientists (who deal with medicine, life sciences, and almost every scientific field) who think in a completely different way than him. The arrogant manner in which you The writer "Rabbi Zamir and this is enough for you" only emphasizes the arrogance of the writer and other writers on this site about people who have doubts or religious people.
    As if there are no kibbutz people and other completely free people (among them computer people, pilots, doctors who have repented) who have repented, simply whoever says this is lying and misleading. Is this life in prison? On the other side of Michael, I can quote Prof. Leibovitch who claimed that only through true faith can one become truly free, and this is as I understood it since the free will and free choice that characterize faith is also in accordance with Rambam.

    I can say on a similar topic that some of the condescending people here do not know Judaism and its culture at all.
    I will quote Michael's response "The national religious sector is disappearing.
    Those who still boast of this title do indeed often enlist recently (and only recently) and when they get into the army they also organize rebellions in it.
    This betrays, for those who think about it deeply, the reason for the mobilization and its connection to the desire to prevent the evacuation of settlements"
    This is a distorted delusional and false (not to mention sick) way of seeing things this way. Whoever sees things in such a generalizing, false and misleading way can only testify to him, and to the value of his responses on other issues.

  85. Yifat,

    Look what a long message you wrote and you still haven't answered a simple question - what scientific discovery is mentioned in the Torah that was discovered many years before science discovered it?
    Referring to Rabbi Zamir's books or other books does not answer the question. You claim on the one hand that "I am asking but I am trying with all my might to get to the truth without ego and stupid hypocrisy" but on the other hand you are not able to say what the facts are. Have you really tried to understand what this is about? Have you read the statements of both sides and formed your own opinion? Or is it that Rabbi Zamir said enough for you and we are called to "seek the truth"?
    And this is not a stupid argument, but just a discussion and an attempt to get to the root of things.

  86. Still skeptical:
    In the discussion about evolution, I referred to your words and to them only.

  87. Mirom Golan:
    You didn't answer my question about whether you saw confirmation from an official about the matter.
    What is interesting about the link you provided and your description of it is the fact that the boy does not indicate at all whether his attackers were secular, but of course in trending news this is of no importance.

    Education should not be training.
    It is true that he suffers from this many times, but education is meant to be mainly imparting (real and responsible) knowledge and giving a personal example.
    Everything beyond that (and ultra-orthodox training has only the transition to that) is invalid.

    A prison is a place where if a person is put into it - he cannot get out.
    I don't decide it for anyone. It's simply a matter of Hebrew.
    It is true that the prison of religion is sophisticated in that it uses the imprisoned as guards, but that does not change anything.
    The religion is built in such a way that those who learned nonsense in their childhood will live foolishly and train their children with nonsense.

    The national religious sector is disappearing.
    Those who still boast of this title do indeed often enlist recently (and only recently) and when they get into the army they also organize rebellions in it.
    This betrays, for those who think about it deeply, also the reason for the mobilization and its connection to the desire to prevent the evacuation of settlements.

    R.H.I (I do not confuse with R.H.):

    At minute 2:04 an explicit conversation begins about the identity between the body and the mind.
    As part of it, at minute 2:27, Professor Sompolinsky answers the question of whether the body and the soul are one and the same, and his words are as follows:
    "so that's it. This is exactly the meaning of this finding we talked about and other findings from recent years: absolute monism! There is no "I am supreme". As brain research progresses, the unequivocal conclusion becomes clear that our highest cognitive actions: choice, decision, moral preferences, evaluation of possible scenarios, etc., are all the product of physical and chemical mechanisms in our minds, which themselves are driven by physical and chemical laws that are the same as the law that exists in our other body cells or even in non-living systems!”

    At minute 6:15 he says "So I say first of all what my religious belief does not include. It does not include two of the traditional basic concepts of religious belief:
    A. God as a supernatural agent who intervenes in the course of affairs in nature and changes its course - the traditional concept of private providence.
    And the second traditional view is that man is a little god who, in his decisions and in his freedom, changes the course of events in history.
    And these two basic traditional concepts are deprived of a foundation! And a man of science and a man of thought who thinks about things and sees how science deciphers those so-called mysterious things of the self and of free will cannot combine, reconcile traditional religious belief of this kind with his scientific worldview."

    When I say that he does not believe in God - I interpret the word God as accepted and I am not referring to the evasive Gods who say that maybe there is a God who doesn't do anything that affects us.
    I am not interested in such a God and neither is religion.
    Only those who want to confuse the public and protect the god of religion by defining God in a completely different way from the way it defines him are interested in it.
    When Sompolinski says that the soul is the body, he completely denies the existence of the soul that the religious talk about.

    You must admit that it is better to simplify Sompolinski's words than to distort them.

  88. R.H
    As I wrote, I don't know much, but this is the place for discussion and not for arguing. We are supposed to think and search for the truth for ourselves. And this truth is really important to each of us, whether it is the religious person who allegedly wastes his time in vain or the heretic who allegedly wastes his time in vain (each of them in the meaning of his life and preaching ) and therefore I ask but try with all my might to reach the truth research without ego and foolish hypocrisy. This is a question of direction and meaning for a real life in any direction, and in my understanding for everyone.
    I wrote that there is the book Genesis Bara which was certainly interesting (one of our acquaintances, a computer expert, repented after reading it. It did not bring him back immediately, but brought him to his words to examine his understanding truly and anew) There are quotes from world-renowned scientists. There are the transformation books of Rabbi Zamir I looked up a little and there are also many quotes from scientists. There are many other books. It is ridiculous to say that it is not known what it is about.
    When you write "one real example will suffice", after all if this is a very important question to question all our evidence
    Life is worth more to you than a glance (and even to really examine what is written there and maybe even contradict it or think that it is thought-provoking) or does the way of free and open independent thinking make you afraid to confront what is written there?
    In any case, I share my opinion here - as you wrote and I will continue your words for the purpose - if there is indeed an entity
    Superior and intelligent that is indeed intentional, and if indeed the Torah is true then it certainly is, I would like to know more about many other things that we are commanded according to the instructions of a purposeful creator - the essence of man, morality, truth, the importance of the qualities of the soul, the sanctity of the family and relationship, weekly rest, the importance of humility.

  89. (The nickname is R.H.I, please don't get confused with R.H.)
    This discussion has been dug up and exhausted so many times here in science, that I have no intention of participating in it again.
    My desire is only to ask Michael Rothschild:
    I know Prof. Haim Sompolinski, and I do not understand at all your need to simplify completely simplify his concept, which is indeed quite complex (and even close to my heart).
    I have never heard Prof. Somplinsky claim that he does not believe in God, or that he does not believe in the existence of a soul.
    His argument is twofold (which I present based on the video you provided, and not relying on other sources): he refutes, on the one hand, the concept of "private providence", according to which God intervenes in nature, history, and human reality, and on the other hand, he refutes the idea The free choice of man.
    These two denials are radical, and truly affect religious belief, but they are not the same as disbelief in God and the denial of the soul.
    What do they leave from religion?
    Well, first of all the possibility of the existence of a God transcendent to reality (that is, they do not deal with it at all). The same God does not intervene in creation, but he exists. Belief in such an existence is the foundation of religious faith.
    Beyond that, they do not necessarily require a materialistic conception, which rejects the existence of the soul, as you say.
    (Watch the video again - is Sompolinsky even talking about the concept of the soul and the psycho-physical problem? I don't think so).
    Atev will of course claim that religious belief in these is meaningless, except that not everyone sees reality the way you see it, and not everyone stretches their faith as you would like. What to do, believing people are more complex than you would like and usually have a more complex psychology than those who define themselves as "atheists", asked every beginning psychologist. (And yes, this information comes from experience, even though I'm not a psychologist).

    Based on past experience: Please refrain from completely flattening and flattening my words, putting me in the mold of "delusional religious people who bombard science with links to Chabad videos". I give you a lot of credit. Give me credit back, and even a little.

  90. They are big, but I run with my dogs, so they shrink due to Lorentz transformations.
    Come on, right back to cosmology!

  91. Ifat

    The number of people addressing and referring to you and your writings is reminiscent of the attitude towards ……..Aliuna.

  92. Yifat,
    Despite all the preaching, you still haven't answered Dan Shamir's question - what discoveries are you talking about in your words: "Science and Torah books that mention amazing things that were discovered by the Torah and apparently without science later on"?
    One real example will suffice.

    Besides, I have a question for you, the fact that we don't know the answer to the question "Why?" Proves that there is an intelligent supreme being who intentionally created the world in 7 days and requires us not to travel on Shabbat?

  93. Ifat

    I may not have understood correctly:

    1. Neither I nor you can renew the claim or the example, since they must have already been presented
    During the debate that lasted thousands of years, between the believer and the non-believer. And this debate arose
    and increased over the years following the development of thinking.

    2. In reality there is no truth, justice, equality, bad, good, these are decorations, settings, they are concepts
    which were defined by man during his early development, in the last thousands of years
    Popped up in all kinds of places, peoples and cultures, people who started to think like that.

    3. The more free-thinking a person is, the more flexible his views and ways are
    And variables are more lack of sharpness, lack of uniformity, are more creative and innovative.
    There is no connection here with cultural indicators that define a person such as: rank level position
    Education Success Talent IQ and more

    4. The trait or need to believe to be led to be controlled, was naturally present
    In all humans in the ancient period tens of thousands of years ago. This feature, during
    Development began to weaken and naturally began to be heard, the voice of those who are not
    We need more faith, intention and dependence.
    5. The need for faith as is probably most closely connected with that instinct of existence, otherwise
    It is impossible to understand the cruelty and the terrible violence that accompanied and accompanies the struggle between
    groups with different beliefs
    6. The supreme being in faith or religion can be an earth, a king, a stone, a star, a god, an animal, an angel and more.
    The entity in all religions has unlimited power and its existence is infinite, between it and the believer
    There are so-called mediators, interpreters, occultists, sages, healers, prophets, and more.
    . A heavy punishment is imposed on a person who betrays the order of the entity or its messengers.

    7. It is possible to prove that in the world, in complete contrast to all kinds of beliefs and religions, the strong wins the unjust.
    The way of humanity is remarkably similar (still) to the natural world, that teeth devour poisons and the like,
    Replaced by money, weapons, status, political power and with their help just like nature, predators and conquerors
    exploiters rape and kill.

    8. Improving the level of humanity is an outcome of the development of freedom of thought.

  94. To Dan,
    Your answer characterizes all the arrogant. As the category of the site - the skeptic, we must question our mistakes, think them over every time and no matter what they are. In the publication of promising scientists for the coming years there was at least one ultra-Orthodox woman scientist (speaking of the exclusion of women) and you can also see among serious scientists as well Among senior doctors quite a few wear kippahs. Is everyone in your eyes stupid and wasting their time in vain or are you here too arrogant to examine and doubt, apropos the thinking man.
    When I tell my 8-year-old son about his diet, he needs to chew well because there are enzymes in the mouth that help bring the food to our body in an optimal state (by the way, until recently it was believed that it was better to put "ground" fruits and vegetables in a food mixer because it puts them in our body like after a good chew, today they say that the enzymes that are secreted during chewing are very important) I know how to explain how things happen according to the book, but when he asks why there would be enzymes there? enzymes), I have no answer! (By the way, I would be very happy if anyone here has real answers). I am surrounded by doctors. For your information, none of them have an answer - that's how it is! Some of them (and I'm writing about the non-religious) answer me that it's probably God Made.
    This is how the question of "why" reaches the nose and the respiratory system, the teeth and as I wrote from the level of the cell to the universe.
    I return again and again to the perfect reproductive system that is shared between 2 partners.
    What is beautiful is that not only my son and I do not know how to answer these questions, but that even though science has been developing for many, many years (even before a great Greek philosopher said that he knows nothing) and according to the same Prof. Brock from MIT, there is not an iota of progress in understanding "why it actually works this way" And I will get worse and say that the questions have only increased because now we know how complex all the processes are, but why does each cell and organ have such intelligence and genius (and why does it also know how to think at the "macro" level and bring about the continuation of existence - science knows nothing.
    26 years ago I had an argument with a convert that I appreciated and I told him it was nature, he replied that I can call it nature or any other name, but if nature knows how to plan and direct (probably also the planning and direction in other things) we call it God.
    Books I once read parts of "Bereshit Bara" (then it interested me), I heard that there is a transformation 1 and 2, but I can't have an opinion on these and I know there are more.
    By the way, I don't know either, but at least I'm asking (this is the place to raise questions and doubts, isn't it?)

  95. there is
    Your words are full of complete ignorance and I don't want to express harsher phrases that are more appropriate.
    My husband and I visit ultra-Orthodox and religious couples. The relationship there is much more beautiful and supportive than here. The husband's help to his wife is immeasurably greater than in secular homes I have seen (and I have also seen a beautiful relationship in secular homes, but again the help and support is incomparable). In our conversations, I try to understand what the source is and I receive a lecture about the meaning that in the ceremony of the canopy the husband actually sanctifies the wife and that everything is sacred for him, do you understand the words of vanity and arrogance that you wrote (which is often a characteristic of stupidity)? They also quote to me the sentence that was said to Abraham "As much as Sarah tells you You will do the same" (that's how I remember) in addition there is the attitude that I find very beautiful that each of the spouses almost always gives up for the other. I can point out that it leads to very, very beautiful and intimate places.
    I have a lot of anger at the ultra-Orthodox who don't form an army - I don't understand at all this parasitic and exploitative matter, how is this even possible and how can an elected official agree to this and it doesn't matter at all what the price is (a throne, or the continuation of leading his ideology in other areas) it must be beyond all Topic .
    I have enormous anger at those ultra-Orthodox and yeshiva people who do not work. I work in the field of finance and meet many people who work very hard and sometimes struggle for their money. The understanding that someone else is living at their expense who can just like them go out to work, but due to coalition agreements he receives/takes an unjustified part of their money, I am not able to understand this. When I fill up with gas and meet the refueling person in the cold, in the heat he works to make a living and I understand that part of his money goes to people who could work but don't Working and living on his own is very difficult for me.
    We have an acquaintance who was a very senior economist and an officer in the army who repented and became distraught, today he is studying in a yeshiva and I understand he is not working. This issue is simply not clear to me - why he won't work and receive money from people who do work and who promote the country and the economy. What's going on here?
    I am in favor of the government that approves all of this. I am angry at those ultra-Orthodox who justify this behavior. However, I also blame all of us who accept it. Most of us prefer to do it behind the computer on the safe and unidentifiable Internet. There are a lot of demonstrations, but there is no real confrontation with the issue.
    I don't understand - also in Judaism Abraham Yitzchak and Yaakov, in my memory, worshiped. Rambam, who is a huge spiritual and halachic authority, worshiped (a doctor) and attacked those who did not worship - what is their authority beyond coalition agreements.
    Regarding the army - I remember it is written in the Torah - from twenty years of age and older to the army
    And where is the moral justification for this?
    At the same time, I believe that the state also allocates a lot of money to various and other issues that it is not at all fair that its price and subsidy should be at the expense of the working citizen. For example, I love plays and concerts and pay to see them. However, I was shocked to see how much the state subsidizes the actors (salary sometimes reaching a million NIS ) in addition to their other and profitable pursuits, subsidizing academic professions some of which are delusional, supporting kibbutzim and moshavim and sectors, canceling their debts. We live in buildings almost on top of each other and they get properties right next to us for their sons and more (which originates from kibbutz agreements) even the crazy electricity costs they pay to maintain the wages of Employees of the Electric Company and the Histadrut sector. It is clear to me that it also comes from the taxpayers' money, some of whom do not understand this at all.

  96. Ifat
    God is merely an imaginary friend of adults who helps them cope with the infantile demand to know everything.
    "There are many books (and they are amazing and approved by famous professors from around the world and some of them are even secular) about the creation of the world that are very suitable for writing in the Torah. There are also science and Torah books that mention amazing things that were discovered by the Torah and seemingly without science later, if you are also a true person And you are welcome to read them and try to contradict their words.
    I noticed that Shimi-Kaal doesn't respond to this nonsense and I understand him but I still raise the gauntlet.
    Details ?

  97. One day when your days come to gather and you leave everything behind you, I wonder if you will cry out to Darwin or to God?

  98. Michael,
    The comment attributed to me does not belong to me but to someone else with the same nickname.
    Maybe that's why she attacked me in the debate about evolution as if I were some religious person trying to justify the beliefs that were instilled in him as a child.

  99. Hello Orvetz, thank you for your reference.
    Unfortunately you didn't respond to almost anything from my 2 responses. Before Abraham there was no faith and during the time of the Greek philosophers there was free and independent thinking but most of them, as I read, believed in and recognized a supreme being and God (the Almighty). So that free and independent thinking can lead to all kinds of directions (I had a serious lecturer at the university who was a free thinker who did not understand how his son, the free, in the fourth year of medical studies repented) and therefore free and independent thinking can free many heretics to be more skeptical and humble. It is true that there are believers in the stone, spirit, etc., but when you say this, you are not actually saying anything because Judaism also considers these beliefs to be false beliefs. I return and ask about the method of the exit of the seed (from my first response when the passage closes and allows the seed to exit in its normal form without additions) from where does this passage have this super-intelligence to do this. This is surely a very small example and it is clear that this phenomenon appears in every cell and micro-organism, in agriculture, the weather and the universe in general, as well as the phenomenon of "why" in fact it would be this way in the body. You can, in my opinion, talk to any doctor who will tell you in his field of expertise that they have no idea how and from where to an organ and an organ A certain person has the wisdom to act in a certain way. I have already written that those who want can call it nature, but if nature has superintelligence, wisdom and the ability to direct, then it is true that anyone can name it like nature or X, but that is really ridiculous.
    You probably have to be a big enough and humble professor like Brooke from MIT to admit that you won't be told anything else, in fact no one has any idea why it is so!

  100. Ifat

    Religion in its various forms exists everywhere and at any time in human history.
    Tribal people who have not changed significantly in Africa and elsewhere
    They are all people of faith who work for a higher being, whatever it is, spirit, moon, stone, animal and more
    An unbelieving person appeared only in the later stages of the development of humanity, his appearance
    Admirably fits the theory of development accepted in science. This is already a capable person
    Much more free and independent thinking means that his mind is less bound by some of those impulses
    And needs like that strong hunger to be led, to be led, to be guided (similar to a herd).

  101. I responded, and I was sure that all the educated secularists would attack me and explain and try to prove, but apparently they too are like that professor from MIT (I think Prof. Brock) who claims that even though science has advanced a lot, no one has any idea about the "why", why in fact everything would be so ordered and planned From the level of the single cell and anatomy to the entire universe.
    I can once again add that a number of my acquaintances have converted (I am also considered an educated academic) and some of them would be considered no less than extraordinary geniuses and my acquaintances are true people, who in my opinion would not waste their time in religion if they did not truly believe in it.
    Mr. Rothschild has many books (and they are amazing and approved by famous professors from around the world and some are even secular) about the creation of the world which is very suitable for writing in the Torah. There are also science and Torah books that mention amazing things that were discovered by the Torah and apparently without science later on, it would not have been possible to know them. If you are also a truthful and open person, you are welcome to read them and try to contradict their words. However, not by finding one or a number of disagreements and waving as a winner, but to deal honestly and sincerely, or you are so "open" and truthful that you have no desire to spoil your mistakes.
    Everyone understands that science is extremely important and critical to our predecessors and some of us also understand a lot about how things work, but apparently no one knows the "why". I am not religious (I do believe), but the truth is, it is very ridiculous in my eyes to attribute to nature the qualities of intelligence and higher planning

  102. I think
    He who has not jumped into the water should not ask if it is cold
    I am 28 years old and lead a religious life as best I could, observing Shabbat and more...
    I came from a secular background without a penny...
    For more than two years I have been approaching Chabad and in the meantime what I see there
    The fact that every time you sit down you get at least 2-3 orders for a Friday dinner and usually it's at least 10 people or more
    And at the Friday table we sit and talk and laugh and have fun without quickly running away from the table even at one in the morning, we saw what happens in the clubs...
    In addition, on Hanukkah we took a car and donuts and drove to the soldiers
    And in addition, and most importantly, this is not all, not even a drop in the ocean
    And everything you learn is amazing, you're not just attracted to something
    I hear what young friends are talking about. I watch TV, big brother
    A kind of shock and shame for the religious and the secular, this is not the religion I know
    The main thing is that you want to use wisdom running to the secondary, how much content in a few words
    Sorry I didn't have the patience to read all the comments
    Good luck and above all let's stick to the good...

  103. "The higher the level of income of the Jewish Israelis, the lower their attachment to tradition." What it means? And why did they publish this figure?

  104. His bakery!
    My appreciation for you and your words has dimmed somewhat, even if I generally agree with your words. Emotional ranting, such as is expressed in abusive words, is not my forte.
    So far.

  105. jubilee,
    Without going too deeply into the supposedly scientific theories produced by the German anti-Semitic Protestantism of the 19th century and their postmodern mutations in contemporary Israel, it seems to me that it is possible to agree that, as in any religion, Judaism has positive sides that should be praised and embraced and negative sides that should be condemned and rejected. This is also true for any science, by the way. After all, on the side of progress, enlightenment, openness and the desire to improve, it is possible without any difficulty to point to the negative sides of science - those who help cigarette manufacturers improve the dependence of smokers on the products of the factories, for example, or those who develop more and more murderous killing tools, not to mention the horrifying contribution of science In recent centuries to the accelerated destruction of the Earth's crust. well what? Will you reject science altogether and blaspheme it and treat it as a collection of superstitions because it is "paradoxical"? What must be done is not to kill the dragon, as St. George of the Christian Church foolishly did, but to tame the dragon and use it for the needs of the good as taught by the Chinese theory of war. Not to announce that "God is dead" like the crazy idiot Nietzsche, but to turn to the honest faith of the people who make up the great majority of your nation, and to use the moral principles found in the Jewish religion to promote peace and brotherhood and other good goals that can also be found in abundance in the same body of faith and knowledge . The one who abuses and blasphemes and comes to destroy and destroy only proves himself to be full of hatred, whining for war and striving to condemn, and is not truly a good seeker. It is better to stay away from these types, and one hour before is fine.

  106. Friend, let's calm down and take a breath.

    You may not see it with the naked eye yet, but it's getting closer. The Iranians are overtaking us. Look at their technology rushing forward, despite all attempts at harassment. They are talented people, who have long passed us in mathematics studies. When the moment of testing comes, who will we really trust: our Father in heaven? We tried it once in Europe 70 years ago, and it didn't work that well. It is better to trust the company of 8200, the graduates of the Technion, and indeed, also all the wonderful martial religious of Mirum. For some reason it seems to me that they will be much more useful than legions of worshipers who believe that everything will be in His word.

  107. Democracy: the freedom to think, express and choose in everything,
    Provided that they adjust your opinions, thoughts and attitudes...

  108. Michael,
    The incident I mentioned is just as real as the attack on the secular girl.
    But unfortunately the subject is hardly discussed in the secular media, it does not look good to present the object of demonization as a victim.
    As for the "training system" - anyone who has ever dealt with education knows that training is the name of the game. Although it is not acceptable and even somewhat improper to say so, educating children is also a form of "taming", by creating behavioral conditions, but still. To present it as if it exists only within the religious house is simply a very rude lie. And all this without belonging to or justifying any current in religious education.
    If Orvetz's main claim was true, and every secular person who grew up in a home free of "thought coercion" was an atheist, then how do we explain the results of the study itself? Do 80% of Israelis grow up in prison without knowing about it? Who are you to decide for 80% of the population what a prison is? This is where your arguments start to sound more and more like the arguments of the fanatics you hate.
    Even if Orvetz is right about his "thought prison", then perhaps as secularists we have built a society without God, but I fear that from a social point of view it really ends here. If anything, the sector that needs to get a TLSS in this country is the religious-national sector. Recently, IDF enlistment data were published where it was stated that 2 out of every 3 residents of Samaria are combatants, and 1 out of every 6 officers. You don't have to do a complicated enough calculation to understand that they have long since overtaken us in what we are most proud of. And we in return paid them back with media coverage at best and bulldozers outside the house in the middle of the night at worst.

  109. (*I am David from a number of responses to previous articles. So if there was an intention to allude to my previous response, it is no wonder that David who responded here, and welcome, did not understand this hint).

    to my father,
    Most of the believers are opposed to the number phenomena of the ultra-Orthodox.
    Almost all the ultra-Orthodox, including of course their leaders and rabbis, are completely opposed to the sikriks and lyrics from Beit Shemesh. By the way, they are the main ones who suffer from them.
    Every Chabad and Breslav together are a negligible minority among the ultra-Orthodox, certainly among the religious, and certainly and certainly among the believers.
    So there is no scientific logic in mentioning the phenomena of Beit Shemesh, Chabad, Breslav, in the war against belief in God. But there is a demagogic success in this for a certain population, and the opposite result for another population.

    "For the secular, individualism is a 'holy' thing."
    This view, for example, is not based on science. This is faith. Science does not require any value.
    This is also true for the sentence:
    "Secularism brought to the world a rich selection of literature and philosophy".
    Morality arising from that literature has nothing to do with science.

    "And if the silent majority wanted their voices to be heard, these extremists should have been thrown out, but in fact every religious person, even a national religious person, that I spoke with said that he condemns them but is jealous of them because they are more religious than him, and therefore he cannot fight against them."
    This is not true. Most of the ultra-Orthodox are disgusted by them, and try to make them vomit. Many religious people hate the ultra-orthodox just as much as you do, (and not rightly so, because hatred is not useful for anything, and it stems from mental reality only).
    And you can say to that national religious, ask him to feel feelings of inferiority, and he too is a victim of the generalization and incitement. There is no lack of religious moderate Zionists who are more religious than most of the ultra-Orthodox. Nor should he see all the ultra-Orthodox, whom he values ​​to a certain extent, as represented by those violent people.
    By the way, those violent people from Beit Shemesh, it is difficult to define them as religious. I once happened to see some of them at a demonstration against... the introduction of a Torah scroll. And this is because they wanted to get the school that the sector owned.

    "In order to be religious in a modern society, you must close your eyes and ears and live in your own closed world that you protect its closure with violence and political forces (for example core studies)".
    Wrong again.
    This is indeed what the ultra-Orthodox do, in part. Not the religious ones.

    Don't smoke a woman.
    The explanation is explained in the source, in the appendix. The Jew blesses for having received many mitzvot, therefore he blesses that he was born as a Jew, and for that reason also blesses that he is not a woman who is obliged to do fewer mitzvot. The blessing that I did as he pleased is much later. This is not discrimination. Priests also have mitzvahs that are unique to them, and this is not discrimination.

    If the intention is really to eradicate the violence on the margins of the ultra-Orthodox, it should be done precisely by strengthening and clarifying Jewish morality, to which they are supposed to be committed. You want to convince them on the grounds that Kant claims they are immoral?

    And by the way, the internalization of the European moral culture will also lead to the reality that exists there. Negative population growth (like Germany) and the takeover of the inhabitants of the Islamic religion.

  110. To his bakers, in appreciation, and to anyone interested,
    The dual definition of Judaism, religion and nation, also has a counterpart in the definition of "who is a Jew". At one extreme, a Jew is a Yeshiva student; At the other extreme he is a gifted scientist (with a great chance of winning prestigious international awards). The Jewish religion is also an impossible fusion of two opposite poles: the religion of the temple and the religion of morality. The two great religions that emerged from it do not hold an internal contradiction. Christianity adopted the temple metaphysic of the House of Aaron and Islamized the morality of Moses and the House of Levi. This satanic merger took place in the days of King Hezekiah of Judah, who invited the Levites and the priests from Beit Itamar to serve in Solomon's Temple together with the priests from Beit Eleazar. From then until today Judaism is a paradoxical religion held by a persecuted minority that is in conflict with the whole world but mainly with itself.

  111. Avi Shalom,
    I saw that you called the commenter PHILOSHIT in your first reference as "the Lord of the Church of the..." (I do not write the "explicit name" lest my response be automatically blocked. It seems that only the editor of the site is allowed to write these words here without his response being blocked), and in order to remove an obstacle for a blind person I would like to clarify that There is nothing between the signatory of this response and him, as you probably mistakenly thought. In a later response I even saw that "Filoshit" refers to himself as "secular", a title that I don't know what it means and I certainly wouldn't use it about myself.
    and Jubilee:
    The problem indeed lies in the fact that Judaism is defined as both a religion and a nation. And here, it is true that the separation between religion and state is a very desirable thing both (and even especially) for religion (because a rabbi who is a government official is, in my opinion, an oxymoron) and for the state (because it is legitimate for a government official to serve as a religious priest only in a state headed by a high priest).
    But on the other hand, it is difficult to separate, in a world of nation states, between the nation and the state. So, since the Jewish nationality is largely defined by its religion, it is very difficult to completely separate the religion and the state in the State of Israel (but it is very worthwhile to try and separate in every place and field where it is possible).
    And yet it must be remembered that a large part of the Jews, as members of a certain nationality, want, beyond all ideologies, that in their unique country they will be able to "feel at home". Just like members of any other nationality in their country, by the way. It is also clear that any attempt to prevent this majority (whose dimensions are quite clearly depicted according to the Democracy Institute's survey) from feeling at home in their own country is anti-democratic and condescending, not to mention, in our case, simply anti-Semitic. And what to do, a very large majority of the members of the Jewish nationality, define themselves as such also according to their religion (and this also according to the survey).
    That is, the best thing would be to check through dialogue where it is not desirable and where it is desirable to separate religion and state. For example: it is possible to preserve the uniqueness of days sacred to religion, such as Sabbaths and holidays - but at the same time it is possible to make the rabbinate a voluntary institution and not a "state".
    It is clear, of course, that the Jews' sense of home in their national home - for that is what the Jewish state was founded for - should be accepted with maximum consideration for members of other religions or those who do not belong to any religion.
    But there is no need to consider haters of religions in general, or haters of the Jewish religion in particular. The so-called pig-eaters get angry. It is very easy to get to know them. They are very quick to use insulting derogatory epithets towards anyone who does not think like them (in any field by the way. Not only in religious matters. The arrogance and contempt for others characterizes them along the entire front). Which shows, of course, that they are not very smart. After all, if they were wise, they would probably prefer the use of reasons over the use of blasphemy. Therefore, in everything that has to do with responding to their words and actions, there is a constant debate between two adjacent verses: should one behave according to the verse "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be compared to him", or according to the verse "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." (Proverbs 4,5:XNUMX). Not an easy decision indeed. And the answer to the dilemma, in my opinion, is this: one must act according to the circumstances.
    And in any case it is clear that it would not be right or wise to determine the desired rules of the state according to the views of hateful fools.

  112. Full of shit

    Where did you find a criticism of freedom of thought?
    On the contrary!
    There is criticism here of the stupidity of thought, but no one proposed to do brain transplant surgery on people to force them to think logically.
    In your response, to darken this, there is an attempt to harm the freedom of expression of anyone who expresses criticism of the religious delusion.

    Blackie (
    There are many reasons for talking but the most important reason is the brainwashing that babies who are taken from their parents suffer.

    skeptic (
    There is no such thing as "faith in science" and therefore there are no extremes of faith in science either.
    After all, all science is based on doubting and refuting theories.
    Why did you decide to make claims to an empty group of people?

    Uncle (
    This dichotomy was established by religion.
    Not only because the Holy Scriptures make false scientific claims - but also due to the vigorous opposition of a large part of the religious to the discoveries of science (primarily - of course - evolution, which dares to dispute the grandmother's stories of creation).

    Descartes does not belong to the new age at all and if you want people who represent the new age - you better take Professor Haim Sompolinsky and listen to his words:

    Note - he still defines himself as an ultra-Orthodox religious - but he does not believe in God or the existence of a soul.

    So there are really those who try to integrate, but if they do it honestly as Sompolinski does - nothing and a half remains of the faith.
    Professor Sompolinski, although he is ultra-Orthodox, is not one of those shameful 80 percent.

    Mirom Golan (
    There is a difference between the general influence of the parents and an organized training system that plants vain beliefs in the human mind.

    Mirom Golan (
    Do you know that really happened?
    I'm not saying no, I'm asking seriously.
    Do you have a link to an article in which some qualified official confirmed the incident?

    Mirom Golan (
    How can one even compare a failure to transfer the core subjects perfectly with the refusal of the ultra-Orthodox system to teach them at all?!
    One of the reasons for the failure of the secular education system to live up to its mission is the snowball that starts with the pumping of state budgets in favor of ultra-Orthodox training, a pumping that the crime of approving caused (among other things) the reduction of the budgets allocated for teachers' salaries, which harmed the status of the teacher, which in turn caused the most talented people to prefer other professions across the instruction.

    Uncle (
    The orderly Mishna that Judaism brought to social justice - honor is a term in its place, but it includes within it (according to halachic experts such as Maimonides), among other things, that too

    It also includes a mitzvah to stone homosexuals.

    It also includes the halachic basis for the same case that happened in our country in 1966, in which the rabbinical court forced a widowed deaf woman before she had children to be raped (!) by her brother-in-law so that she could remarry:
    The case was discussed at the Regional Rabbinical Court in Ashdod before the judges: Rabbis Y. Goldschmidt, M. Lopez, M. Y. Miletsky:
    "A lawsuit was filed before us by Mrs. A against her husband's brother B to rescue her. The above-mentioned claimant was widowed by her husband on: 1966, XNUMX Cheshon, XNUMX (XNUMX) without leaving behind viable seed (children).
    After the ruling that Harshet Titivam - the hibom (having sex with the husband's brother) took place on the XNUMXth of Adar A, and the divorce took place in the city of Rehovot the next day on the XNUMXth of Adar A. "
    (Rabbinic rulings, part XNUMX, page expired).

    Of course, it also includes the seeds for the absolute parasitism of extensive ultra-Orthodox groups who, despite their parasitism, see themselves as superior to the donkey of the Messiah.

    Science does not lead to any exploitation.
    He is all about discovering facts.
    What a strange (and false!) claim is your claim that science leads to exploitation!

    Uncle (
    Come and explain to us exactly how science brought the Big Brother program.
    If you succeed - it will be a first-rate scientific discovery.
    I, as a person interested in science, never even bothered to watch this show.
    It may, however, be that a scientist working in anthropology will find it interesting as an anthropological experiment that passed under the radar of the Helsinki Commission.

    Your words about Einstein are a horrible misrepresentation and since I appreciate that you are an educated person I must assume that it is a deliberate misrepresentation.

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it. [Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

    The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. 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. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task... [Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941]

    The idea of ​​a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]

    If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? [Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years]

    The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere. [Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, pp 69-70]

    The idea of ​​a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. [Albert Einstein]

    The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of ​​a being who interferes in the course of events... He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion . [Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions]

    Uncle (
    I would appreciate it if you could explain to me how the Torah's claim that the rabbit ruminates or the claim that the Euphrates and the Tigris come from a common source or the story of creation or the story of Noah's ark line up with science.
    How can you claim that there is no contradiction?!
    Of course the Sages further expanded the contradiction and told us that the trachea of ​​the cow splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver, that lice are created from human sweat and mice from the dead, and many more miracles and wonders.
    You repeat and emphasize the claim that has already been made here regarding a mental dictatorship.
    Have you seen such a dictatorship anywhere other than a church?
    I do not!
    Yaron (
    When Israel becomes Iran you will no longer be surprised, but then you will already be thrown in jail for using the phrase "Orthodox eccentrics"
    Well - I'm tired of the rubbish and I'm stopping reading the comments to the article.
    Stupidity is celebrated but I don't have time to deal with every fool.

  113. Judaism, like Islam, is a halachic religion. Dehino, is not satisfied with the conceptual belief but demands to determine the laws of the state. After all, the majority of the US also believes in God, but this does not worry anyone. We accept that every person is given the right to choose his own set of superstitions, so what exactly was our foam about?
    In the definition of Judaism, there are two things that are completely different from each other: faith (religion) and nationality (a similar tendency exists in Islam as well, and in some countries Islamic law has even been established as the law of the state). The lack of distinction between the two definitions and their unification into one definition is what actually raises the issue for all of us. The State of Israel was established with the goal of being a "national home for the Jewish people", but it turned into an incubator for the cultivation of the Jewish religion. We must make the distinction between faith and Halacha and separate religion from the state. During our over sixty years we have neglected the matter, and now we have no choice but to carry out a drastic action on the order of changing the system of government. And if not now, then never.

  114. There is a great deal of attempted secular coercion and it is perpetuated by a fairly consistent attack by the writer and some of the commenters.
    Are they completely blind to see that there are many doctors, many professors in almost every field of science who wear kippahs? Are they people who are not enlightened enough and not aware enough of the innovations of science who therefore continue their religious way of life? Whoever presents it this way is deliberately misleading the readers.
    This response of mine is also due to the fact that some of my acquaintances, some of whom are involved in science (one is a reputed doctor) have repented and I can testify from their acquaintance that they are very far from the unreliable description you present of the religious. God can testify that I have an open, free and progressive mindset. And after I was exposed a little to this population and found people there, some of whom are very educated far beyond the other population I know (I am not religious).
    My personal questions: I recently read an article by a professor from MIT who claimed that there is enormous progress in science, but even today no one knows how to explain why these phenomena exist, for example, we know that bodies are attracted and also the force of gravity, but science does not know how to explain why this is so. I will add - you know how you see, hear But why would we have eyes, ears and reproductive systems with their own intelligence, why would it actually be like this, why does each cell have such a great intelligence and why would it actually have such an enormous intelligence to direct things at the level of the desire to bring about continued existence. Understand that all vitamins and minerals are important
    But why would they actually be available and in the exact, right and accessible quantity? We know that there are soft fruits and therefore, nature "created a shell for them because otherwise they would not survive." Who is this nature that has such insights to plan and do and this wisdom is at the level of every cell and micro organism.
    I saw a program not long ago in which the facilitator who deals with sexual counseling described that when the sperm needs to come out there is a kind of barrier that stops the passage of urine and only after the sperm comes out does this passage open. She explained that it is this amazing phenomenon that makes it possible to bring offspring into the world and without closing the "passage" there could not have been conception .
    I would like to ask where our anatomical system has this great insight to act like this, why at all and where does it have intelligence or is it a coincidence?
    I didn't get into the phenomenon of the body mind anymore. I once read Professor Leibovich, who in my opinion was also a neurologist who claimed that it would never be understood (for example, the ability to think translates into the ability to speak - moving the tongue and producing clear syllables).
    I don't know if it belongs to the concept of religion. However, as the same professor from MIT said, many scientists understand what and how happens, but do not understand why.
    What I wrote is not necessarily related to the topic of the article but to explain that as the same professor wrote that the subject of science is important
    And it is essential for me (a non-religious believer) but the "why" things exist in such a calculated, planned and vital way, no secular (humble) person has an answer like that according to the respected professor.
    And in response to some of the commenters who claim "where is the proof" that is why we are called believers.

  115. privileged

    Most people, according to surveys, absolutely believe in a higher being or a higher power,
    They are members of one of dozens of different and strange religions,
    The members of each of the religions believe that their way is the right one, the true one.
    In most religions there are also important and respected experts and mediators, scholars and commentators and law-definers,

    For us it is sometimes strange funny amazing and sometimes sad and discouraging, but this is the reality.

  116. Faith is, apparently, a human need. There is no need to confront it because it operates on a level parallel to science. Man needs faith, any faith, to solve intractable conflicts with relative ease

  117. Very horrifying.
    Despite all the evidence that the existence of God is illogical and impossible, people like you hold it as possible

  118. The duality between belief in God and science did not occur to me.
    The central question is not whether there is a God, but what are the derivatives of that belief.
    I "buy" "Chechenovs" and "craftsmen" every day, as long as they do not act against research for the advancement of humanity as a result of their faith.

  119. Hey father lol... I didn't know! But - I also believe in God, and I do not believe in the eternity of the individual or in private supervision (in the simplest sense of the term). It doesn't contradict...probably. In any case, I believe that there are positive things in religion, although I am of course against its use as a political tool or in general on any level... and indeed it would be better for people not to stick to superstitions for nothing.

  120. My father.. I am amazed at you... there are many professors and scientists of high quality and deep wisdom who believe in God... the late Ilan Ramon believed in God... the ability to find a flaw in belief in God and a contradiction between it and science is solely your personal opinion, and I would not be surprised if in the depths of your heart's inclination you are actually Followed by patterns of behavior and the force of social inertia... Of course, not everyone with a beard in Breslav or a settler with a knitted cap or a Lithuanian rabbi or an Mizrahi with a turban, can be in a position of influence with a broad opinion, etc.... but not every doctor or owner of a nice website with a smile in the picture can be sent either At will and not every beautiful soul can lead public opinion.. and your honor.. in Chabad there are vast insights and treasures for every person, as well as in Breslav, for you too, my dear and beloved father, and I, like you, am against the process of belonging to a stream or organization or sect, not to Chabad "D and not for Breslav, not for Lithuanians and not for the Hasidic, not even for the Adoms and origins, and by the way the wisdom of the theoretical Kabbalah has a lot of depth and power in it even for scientists and doctors and professors, only that not every person has the power to defuse the imagination bomb in his mind and not to lean into dark mystical areas, strengthening the studies of science in a way An external obsessive will only make the situation worse, people should be given a taste of Breslav Chabad and science, etc.. and for that I appreciate you on your amazing site, and slowly people will know how to take as they wish freely .. believe me no one is a sucker, and in the end the bigotry and antipathy that exists like poison both among the religious or ultra-orthodox toward the secular and among the secular and traditionalists toward the ultra-Orthodox and sometimes toward religious people in general, is nothing but among us, basic science admits that unity and cooperation between human beings is a huge tool for realizing a universal vision and success, so it seems petty or pathetic to me to attack Some or other groups and more from a place of faith, when the fact of the existence of God is not a belief but is a scientific fact in its very presence in your consciousness, you already admit the existence of God, because from the point of view of logic and mathematical formulation, as soon as we understand what we mean by the term God, we will automatically understand that the very intention that exists in us already requires By virtue of the definition of the term "infinity" {from every angle and every side and direction = without limit} the existence of God!! Of course, not every person is able to contain this statement at a level of awareness, and therefore there are people who believe or disbelieve... The narrow and limiting religiosity is indeed the cloud of the enlightened person, but instead of slamming dear brothers who have been swallowed up in a mass of dizziness or religious experience, maybe we can help them instead of fighting the darkness by adding light, the light of consciousness , broadening the mind, openness, curiosity, spreading information, and giving tools that will raise the whole generation to a different level... I expect from you dear and truly beloved father that things will please you and you will not take them from a place of skirmish or argument at all. Good luck in whatever you do, dear man.

  121. Mirom Golan

    I would certainly, along with many others, be happy, if my words were not true.

    The existence of an almighty creator who determines the unshakable ruler,
    It has no hold on reality and there is not the slightest proof of its existence.

    A paradox?
    On the one hand, most people believe and adhere with all their hearts, without question, to a certain thing,
    Just based on a persuasive speech book, no facts, no in-depth tests to look for evidence,
    On the other hand, according to evolution, there has been an incredible increase in man's ability and intellectual level.

    Maybe it's not a paradox?
    Because the very belief of man in the Almighty that guarantees his future,
    strengthens his sense of existential security,
    which is an important element in evolution.

  122. Really shocking how such an article is published. What do you care that 80% believe? Without even talking about the correctness of the belief, it is simply wrong to publish such an article, and it is truly unbelievable how in a democratic Jewish country people oppose freedom of thought.

  123. Urbac,
    All the time you speak only in the language of threats. It seems like the only word in your jargon is "threat". You sound quite paranoid and aggressive relative to someone who claims to represent a culture that advocates superior values ​​and acceptance of the other.

  124. my father
    What does it matter whether Einstein believed or not
    Let's say he was at my mercy in Breslav, let's say

    Will this change the findings of the study
    After all, most of them are not acceptable to the religious person.
    And more than that, they are often seen as an enemy to their faith.
    And so when the crowd of God's believers grows, so does a parallel one
    The threat to the freedom of science, opinion, belief.

  125. Avi,
    Einstein believed in an impersonal God who is embodied through the laws of nature. While this isn't exactly the kind of god that watches all of man's actions, it's still something you don't believe in.
    Even if we assume that Einstein was a complete atheist, this still does not contradict the fact that he was preceded by generations of pioneering scientists who were theists.

  126. Urbac,
    The percentage of Arabs in the population does not increase over the years as it is commonly thought to be wrong. All the reliable studies indicate a constant decrease in the percentage of growth among the Arab sector, while the Jewish sector only shows a constant increase.
    What there is no doubt about is that the Jewish population is becoming more religious.
    And no, coming and saying that it will "lead us to the Stone Age" is just like saying that a mass repetition of the question will lead to communism or Nazism (secular ideologies. What is the connection you ask? So I ask you - what is the connection between religion and the patients you mentioned?!)

  127. I am completely secular.
    I don't believe in any religion.
    But I believe in God and that is my full right.
    You will not tell me what I am allowed to believe and what I am not.

  128. Avi Shalom,

    It was not for nothing that I opened and wrote that I am a "man of faith who deals with science" (and I enjoy the proper website very much, and no, these are not words of flattery).

    It was not for nothing that I brought the Rambam as an example and not the Rebbe Asimov or Lyovabitch (about the danger of blind faith in his messiahship, something was said at the time by Rabbi Shech).

    You know very well that within Judaism, from time immemorial as well as today, there were and are quite a few currents. My heart follows Rambam, who is infinitely greater than the great rebbes, whoever they may be. And if you want from the latter, my heart goes with Rabbi Soloveitzik, author of "Ish Ha Halacha". My heart goes out to the people of Ashkenaz who prevent the children of Spain from entering their school. Is this Judaism? It's racism.

    Since time immemorial, the power of Halacha in the poignant discussion. And bringing the opinion of the individual against the opinion of the majority.

    Believe me, I know all the ultra-Orthodox propaganda very well. It was not for nothing that I stated that "my opinion is that studying science is a religious duty". Any religious or secular dictatorship is a disaster for man.
    The lack of core studies is the father of impurity and is a terrible result of governmental laxity, which was born by Ben-Gurion and his successors were all the heads of the secular government since then.

    By the way, Rambam the man of truth, who insisted that the words of his followers (Rabbi and others) be quoted in full, answers his student Ibn Akanin about the improper criticism of Rabbi Shmuel Halevi (on the belief in the "resurrection of the dead") as follows:
    "Most of the clerics from those who have authority, when something comes before them that depends on their authority and importance, they will lose all humility. And most of the religious keepers are among those who have this authority, because when they reach authority, the fear of heaven departs from them."
    What's new under the sun? Is the Shs a new thing?

    The rampage in Beit Shemesh of those "disguised" as Jews, who lack God, is the result of the "secular bibism" which has a common interest with religious leadership (and for this reason I extended and brought the Rambam's opinion about those who rule...) and founded upon itself poor failures in the form of "their Torah Their guardians" who turned the Torah of Israel into a "sword to dig in" are hiding behind "and you uttered it day and night", making a lie in their hearts.
    There is no need for you to bring them as an example, I know them well, and they do not raise or lower my faith or my choice as such.
    As for the ultra-Orthodox model, I prefer the ultra-Orthodox model as reflected behind the counter at B&H.

    Avishi did well to express what I fail in:
    ""Abandoning the souls of our children". Our children are promiscuous not only to religion, but also to secular managerialism..."
    "If there is no religious/traditional imperative for moral behavior of one kind or another, it is difficult to expect that the average person will feel the need to take moral action when his personal good comes first. Science is only a tool, like a hammer and a hoe, it cannot provide a reason for existence, and if it does so anyway, it is a religious belief for all intents and purposes."

    Finally, I asked you twice in complete honesty, would you have written the article a little differently? And you didn't answer me twice.

    I know that your intention is worthy, that is why I am corresponding with you. Trust me, I'm not writing this "by mouth". I certainly don't want to preach morality to you.

    Your words in the article, as they miss the same goal (which is shared by a person like you and a person like me) "to have many opinions" (each according to his own special mind and understanding, according to Itemov), and it's a shame.

    I congratulate the achievements of science and its ability to prolong life.

    Longevity and good return, Amen,


  129. Yaron
    Your words have a lot in them.
    I generally claim that my father is wrong in that he uses
    In a seemingly scientific article, to present his opinions and feelings
    and uses rhetoric similar to that of a religious and especially extremist person
    And so my father blurs the difference between the scientific and the religious view

  130. Yaron
    Your words have a lot in them.
    I generally claim that my father is wrong in that he uses
    In a seemingly scientific article, to present his opinions and feelings
    and uses rhetoric similar to that of a religious and especially extremist person
    And so my father blurs the difference between the scientific and the religious view

  131. Mirom Golan

    I understood from looking at the studies that my relative share, in the State of Israel
    of the believing/religious public is increasing over the years.

    From here I estimated that if this trend will continue
    Along with a similar trend among Israeli Arabs,
    The secular Jews will be a minority

    And so from the time of the work of the stars (astronomy and science).
    Let's go back to Abraham's time, when people worshiped statues and idols (religion and superstitions).

  132. Karl

    2083 people represent the general public with a standard deviation of approximately 4.5 percent. It's a simple statistic
    So the sample is quite representative

  133. As I wrote above, I do not have a great understanding of religions in general or Judaism in particular,
    But I know and know that one of the significant differences between most religions and Judaism
    is that "God" is an abstract concept, in the basic Jewish faith
    It is impossible / forbidden to consecrate something real, certainly not stones and people,
    That is why the attitude regarding other religions that their believers are "idol worshipers" is also accepted.
    The abstract God allows even non-religious/believers to treat different phenomena
    who do not know how to explain to a "higher power" as well as rely on
    "Intuition" or willpower for that "God", there is nothing wrong with that and there is no contradiction in that
    Or a clash with science and indeed such a belief made the existence of scientists possible
    great ones who were also believers.
    It must be assumed that most of the religious respondents are believers as described above in a different way
    They wouldn't come to the site and read it (certainly not on Shabbat),
    But the "new" Judaism that takes over the ignorant and the ignorant,
    The religion that the website editor is stationed in front of is progressing with giant strides, in fact it is already there
    In place of the other religions, customs and rituals of worshipers of stars and zodiac signs,
    In the place where doors are kissed, the edges of a senile old man's integrity are kissed,
    Bowing and prostrating to tombstones……
    Studying science (core studies?) in such a place becomes a difficult task
    And maybe hopeless.

  134. A sample of 2083 people is not representative of the entire Och in Israel. This does not mean that it is necessary to make it easier to perceive the results from it.
    The above article is written in a slightly aggressive manner. It must be remembered that messages of a more extreme and violent nature will often be more difficult for a larger public to digest, understand and assimilate. Milder messages will be more easily received.
    Beyond that, anxiety is indeed a dangerous process for society as a whole...

  135. My father exaggerated

    In my opinion, this site is intended to deal with the world of science and its surroundings and without a doubt,
    It must be submitted and written in, in the spirit of science, devoid of personal undertones as much as possible.

    instead of a title with the research result indicating the percentage of believers,
    You open your position loaded with emotion, opinion and outlook.
    By doing so, you influence the reader's opinion about the significance of the research results.
    It is suitable for a political social or personal site,
    With your own hands, blurring the differences between religion (mainly the extreme) and science.
    Your use of rhetoric is similar to that of a person with blind faith.

  136. My father, you grind water. You have already been told that some of the most important figures in science believed in a certain religion. Some of the most important discoveries happened in a much more religious world than today, so what exactly are you afraid of? From the Streimels? interesting.

  137. David, the ultra-orthodox propaganda succeeded in hiding secular morality from view. It's just not taught so you may not be aware of it.
    And besides, regarding what you said about 'achieving the science'

    And for that Written by the late Rebbe Asimov:
    For example, one of the editors of the "New Scientist", a British weekly dedicated to scientific articles, tried to defend Emmanuel Volikovsky, when he wrote "During its 200-year flight this year, science gave birth to some successful tricks such as canned food and long-playing records, but for The truth is, what real value has science contributed to man's seventy years? "Hish Mahar responded in a letter in which I wrote, among other things:"...One of the things that have 'real value' are those seventy years of a person's life... For most of history, the lifespan was closer to thirty. Are we not entitled to expect from you anything but gratitude for that additional forty years of life that you had the opportunity to enjoy?"

  138. Tiktalik:
    Yes, he generally determines for other people what they are allowed or forbidden to think / what they are allowed or forbidden to believe. Although it is not physical violence, it is a different kind of violence.

    I like the science site, because it provides a lot of knowledge about the world. But people like my father cry out to the heavens that religion and the ultra-orthodox are forcing their opinions, while he himself is trying to impose his scientific worldview on others. Enough hypocrisy.

    (Full disclosure - I'm completely secular, but I do believe that there are things outside of science. And wonder of wonders - I don't want to spit on childhood in Beit Shemesh or tell others what to eat and how to get married. Get over your stupidity, gentlemen. It's possible to believe in something without forcing our minds).

  139. Avi Shalom,
    It is advisable to lower the rhetoric a little in articles of this type, in the end scientists and science enthusiasts include among them also believing Jews. I don't think you have the right to talk about the arrogance of one commenter or another when you talk about
    "Abandoning the souls of our children". Our children are being promiscuous not only to religion, but also to secular managerialism, and it is desirable that you connect a little with the younger generation to understand that their loss of morality in part comes hand in hand with a loss of faith in any moral system. It is very easy to say that God is a fairy tale, the only problem is that along the way someone forgot to give an alternative. If there is no religious/traditional imperative for moral behavior of one kind or another, it is difficult to expect that the average person will feel the need to take moral action when his personal good comes first. Science is only a tool, like a hammer and a hoe, it cannot provide a reason for existence, and if it does so anyway, it is a religious belief for all intents and purposes. As much as we deny it, our entire moral system is based on the Jewish tradition, not the random whims of humans.

  140. Philoshit
    You are so full of shit!

    Enough of these Amnon Yitzhak style propaganda debates
    Did you hear my father calling for the destruction of those who train in "something unscientific"? By the way, what do you mean by something unscientific? My father warns against the prevention of instilling the foundations of scientific thinking and core studies in the education system in Israel, which in his opinion causes great damage. I have not seen in his words even once anything of what you attribute to him

  141. To David

    Your last comment is beyond stupid.
    Science has brought us no big brother and no survival. Science did not murder and butcher anyone. Science is neither good nor bad. The use that people make of the means of science according to their bad or good values ​​is the root of the matter. We have been taught again and again that the real problem lies in the person in his actions, opinions, etc.
    Your populist words indicate laxity and a lack of proper thinking ability at best and hidden propaganda intentions at worst.

  142. Avi:

    So because of what is happening in Beit Shemesh and other places, no one should have the right to believe in something that is not scientific.

    I realised. good argument.
    There is no doubt that you covered the Gollel on the subject.
    From today onwards - a mental dictatorship. Because everyone who believes in something, he ends up imposing his opinion on others.

  143. I am completely secular and do not believe in God. But I find many similarities between the ultra-Orthodox eccentrics and Mr. Blizovsky. Amusing how he is called every week to fight with religious and ultra-Orthodox.

    It's a shame that this website is constantly pushing arguments with religious people. Get involved in science and that's it.

    By the way, believing in God does not necessarily mean believing in the Jewish religion or one religion or another. You can believe in the creator of the world and throw religious nonsense out the window. As long as there is no solid explanation for the creation of the world (what happened before the big bang? If the universe is expanding and contracting, how did it all begin?) belief in a higher power is a legitimate theory.

  144. Avi Shalom,

    I'm really sorry that the conclusion you reached is that there is condescension or preaching in my words. That's really not my intention, I don't know what background you come from, and it doesn't matter at all, a man will live by his faith.

    The main content of my words concerns freedom of thought and the necessity (in my opinion) to combine religion and science, and since they do not contradict each other they complement each other.

    I would love to hear your opinion on these principles, I will bring them up again to refine my words:

    "There is no truth in dictatorship. Neither in a religious nor a secular dictatorship. There is no truth in unification of thought..."

    "The only truth is in the thought of the free man, who thinks a fresh thought and chooses his choices, this is the "image of God in man"...."

    And again I ask, on second thought, would you write the article a little differently?

    Please don't see this as preaching, I have no interest in it. But a practical question.


  145. "Sad" Hello,

    Yes, science and technology brought us the pinnacle of human splendor, "Big Brother", "Survival" and the like, "bread and entertainment" for the masses. What has changed?

    What does the majority understand about science and technology? is nothing!

    Most people consume the products of science and technology without understanding a thing and a half about it.

    And there are those who understand the technology very well. We have already seen throughout human history, what effective use they knew how to make of it, to slaughter with it the different. Or in a softer case, the more "human", just to enslave him to his needs.

    By the way, since you are an educated person, I am convinced that you are aware that there was hardly a single man of science who was bothered by the thought of God. Since I have already written about Newton and Descartes, then I will mention the secular Einstein, whose whole desire was to understand and reveal the thoughts of God...

    The only thing that is "sad" is "a mental fixation" and a "mental example".

    I hope you are happy…


  146. David, read your last sentence again that begins with "therefore", it is a condescending sentence like no other. You think if I study some ancient texts my eyes will be opened and I will repent.
    I do not underestimate the fact that in the past when there was no real scientific alternative, religion was the solution, as it is today, it was also more organized and therefore had unlimited military resources.

    Well, the ancient texts are important, but like any ancient text - for historical research and nothing else. Today's religious people don't listen to them anyway, because in order to be religious in a modern society you must close your eyes and ears and live in your own closed world which you defend with violence and political forces (for example the core studies).
    And how come you don't know the sources? Maybe I became secular precisely because I know the sources. For example, "Blessed that I did not smoke a woman" - a blessing that every religious person says every morning, while the woman blesses "Blessed that I smoke as I wish" and no one notices the discrimination? And this is just a small example.

    I don't need moral preaching, and pity for the fact that I don't supposedly know what religion is and therefore I must discover the light.

  147. Very sad, and I personally thought that as science and technology continue to develop, people will go and abandon baseless beliefs that make no sense, it turns out that this is not the case.

  148. mirom,

    I condemn any attack and violence that is not in self-defense.

    Including the attack of an orthodox or secular, Jew, Muslim or Christian, no matter what their age.

    Anyone who justifies violence for its own sake will end up burning books and people.

    Judaism, and Rabbis such as Rabbi Sharlo, as well as Rabbi Soloveitzik and others wrote about this, speaks of the withdrawn person! The moderate! The likeness to the retreating God, and I will not add on this matter.


    Freud writes (who should not be suspected of excessive religiosity), that "Thou shalt not murder" is the cradle of human civilization!

    5000 years before the European renaissance, at a time when Europe still lived in the forests and was barbaric, Judaism brought an orderly and complete change to social justice!

    At its core, the migrant, the poor and the orphan, are not trampled by predatory capitalism without any inhibitions and human tenderness, the result of the "disappearing hand".

    In this Mishna series, the slave has rights! In contrast to the Mishna series of the enlightened Greek philosophy (and I do not write this sarcastically), which saw slavery as a completely natural situation.

    You know, it's convenient to quote "man is allowed from the beast", but most often forget the meaning of the verse: "There is no"!
    A stupid person, whether religious or secular, is not only not allowed from the animal, but, since consciousness has been given to him, his damage potential is immeasurably greater than the animal.

    Maimonides writes about the "middle way". He, who followed Aristotle's path in everything related to the way the mind should be sharpened by studying sciences (and consciously, and without any fear, established quite a bit about it), disputed his metaphysical concepts.
    And yet, the interpreter of the Mishnah and the owner of "Mishna Torah" and "Morah Nabukim", walked hand in hand with Aristotle in everything related to science!

    There is no truth in dictatorship. Neither in a religious nor a secular dictatorship. There is no truth in unification of thought.
    "Difference" as you know, is a condition for existence. She is a blessing. According to the ignorant, the scattering of man in the Tower of Babel was a curse. While in practice, a blessing is a protection, given by God, blessed be He, to the human race ("diffusion of risk").

    The only truth is in the thought of the free man, who thinks a fresh thought and chooses his choices, this is "the image of God in man".

    I agree with you, that it is our duty to weed out violent extremists from among us, no matter what their religion is.
    I do not accept what is implied at the end of your words: "Even a national religious person with whom I spoke said that he condemns them but is jealous of them because they are more religious than him." What is to be understood from this? Nothing! So there is one religious nationalist who said something to you, so what?! What does he represent? It sounds almost like, "I even have a few friends..." Are you hanging on to that?

    All I can tell you is, the cart is full of both the merit of science and the merit of religion together. Science alone, leads to the exploitation of the weak because it is the weak person. And religion alone, leads to religious extremism, such as the Christian Inquisition and today's extreme Islam (which became such starting from the 12th century, which began to abandon the age of science).

    My opinion is that studying science is a religious duty!

    Therefore, instead of quoting others I would recommend you: go out and study. Draw your own conclusions, after looking and studying.

    I wonder, on second thought, would you write the article a little differently?


  149. In the old days there was a tradition in Jewish communities of promoting smart students,
    A tradition that contributed to the concept of "the Jewish genius". Those scholars did not give up
    And they were not excluded from minor studies (core?) and many of them were well-known doctors and scientists
    Despite and maybe even because of their faith that gave them mental strength,
    Those who today pit science against faith,
    Those who separate science studies from religious studios are the heads of the community - the rabbis,
    A position that stems from ignorance as well as aiming to control the community,
    Ignorance is easier to control.
    Readers and commenters should read the list at:
    In the summary and translated into vernacular, the researchers write that the level of stupidity is increasing
    As the religious control intensifies, along with the stupidity, racist feelings also increase,
    Along with stupidity, the level of superstitions also rises,
    I am not an expert in religions or Judaism but I am convinced that "kissing" with stones
    and kissing doors, worshiping human beings and turning them into "saints",
    Prostrate on rocks in burial caves,
    All these are not a real part of deep faith but external signs
    And areas that are a measure of the level of stupidity of the temples, kissing and prostrating.
    If we refer to the survey and its companion to the study, the conclusion is reached that:
    The level of stupidity of the Israeli community is getting stronger and stronger,

  150. My father, the shortcomings of the education system do not stem from a religious interpretation but from something much deeper, since what else can explain the low grades in the other core subjects?
    The answer to this is the intervention of the state in something that it should not be pushed into - education itself. Until the education system is fully privatized, we will continue to have dumb teachers, even dumber kids and bad grades.

  151. Uncle
    At the end of your words, please also condemn the attack on the 11-year-old ultra-Orthodox boy by a group of secular hooligans, an act for which there was no apology or criticism from the secular leadership.

  152. It is not the secularism that left man morally poor but the poor education in the state schools. Secularism brought to the world a rich selection of literature and philosophy, these are the schools that instead teach the religious interpretation and prevent the exposure of the full cart.

    And if the silent majority wanted their voices to be heard, they would have had to throw up these extremists, but in fact every religious person, even a national religious person, that I spoke with said that he condemns them but is jealous of them because they are more religious than him, and therefore he cannot fight against them.

  153. "This is what happens when we abandon the souls of our children..."

    This article rejects me as a man of faith who has been involved in science and the development of medical products for over a decade.

    As it is written, it shames its authors and the site that boasts of scientific affiliation (and I must say that I really enjoy reading it).

    Who established this dichotomy: either religion or science?

    In order to avoid trouble, I will refrain from bringing mountains of examples of modern philosophers who combine divinity and science (we will mention only Descartes for his teaching).

    Any layman who writes such an article is asked to explain the religious fanaticism of Newton, the father of modern science... and how it is that his writings about religion exceeded his scientific articles in scope. Furthermore, what was the source of his obsession with God and the Bible?

    And perhaps, dear Ishii, instead of opening the article with "This is what happens when we abandon the souls of our children...", deal with the data that emerges from the statistics and try to give a more appropriate descriptive scientific explanation?

    Based on the data, I may wonder:
    Could it be that secularism freed man from material hardships, but left him spiritually poor?
    It is possible that the secular modern man realized that life is little more than "what is the next thing I buy to be happy"?
    Is it possible that secularism failed by not creating a spiritual alternative for man?
    And perhaps, if we stick to the Maslow scale (despite being imprecise), secularism allowed the free man to satisfy his material needs and when freed up to engage in higher needs, the vast majority found divinity and religiosity?

    By the way, the lay writer will ask himself:
    Is "justice" a truth that exists in the real world or is "justice" a truth that exists in the human consciousness, and this gives it existence? If his answer is that "justice" is a truth that exists in the real world, please give an example. Otherwise, it is forced upon him that it is a consequence of human thought and consciousness.
    By the way, without going into the various subtleties, "divinity" is a truth that exists in the human consciousness from the dawn of childhood and in all types of human societies that have existed on Earth (in terms of the size of the experimental sample, it is not possible to find a larger sample... and data that emerges from the report, reconfirms this... .).
    Hence, that: in the same way that "justice" is a truth for a person, "divinity" must also be a truth for that person (who advocates justice)! And in these words there is nothing or half a thing to be said about God's existence or not.

    Anyone who single-handedly connects Judaism with the collection of hooligans such as those in Beit Shemesh, or the youth of the hills, is going beyond duty and missing the main point:
    He denies himself the freedom to expose himself to Judaism and its wisdom.
    He gives those "disguised as Jews" the "ownership" of Judaism.
    And he ignores the "silent Jewish majority". And as it appears from the data in this article, this majority makes up the majority of the human mosaic living in Israel today.

    At the end of my words, I condemn with all my heart the heartless, who spat on the eight-year-old girl in Beit Shemesh. These are godless people. There is nothing and not half of faith in them. This is neither Judaism nor its way, and they do not represent it! They are a bunch of criminals and perverts who belong in prison. But the period, in which the "Bibi" rules, "all Dalim Gaber". If we had a proper government, such a horrible thing, would not have passed in silence and turning a blind eye.


  154. Ross
    Define the term "thought freedom". What child is free from the influence of his parents on his childhood and his worldview?
    If "freedom of thought" = secularism, then to claim that -

    "Children who really grew up in freedom of thought, are generally secular" -

    Consider saying 1=1.
    Once again we return to the routine of defining religion as a prison and secularism as freedom. If this is really your view (and I hope not) - why do you get angry when an ultra-Orthodox person makes a similar comparison and defines you as a baby in captivity?

  155. Father, the bus companies do not open "strict lines" because of pressure from tycoons. They do this because there is demand, from a population that the last thing you can say about it is that it is rich (the ultra-Orthodox). And again I repeat - the separation is with the consent of both sexes and stems from their faith, not from the male side forcing the female. Perhaps the case became public because of a delusional woman who wanted to get on the Mehdrin lines and cause a provocation by sitting in the area reserved for men, but equally a male provocateur could sit in the area reserved for women and the resentment that would arise among the bus occupants was the same. Just because it was a woman then suddenly the childish and infantile voices of feminism wake up for them.
    The last part of your response is perhaps the strangest - what does it matter what the "religious" concept says? So I ask you logically, should an entire sector be blamed for the actions of a few? Is this justified under any moral system? religious or not? To say "because that's how they believe" is a stupid thing, after all you yourself do not share their faith!

  156. Mirom, the consent of the bus company is worthless as a garlic peel. In this matter, I have exactly a war in Tel Aviv with those who represent a minority but happened to be elected as chairmen of committees in Tel Aviv, and think they have the right to tell Egged and Dan not to enter the neighborhoods to keep the peace of the millionaires who have fleets of cars and force the poor to walk about a kilometer outside to the neighborhood
    It happened in Shikon L., in Hadar Yosef and they are also threatening to take the buses out of G.

    The bus company is not sovereign in this case, just like in the case of the Mahadrin lines, because it is able to submit to violence. It should provide service to everyone - including the poor (relatively speaking - there are also those who, thanks to the good service, avoided buying, for example, a second car), and also to women in the case of the need to avoid exclusion. The issue of religious coercion as well as capitalist coercion should not be left to private initiative. There are issues of value that should be outside the power of coercion. The ultra-Orthodox's anxiety about women, about military service, etc. must be dealt with in other ways and not by surrendering to them.

    And as for the question of why the religious public should be collectively responsible - because it precisely claims to have 'moral' values ​​and to have collective enforcement qualities (a.k.a. chastity guards or under their new name sikriks) while for the secular individualism is a 'sacred' thing.

  157. Mr. "Church of Reason" (Filoshit) - there is a difference between people believing what they want and feeling a strong need to impose their opinion - I would not make a fool of myself and say such a thing after the Beit Shemesh events.

  158. There is no doubt that extremism is a bad harm, but note that extremism in "faith" in science is also a bad harm!
    In addition to this, he says that there is nothing wrong with people believing that God exists, even if they describe him as a type of human being.. after all, science itself cannot shed much light on our true being.. and it certainly cannot rule out the existence of any creator.
    The only thing that is really important in the whole matter of our company is the guarantee and mutual understanding and nothing else..

  159. In our generation, we have watched religion pushed to the margins as all the metaphysical magic points are torn and stripped from it one by one
    in which the believers loved to show off so much. And it's not like anyone even tried to disprove the religion,
    It was simply a byproduct of scientific research.

    always intrigues me -
    What is the initial underlying factor that causes most people to fall in love with any religion?
    Why are we, the minority, left 'out of the game'?
    Why does the brain produce 'tight belief'?

  160. The reason for the increase in the percentage of believers in God is not as a result of repentance, but simply from the necessity of the increase in the percentage of religious people in the Israeli population. If so, and the seculars complain so much - start having children and strengthen the secular demography! But please, if you don't intend to do this, stop whining about the fact that you are shrinking.
    Belief in God was not and never will be anti-scientific. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to demonstrate this with any research or any logical tool that is behind it.
    Exclusion of women? never happened and never existed. These are Mahadrin lines that were specially allocated for the purpose of separate seating, with the full consent and initiative of the bus company. This is the full right of the ultra-Orthodox to such a separation because they themselves suffer from it, there was not and will not be a separation on secular buses.
    Violence on religious grounds is fundamentally wrong. But why was your soul shocked only when it came from the secular direction to the ultra-orthodox, and not the other way around? Why is the ultra-Orthodox public collectively responsible for the heinous acts of individuals in it, when no such responsibility is expected from the secular public?

  161. The reason for the increase in the percentage of believers in God is not as a result of repentance, but simply from the necessity of the increase in the percentage of religious people in the Israeli population. If so, and the seculars complain so much - start having children and strengthen the secular demography! But please, if you don't intend to do this, stop whining about the fact that you are shrinking.
    Belief in God was not and never will be anti-scientific. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to demonstrate this with any research or any logical tool that is behind it.
    Exclusion of women? never happened and never existed. These are Mahadrin lines that were specially allocated for the purpose of separate seating, with the full consent and initiative of the bus company. This is the full right of the ultra-Orthodox to such a separation because they themselves suffer from it, there was not and will not be a separation on secular buses.
    Violence on religious grounds is fundamentally wrong. But why was your soul shocked only when it came from the secular direction to the ultra-orthodox, and not the other way around? Why is the ultra-Orthodox public collectively responsible for the heinous acts of individuals in it, when no such responsibility is expected from the secular public?

  162. philoshit, are anarchy, religion opinions that people came to because of "freedom of thought" or because of religious education?

    If you notice - children who really grew up in freedom of thought, are generally secular,
    What is happening in Israel is religious brainwashing.

  163. Truly a disaster.
    That people should have the right to think what they want and believe what they want? disaster!
    This freedom of thought just makes me sick.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.

Science website logo