Comprehensive coverage

A country haunted by demons - stupidity and scientific ignorance will go together

A leading candidate for a Senate seat from the state of Missouri said that a woman's body knows whether the rape is legitimate or not and blocks the reproductive system. On scientific ignorance as an ideological flag - also in Israel

Congressman Todd Akin. From Wikipedia
Congressman Todd Akin. From Wikipedia

"If stupidity was a painful disease, you would be in plaster all your life", Yossi Banai wrote to Gacheshim in the sketch "Shabbat Shalom" somewhere in the cheerful sixties. The world is full of fools, but the problem starts when the fools run our lives.

But unfortunately the world is not going forward but backwards and today stupidity and especially that accompanied by scientific ignorance is legitimate. Here, a few days ago, the member of the American House of Representatives, Todd Akin, and a Republican candidate for the Senate from the state of Missouri, said something scientifically nonsense. In an interview with a local television station in St. Louis, Akin claimed that in cases of "legitimate rape", the woman's body is capable of somehow preventing an unwanted pregnancy. He did not explain his intention with the term legitimate rape. Although after realizing the extent of the damage in this sentence, he withdrew from it, but not from the wrong science.

But what do you want from a junior politician if even the Republican Party candidate for vice president is against abortion Even in the case of rape.

Akin's case highlights how anti-scientific is no longer the domain of an extreme minority but of the mainstream in the American right, and without adopting an anti-scientific line, no politician can be elected under the pressure of members of the 'Tea Party'. It is strange that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said of Akin's words that they are biologically wrong, while his party openly supports creationists and their demands to equate the status of their faith with the established science of evolution in the education system. After all, evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. You can't even develop a drug without conducting evolutionary experiments.

Whoever denies one established science, has no problem denying other parts of science. Another established science that Republicans deny is climate science. They prefer to create an imaginary world in which man has no influence on the earth and therefore there is no need for green energy or "saving" energy or recycling materials and it is possible to continue a wasteful lifestyle, even though today resources of two Earths are required each year to continue to pollute and waste. An example of this can be found in the words of President Bush Jr. on December 20, 2000: "It is clear that nuclear energy is a renewable energy source, and the less demand there is for energy from non-renewable sources such as fossil fuels, the better off the American people will be."

Israeli politicians also have interesting biological insights in the same context. A few months ago, in an interview with Maariv MK Anastasia Michaeli, she said: "Young girls get pregnant and have an abortion, which harms their chances of having children, and in the end they even become lesbians."
MK Nissim Ze'ev in an interview with Globes, May 21, 2012: "The irresponsibility of boys and girls in Israel who have sex outside of marriage, get pregnant and have an abortion - this is a serious problem in Israel. I intend to introduce a bill in the Knesset to ban sex outside of marriage."
"I really hope they recover from this thing. They haven't invented a cure for homosexuality yet, but I hope they will" - Eli Yishai, Knesset Channel, 2006.

"70% of humans believe in reincarnation. Even Einstein believed in reincarnation" (Eli Yishai) by the way contrary to explicit words that Einstein said and wrote.

Maybe these stupid statements by politicians show their envy and fear of smart people, so they oppose everything the scientists say?

P.S. Another unwise statement from the last few weeks, although not about science but about the struggles between two religious beliefs, one of which believes in a virtual God and the other - in virtual aliens. Tom Cruise's ex-wife - Katie Holmes: "I am free from an exploitative cult based on money and a fictional deity and I have returned to the Catholic Church." Indeed, the Catholic Church is a model for non-exploitation and equality. Just who exactly financed the construction of the cathedrals that at today's prices cost billions of dollars - any cathedral the size of a CERN facility or a large aircraft carrier.

Comments

  1. Sorry for hijacking the thread, but since yesterday I haven't been able to post there... (copy-paste...)
    ————————————————————————————————————-
    Shmulik,
    There are several parts to the paragraph you quoted.

    The first part says that for many scientists the theory is insufficient.
    This is true, and there are several reasons for this, but they are not presented below. At the end of the response I will add what does cause skepticism.

    The second part is from a sentence that, paraphrased, says - if there is no direct indication of the existence of hidden variables - their existence can remain philosophical - but it is possible that a possibility will be found to get an indication of their existence.

    The third part talks about computational practicality of the theory. In general, there is a calculation that requires assumptions such as a finite size for the universe.

    The fourth part talks about meanings that arise for quantum computers. I assume that you use the assumption that the universe is finite, and when you take into account the formulas described in the third part, you get that there is a theoretical limit to the accuracy that can be obtained (note - the third part assumed a finite size in order for the calculations to be finite; this part concludes that if the size of the universe is finite, then a computational solution can accurately solve , and therefore there will be a limit to the theoretical accuracy).

    That is, to your question: the universe sets a limit - but not to the correctness of the theory of hidden variables. Given that the description of hidden variables is correct, the universe sets a limit to the precision that can be calculated with a theoretical quantum computer.
    To illustrate - even classical theoretical computers are limited in all kinds of parameters given a finite size to the universe.

    That is, there is no argument for or against here, there are inferences about the computational limits.
    If someone really wants a computer the size of the universe to be able to do calculations with an accuracy of over 10,000 digits, then they have to hope that there are no hidden variables, but that there really is inherent randomness.

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————–

    The predictions of Copenhagen and "Bohm" intersect in such a strong way that as long as there are no differences, they can be viewed as different descriptions of the same phenomenon.

    However, there is a claim that they managed to find an effect that would give an indication of the existence of the hidden variables (as hinted in the second part that may exist).
    The effect is related to the experiment of photons in two slits, and its results should contradict "Bohm's" prediction. Link:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206196

    But it is no coincidence that this is not officially accepted as a contradiction to the theory... firstly there are variants on the theory, secondly - as we said - it is always better to take such things in a careful context.

    In the same way, the so-called "Bohemian" has the advantage of being able to adapt to relationships, link:
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0811.1905

    In short, the "Bohm" theory did not show an advantage in prediction over "Copenhagen", but it cannot be said that it was contradicted either.

    Many of those who prefer it, do so for reasons similar to mine - a more coherent point of view - which of course is already something individual.
    And I think that because the theory is "out of order", there is a tendency to see it as more delusional.

  2. Since when do scientists know the answers? In science there is evidence, theories and experiments.

    Really, I have no idea what Israel is talking about. And I better not comment.

  3. I was reminded of oblivion:
    We are the communist youth, lottery winners
    .
    .
    What do the workers want? Bread, work
    What do the workers want? birth control

    The parallel is clear. But I am in the matter of the small details.

    The main thing is health. Take care of yourself for the future of the world

  4. From: "The Law of the Second Law of Palaeodynamics":

    "The hole ends very simply

    What he does not understand is nonsense."

    jubilee.

    I believe that we have discussed the matter of psychodynamics enough. Everything appears in the articles you read. I thought you might see the parallel between your words: "We are divided into rival groups that each associate themselves with some religion" to "a closed system, be it a state, religious belief or economic status".

    But I have no intention of getting dragged into a debate with "scientists" who know all the answers before they've even heard the questions, and whose real purpose is to show everyone how smart they are and how stupid the others are.

    Regarding the experiment - a mini version of it was carried out, no results. I'm not in the health line yet. Hope to make a more elaborate version in the future.

    How did you like the revolutionary slogans?

  5. jubilee

    First of all - where does the assertion come from that the Neanderthals were more advanced than Homo sapiens?? I don't know it. on the contrary…

    And in any case - let's assume it's true. Evolution does not work between different species but between items of the same species. Therefore - the question is not related to evolution. The Neanderthals were less adapted to the environmental conditions, in terms of geography, climate, food inventions or dangerous inventions such as predators and diseases. We practiced more.

    In addition, there was another species of man, I can't remember his name at the moment, who had a bigger brain than ours - and he also became extinct. No one said there is justice in the world.
    Think that AIDS can kill all humans and the only ones left are chimpanzees.

    And you really deal with this nonsense - psychodynamics?

  6. Miracles,
    Israel generalizes physics principles to other fields. He doesn't always bother to explain himself clearly, but after quite a few efforts on my part I was convinced that there was something in his words after all. Let's hope together that he will improve his attitude towards his huge and numerous fan base.

  7. Nisim and Amit,
    With your permission, I leave religion for a moment and focus on another conflict that was between two human populations.
    We (that is, our ancestors from tens of thousands of years ago) destroyed the Neanderthal man, a human population that was much more advanced than us. They developed a high culture, but evolution favored us.
    How did it happen?

    Israel,
    As the main propagandist of the second law of psychodynamics, you are also asked to give a breakdown of the process so that the customers who have recently come will understand things better. It will also be fine if you bring parallels from thermodynamics, provided that the context is clear.
    The last time we spoke you were in a hurry to perform some kind of experiment at forty degrees. When you get a chance, please share.

  8. To the righteous Jew - I will only respond to one point - God's garden. I read Dean Hamer's book - called "The Divine Garden". The book is interesting, but it turns out that there is a lot of scientific criticism about it.

    On all the other points I agree to one degree or another. But - this leaves the problem open - why all these factors cause religious belief.

    All in all, you covered a lot of points, and I really think that some cut of them is the correct explanation.

  9. jubilee? Maybe you can explain to me what Israel is talking about? Psychomechanics? What sci-fi movie did I miss?

  10. Miracles

    Why do you want some too?

    Maybe it will help you understand the scripture. If not, ask from Yuval.

    Or maybe from the children.

  11. Yuval Chaikin: Indeed, the survival advantages of religion in addition to Dawkins' explanation that religion is a by-product of the faith that was necessary in the development of man are no longer relevant today. These are advantages that suited man tens of thousands of years ago and helped his progress and development. The development has not stopped and continues. Just the simple fact that atheism as a significant phenomenon did not exist until the Renaissance indicates that this is a new development in human culture. I suppose this is a natural response to the burden that religion places on man and his culture as well as his life and well-being. The advantages are null in sixty compared to the disadvantages and the heavy price that religion exacts from the person. Religion is unnecessary at this stage of human development. At least smooth. There are parts deeply immersed in ignorance and backwardness, but there is no doubt that they will arrive and advance after the more advanced parts just as nations and societies have adopted various human achievements in certain parts of the world. For example, the gunpowder that found a very limited use in China was developed into an unprecedented weapon in Europe and returned to China and spread to the rest of the world. The Africans, for the most part, abolished the slavery that was practiced among them after the white man fought and in the forest out of it slavery and there are more and more examples from both the physical sphere and the sphere of values ​​and culture.
    Therefore, in the long run, in a long time I predict that atheism will spread and overcome religion. Homo religiosis will be defeated, swept away and disappear from the face of the homotheist. Another interpretation of the sentence: "We have come to drive out darkness, in our hands is the light of reason and the fire of enlightenment."

    Indeed, the conclusion that everything is "nonsense" is not new and has already been reached in the past. "There is no point in living" can be a conclusion as well. The fact that an overwhelming and clear majority of atheists have not come to this conclusion says something. Regarding the "Taste of Life" I refer again to Viktor Frankl's book: Man Searches for Meaning.
    The universe is indifferent to our place and we do not have a purpose, cause or cause. From this point of view existence or the world is "vanity vanities" but from the point of view of man and wine they are not vanity. Definately not. On the contrary, the growth of the secular is that it gives meaning and flavor to his life in contrast to the self-deception and the lies that the religious believer who is based on religious delusions exposes himself to. The secular knows that the world has no meaning from within itself, no creator, no purpose and reason for the existence of the world. There is no purpose. Therefore he is the one who gives and creates the purpose for his existence. What power to man, how beautiful to life, what incomparable taste (not even the "taste of life" of Coke...) to human existence.
    The claim that everything is vanity and therefore life has no meaning is essentially a religious claim. Adopting it is surrendering to the religious view that offers you redemption, a way out and a solution to your life. This is a view that sees an objective purpose for the existence of the universe and man in it. This is a view that assigns a role to a person. An instrumental view of life. That's why the madlatim (the degenerates to religion) often criticize the "book of instructions" that God gave to man. I didn't get to ask what instruction book the gentiles received and how they manage to act and exist properly in our world.... This is a depressing view that sees man as a slave of God, as an instrument in the hand of God, as a type of machine, a robot that had to obey an instruction book to operate properly as if it were a television or a dishwasher After all, it is known that these have a purpose and the operating and maintenance instructions must be followed in order for them to function properly and properly, otherwise there is no purpose or reason for their existence. Because what is the point of the dishwasher if not to wash dishes? What a repressive view at its core, what a low spirit of man, a complete lack of rest of spirit and humiliating self-abnegation of man. Indeed, religion is a syndrome. Like a torte for example. Dos jumps to my religion at the right time, place and in an unexpected way. Most of the time the normal person will be the same. And then the bull will jump on him and make him behave like this: either by hitting a woman who doesn't move to the back of the bus, or by enslaving reason to faith so that reason becomes the slave of faith, and for this we received a great demonstration from Rabbi Nachman (the original suffered from mental problems...surprises anyone?) that he enslaved his reason to his faith that led him in discussion No evidence, fact, logic and rationality swayed him from his belief. He remains afloat in the world of religious logic when he rejects, outright, logic. How sad and depressing.

  12. jubilee

    Great question.

    First of all - we need to differentiate between Darwinian (genetic) evolution and conceptual evolution (Dawkins' and Blackmore's memes). I believe that genetically there is no difference between religious and secular (secular I mean a person who does not believe in gods of any kind……). Therefore - religion/secularism has no effect on genetic evolution.

    Regarding conceptual evolution - and let's assume that it does exist (in my personal opinion, the idea of ​​memes is not exactly evolution). Evolution is blind - it is not interested in the common good, or the good of the individual. As I said before, there are many reasons that make a person believe (you can also add fear of death as an example). More violent religions, which advocate missionaries and/or multiple births, will multiply faster than the secular ones. It is precisely the secular ones who understand that the rate of our multiplication is the greatest danger to our existence.

    There is another problem with religion, and it is an insidious one. Many studies show that religious people are happier than secular people. It gives strength to faith that can explain its power.

    There are several secular complaints in the world - The Brights and The Skeptic Society for example. Find out about them - maybe there is some hope there 🙂

  13. To Yuval and miracles: Regarding the "syndrome (phenomenon) of religion." As mentioned, I am not an expert in the field. But from reading I know that religion meets basic psychological needs of man:
    1. Man is a believing creature - he believes that the sun will rise tomorrow, that gravity will continue to work, that he will rise tomorrow in the morning. Healthy... etc.
    2. Security - Faith provides security in a world full of problems and existential dangers.
    3. Helplessness - the world is seen as uncertain and disorderly. When a man stands in front of his son dying of cancer he is helpless. completely. I think about it and am convinced that I will go out of my mind and I won't be able to cope if, God forbid....Indeed going out of your mind for the sake of your religion is the correct term for "repentance" which is a religious and false term, as mentioned. Religion provides stability, order, certainty and alleviates powerlessness.
    4. Meaning - Everyone knows Viktor Frankl's "man searches for meaning"? Who does not read in panic. Religion provides a great meaning - however false it may be. Religion is perhaps the main way of imparting meaning.
    5. Giving answers and solutions - the world is strange, incomprehensible, strange, many phenomena are seen as mysterious and not understood/clear. Religion explains the world and reality in a fairly simple and simplistic way that is understandable to any idiot. or a child See Amnon Yitzhak phenomenon.
    6. Causal explanation - man is built to give a causal interpretation and explanation to phenomena. Phenomenon A is caused by factor B. Most of humanity's existence was not science in its modern sense and quality, so religion provided the causal context. Why is there an epidemic and dying masses? Because we sinned. just no ? Although infantile, it concerns the "infantile point" found in all of us. For me, too. For the religious this point is in "dead territory" as far as their religion is concerned. They do not understand that their religion is evidence of their infantility. They are adults who have not fully matured.
    7. Fear - man is a creature that suffers from fears and anxieties, chief among them the fear of death. Religion treats and dismantles the matter of death thoroughly. The same religion, for example Judaism, gives many different answers throughout its development regarding death. There are many other fears: of abandonment, of temptation, of punishment, of feelings of guilt, of suffering and pain.
    As a side note, I will add that some of the cruelty in religion is related to fear. The fear that drives man leads to cruelty. Not only in religion, of course. Even in religion, which, being a human phenomenon, is no different, of course.
    8. Hope and comfort - man needs hope. Man needs self-conviction that the future will be better than the present. tomorrow will be better Religion provides this commodity in a very appropriate way. And that includes comfort. at the same price. Why did my son die? Because he is the reincarnation of a sinner's soul (we have already heard a version of this stupid explanation here) or he is now in heaven with the wings of an angel or in the next reincarnation he will have a better reincarnation in light of the price he paid in this reincarnation. As mentioned and as we know, the variety of illusions and self-deception that man provides to himself is diverse and rich.
    9. The figure of the authoritative parent - a decisive role in development is reserved for the authoritative parent. We are all familiar with the great rift in the last generation of children growing up "without parental authority". Many make a joke about it, and rightly so: Michal Daliot "Super Nanny" and Amos Rolider are two local and very famous examples. In our adulthood there is a crisis of "shattering the idols" where the all-powerful parents - with an emphasis on the figure of the father - become people with shortcomings and virtues. I personally went through such a poignant process of disillusionment regarding my father, my father, to whom I am connected with every fiber of my soul. It suddenly became clear to me that it has disadvantages (…!!!…). He is an ordinary man.... God is used as the ideal of the parent and in our culture it is about the father of course. He will remain a "perfect parent" to the worlds even in our adulthood. Here is the practical possibility to maintain our infantility even in our adulthood. Excellent arrangement. The intangible crutches provided by faith and religion come to a special expression in the vision of God as a parent: "Our Father in heaven" is a clear phrase in the light of the explanation.
    10. Feelings of guilt - every human being, except for psychopaths, carries within him feelings of guilt. It is part of the healthy psychological structure. This is the point where the Polish mother stars who rules her offspring without Egypt... "You don't have time to come and change my light bulb, it's okay I'll sit in the dark, alone". Already in early childhood we want to fulfill our urges, our desires and desires and at the same time to please and please our parents. This is a recipe for creating feelings of guilt. The feeling of guilt is, perhaps, the central motivation of man, it is complicated, pathological and dangerous in the human soul. Religion uses guilt to appropriate their role and take care of them. Regulate them.
    Fasts and fasts, baptism, forgiveness of sins, corrections, confession, stickiness, prayer, Yom Kippur - some tools to deal with your feelings of guilt. Is it a coincidence that the photo of Shushan Barbi from Netanya who ran over 3 women to death while driving fast under the influence of chemical substances was published on Facebook while wearing shorts, flip flops, a cap for his head, tefillin and wrapped in a tallit with black coffee and a box of cigarettes with a lighter on the table (someone said a symbol of religious anger?? (There is no amazing picture). It also reminds me of the scene from the godfather who baptizes his son or grandson while his messengers are at the same time massacring his opponents... In general, the connection of the church, the rabbis with the world of crime and evil deserves some research. In connection with the world of crime and evil, he is one of the most famous.
    11. Communalism and social cohesion - there is no need to detail how much religion contributes to this area which adds a lot to a person. It's not that there was no community and that religion is an origin. Of course not. The religion simply adopted this feature as the basis of its activity - the community. The more cohesive the group, the more its ability to deal with other groups increases accordingly. This is definitely a distinct survival advantage. Even nowadays. In the face of disasters and difficulties, religion provides the cement that holds the group together and enables its continued existence. In the history of our nation, what better example than the continued existence of the nation after the severe disaster of Horanev Beit Shani?? The Sages - with an emphasis on Rabbi Akiva - reformulated the religion on new principles with a completely new "worship of God" fundamentally different from the one practiced until the Holocaust. It can be said that a "new covenant" was created just like the Christian one.
    12. God is the alter ego of the people who believe in him. He gives the nation its uniqueness and specialness, it elevates the nation above all other nations. He chooses the people...
    13. Exaltation and feelings of transcendence - man sometimes feels these feelings in his life. Faith and religion make him hang them on the idea that is clear to him - a divine feeling, the cry of orgasm: "Oh God, yes, yes God, it's good, God, more, like this, yes, God, God, God...." When people experience special situations that cause a storm of emotions / emotions are used by God: a young German who flew in 1987 in a small plane to the Red Square in Moscow described a kind of trance, losing the sense of time and the sense of transcendence I felt God with me.... Just this week it was announced that an enthusiastic priest died of a snake bite After using this show to prove the strength of his faith and devotion to Jesus. This is a phenomenon that was common at the beginning of the century in the USA and after several deaths the show was banned.... It turns out that the priest received the ultimate punishment and was spared from having to deal with the law enforcement authorities....
    14. A sense of control - in the face of helplessness, religion provides a sense of control over the uncontrollable: the ravages of the weather and nature: rain, earthquakes, fires, diseases.
    15. Servant of Hashem - Abdullah is the servant of God in Islam, etc. The sovereignty and responsibility that man requires for his life and that is one of the cornerstones of humanism-liberalism are new demands from man. It is a heavy and difficult burden that only a few carry with the full weight of the weight. An autonomous, sovereign and responsible person for his life and actions is the demand of humanism. This is a difficult, piercing, threatening, disturbing and frightening demand. very Religion relieves you of responsibility for your life. The responsibility goes to God in His honor and glory He created you, He is the source of morality, values, goodness. He commands and commands. The destruction of Amalek, the killing of the Shabbat desecrator, harming a homosexual, a woman who commits adultery after her husband, harming a secular person (see Rambam's laws regarding the treatment of secular people), prohibition of mourning for a secular person who has died (again the "Great Eagle"), prohibition of desecrating the Sabbath in order to save a life of a Gentile or Gentile (see the answer of the former chief military rabbi - Rontsky - to the question of a religious medic). All of these do not require moral thinking, moral decision, or the exercise of conscience. The religious opposite is obliged to suppress his human conscience, to ignore human morality in the face of God's commandments. Every religious person grows up on the story of the unfathomable miracle to the humanist of Avraham Abino who stood up to sacrifice his son without hesitation, thought, argument and without trembling in his hand reaching out to the meat to slaughter his son. his only like a lamb
    When I am negligent and endanger my children by watching a local flood in the Jerusalem mountains and my daughter is swept away, drowns and dies then "everything is in God's hands", everything is from heaven. self responsibility ? Sovereignty for my life? Everything from the name will say the victim of the faith.
    16. Biological explanation - the divine point in the brain and the divine gene. Really new research findings that revealed a connection to spirituality, faith and the like both in a certain place in the brain and in a certain gene. I don't understand that and maybe this is a study that is too young to detail. There are sources for this
    17. Biological benefits - studies have pointed to communality as helping with longevity, faith and religion as helping with quality of life including protection from diseases related to stress and assistance in recovery from surgeries, and illnesses.

  14. From: "The Law of the Second Law of Thermodynamics":

    Can the earth, which is a closed psychomechanical system, decrease its total psychomechanical entropy? A disappointing and discouraging answer: not on his own. The "second law of psychomechanics" excludes the possibility that the entropy in a closed psychomechanical system will decrease, unless the entropy of another system increases.
    You can say hello to world peace and brotherhood. Any prosperity and abundance in one group will always come at the expense of another group. The hour of Aquarius will not come on its own, and it will not help if the moon rises in the seventh house and Jupiter and Mars line up as one man. Without an external source of psychomechanical energy, any closed system, be it a state, religious belief or economic status, and subject to psychomechanical pressure, is doomed to a constant tendency to expand as a way of reducing its own local entropy - and this in the absence of free psychomechanical space, at the expense of another psychomechanical system.

  15. Thank you for agreeing.
    Maybe we found a tip to solve the issue. But still not everything is clear. If we divide the human population into two rival groups, scientists versus religions, in war the religions win even if they are technologically inferior. Why does evolution favor vanity beliefs?

  16. I have to agree with every word you say…

    It reminds me of the prisoner's dilemma - and we know what the results are...

  17. The first option you brought up is not only a thing of the past. We are slaughtering our own kind to this very day non-stop. Most of the time, we are divided into rival groups that each associate themselves with some religion. That is, we are the chariot on which the religion is carried.
    The second option you mentioned is being tried in several places in the world. China has an official birth control policy, and many words of criticism have been poured into it. In Europe, birth control is voluntary and is the property of certain populations, but this turns out to be a weakness because another population, which does not use family planning, takes advantage of this and takes over. Here too, the key is the religious affiliation.
    In recent years, the religion of Islam has gained the reputation of a war monger. It is difficult to hide the intense hatred that many Muslims harbor for members of the competing religions. But it spreads in the world despite the belief in Judgment Day, the 72 virgins and the other practical stories. In the end, due to dwindling resources (for example, due to global warming), we will continue to slaughter each other, and those who have the best chance of surviving are those who will belong to the "correct" religion and who do not necessarily see physical reality as present.

  18. Yuval - The problem is not humanity. We are the result of evolution.

    To date, 99% of species are extinct and species exist for something like 1-10 million years. I agree that we are not like the other species – there is no other species that can write here…..

    The Earth does not host us, after all we did not come from another place.

    As I wrote before, species reproduce until they reach a resource limit. That's how life works here. Then (or before) wars begin between the members of the species. We have 2 options:

    1. To breed until we have to fight each other, like it used to be.
    2. Take responsibility and limit childbirth.

    It sounds bad, and I would love to hear a different solution to this problem. Or, maybe, someone will explain to me that I'm wrong.

  19. And what does that tell you about humanity in general?
    If you had a key by which rights could be measured, would you find humanity entitled to live on the planet that hosts it?

  20. for Jubilee

    About the future of vanity beliefs - I have a very bad feeling. Most people love it. They will continue to believe nonsense. Just think how many people do not accept the human influence on global warming. Look at the rise of Islam, the percentage of ultra-Orthodox in Israel and the percentage of evolution deniers in the US.
    I'm not a prophet and I don't know what tomorrow will be either. But, I am very worried.

    I'm sorry

  21. Long stories confuse me. Maybe you're right, but I can't concentrate and that's why I can't respond.
    Do you also have something to say about the future of vanity beliefs? Will they survive in spite of the gland? And if so, will they prosper?

  22. oak

    I said the world is cruel.
    I explained why I think so.
    You probably have no real response to that. And it probably hurts you because of it.

    I'm sorry to spoil your party.

    Be healthy.

  23. And the Jewish tzaddik

    You wrote - "The fact that it survives is because it has a survival value for a person. Like our other emotions: love, jealousy, hatred, etc.

    But - its origin also needs to be explained.

    And beyond that - the survival value is more children. Is it true that religious people have more children? Is it true that religion is inherited?

    I am not expressing an opinion here - just raising questions 🙂

  24. jubilee

    1. Rebellion. Most people are not really rebellious. You see it even in the elections. And among those who rebel - they mostly (in my opinion) change the source of their authority. For example - repenting. For example - rebellious youth: they rebel against their parents but ease the authority of their friends. They dress "Gothic", have long hair (you see my age...), earrings and tattoos.

    Beyond that - rebels really do exist. They invent a new religion and everyone flocks to them……….See Martin Luther and Joseph Smith.

    2. Repeating a successful experiment. The phenomenon is recognized by science and its effect is surprisingly strong. I agree that if she fails a large number of times then her charm will disappear. Once upon a time sacrifices were made to make it rain. It didn't work and this phenomenon disappeared. Many rituals weaken over time. But apparently the influence of receiving authority comes into play. People pray because they are told to pray, even though it has no effect.... See for example Galton's study of the royal family in England: http://www.abelard.org/galton/galton.htm#.UEB3fcHiYw8

    3. We really don't know how to distinguish between imagination and reality 🙂 Really, but really not! Let's assume that Judaism is the correct religion. So a billion and a half Christians, a billion Muslims, and a billion Hindus really don't notice.
    Descartes himself started his Torah on the fact that we know about the world only through the senses and we do not know reality. You can continue through Spinoza, Maimonides and the other rationalists.
    And in modern physics we don't talk about reality at all - but about how we experience it, and that our experience changes reality 🙂
    Look at it this way - if you are secular then the religious live in the imagination, and if you are religious then vice versa.

    4. Vanity beliefs do not correspond to reality - you are absolutely right. But, in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 3, people listen to the preachers and think that this is the reality.

  25. Alon and miracles,
    I'm afraid language is failing us and we're using the same word to describe two completely different concepts
    In science, axioms are used as a basic claim that does not need to be proven, but it is certainly possible to refute or claim that the axiom is not relevant because it is hidden by evidence (as has happened and happens again and again). The axioms, which by themselves don't mean much and usually themselves rely on evidence (homogeneity as an example: we have never seen anything else and therefore we assume homogeneity. Some even challenge this concept). In any case, the key point of the scientific axiom is "unproven but refutable" (in the physical case, not mathematical of course) and the key point of science is evidence.

    God, whom you called an axiom, is not a scientific axiom, in any way, because it cannot be disproved and it is not only the starting point but also the ending point.

    And therefore I claim that the difference between religion and the scientific method is not just an attempt to reduce the amount of axioms but rather a reliance on evidence and this difference is profound, fundamental and essential

  26. Alon - in this case I would not be enthusiastic about Wikipedia, even though it is an excellent tool. In mathematics we have the 9 axioms of Piano, in Euclidean geometry we have the 5 axioms of Euclid and in set theory there are, for example, the 9 axioms of Zermello and Frankel. These are groups of conventions from which we build an abstract world. These systems have nothing to do with "reality".

    In physics the situation is different. In the special theory of relativity, for example, the determination of the constant speed of light in any inertial axis cave. But - the theory of relativity is a mathematical theory and does not provide an explanation for the world (it only describes). Physicists are very uncomfortable accepting it this way and are looking for explanations as to why the speed of light is really constant.

    I'll put it another way - we call things we believe but don't know how to prove axioms. Science wants to explain exactly these things.

    Aristotle had axiomatic laws of the world - the stone wants to be in the lowest place and therefore it falls. Kepler's system of laws was once a set of axioms and Newton came and explained these laws based on a simpler system of laws (axioms). After that came Einstein and partially explained Newton's laws.

    To summarize - what I am trying to say is that there is a conceptual difference between mathematics and science. The axioms in both are completely different things. Therefore - because religion is part of reality and not an abstract world, there is definitely a point to examine the "axiom" of the existence of a creator.

  27. oak,
    I see no similarity between science in general and physics in particular, and religion. The explanations that science offers for the explanation group "God" are fundamentally and fundamentally different.
    I know some basic assumptions that scientists use such as homogeneity and isotropicity, but these assumptions by themselves do not explain anything, they are based on evidence and most importantly, if other evidence contradicts these assumptions, they will no longer be used. In MDB, the wonderful book Gal Mokh touches a little on this point and the wonderful book Fire upon the Deap eliminates the assumption of homogeneity regarding the speed of light. In physics, just recently (a year?) I read an article by an Israeli scientist who labored for 20 years and developed a correction to the Newtonian formulas so that they are not based on the principle of homogeneity (sorry for not providing a link, I couldn't find it in a minute's in-depth search :)), string theory changed the paradigm and it uses a string as the basic object. Indeed, I am aware that there are even those who wonder if it is a scientific theory at this point but that is not the point, the point is that there are theories that are willing to part with the old assumptions.
    Here is an article, written here, that breaks down many more basic assumptions: https://www.hayadan.org.il/תיאוריית-היקום-הפשוט-יהודה-סבדרמיש/
    I do not claim that what is described in it is true, but that there are constant discussions about the basic assumptions of science.

    Further to the quote you brought from Wikipedia, it says:
    In 1905, Newton's axioms were replaced by those of Albert Einstein's special relativity, and later on by those of general relativity.

    Simply put, there is an axiom change here and in science, it will apply again and again. This is exactly the difference between axioms in science and God's assumption. An axiom is the point of failure that establishes a claim that does not need to be proven, but can be disproved, while God is the end point that does not need to be proven and cannot be disproved.

    Alon, I will pose a challenge to you: give me, in science, an assumption that is similar to God's assumption. You need to tell me about an assumption that science will never be ready to part with. If you say God, it will not be true, because if God appears here before us, science will say, there is a God, just as Bill Maher said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQp6GMzGPpU

    Beyond that, why are you calling what is happening now a fight. Anyone who argues with you will be defined as a loser? This is not a fight. Bickering is Monty Python's argument. (And here, my last 2 sentences are an argument)

  28. Nissim, thank you for your thoughtful answer. I'll try to summarize to see if I understood:
    1: Tendency to accept authority
    2: Repeating a successful experiment
    3: Memory for unusual phenomena, even if they are imaginary
    4: Evolution as a general phenomenon that is not unique to biology

    On the other hand, I can point to opposite phenomena:
    1: Rebellion
    2: If the experiment ceases to be successful, it is abandoned
    3: We know how to distinguish between imagination and reality
    4: Evolution is built, among other things, on the survival of the fittest. Vanity beliefs are far from matching reality

  29. C. H., thank you.
    "It survives because it has a survival value for man", and my questions are: is the survival value for the individual, for human society as a whole, or both? To the lonely person the faith of vanity gives mental relief. For society, religion provides an anchor for the establishment of laws. But religion would not exist without vain beliefs, and therefore it seems to me that it will always work to cultivate such.
    I enjoyed reading about the future evolution of homosapiens, but does homoetheistus really have a survival advantage over homoreligiosis? For example, what keeps the atheists from the possible (and some say "inevitable") conclusion that "vanity is vanities, and there is no point in living"?

    oak,
    The selfish meme 😛 What are the building blocks that make it up that correspond to ACTG of the selfish gene?

  30. jubilee
    Religious belief does survive tens of thousands of years. There are many possible explanations for this. One of the reasons for the multitude of explanations is the complexity of the faith. I will give 4 explanations without going into depth. These are theories - we don't know today what exactly happened.

    1. The first is the inclination of man to receive authority. Tens of thousands of years ago, when a mother told her child "Do not enter the river because there is a crocodile there" - the children who accepted the mother's authority survived and the others did not. Religions start from prophets - people who bring the good news - Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bahá'u'lláh, John Smith and Ron Heard for example. These people (and I do not claim that they all really existed) were very authoritative and created a large community of believers. This is the opinion, for example, of Daniel Dent.

    2. B.P. Skinner is famous for his experiments with pigeons. In some experiments something interesting happened: suppose a certain pigeon turned to the right while receiving food. Skinner discovered that the same pigeon connects the 2 things, and turns to the right when it wants food. This can explain all sorts of rituals that are part of a religion: one man was dancing in the yard by his teepee and it started to rain…..

    3. From psychology we know that the human mind divides the world into 5: people, animals, plants, tools and natural objects. It's a matter of optimization - animals move, plants don't move, tools are human actions, etc. But - when we are told about an animal that talks, a person who knows the future, or a tree that walks, we make a special effort to remember the story. Think about the fact that we remember unusual events very well and do not remember everyday things. This is Pascal Boyer's theory.

    4. A final option (for now) is based on memetics (Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore). The meaning is that religion is a meme - and it undergoes evolution like any other idea. Religion is a particularly cruel meme, and sometimes causes people to kill in its name - see Christianity and Islam. In the course of human history, we see an evolution of religions. We see multiplicity, variation, selection and heredity.

    There are other explanations, like there were aliens here …….. and maybe there really is a God (although it's really, really unlikely...)

  31. Shmulik + Nisim,
    Although I am not enthusiastic about Wikipedia, but in English they still do a reasonable job...:
    "Axioms play a key role not only in mathematics, but also in other sciences, notably in theoretical physics. "
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Other_sciences)

    And despite the aforementioned bickering, I'll pick up the gauntlet...

    I encountered two quite similar points of view in their approach to cultural preservation.
    There is the concept that Richard Dawkins brought up - the Meme, which comes on the weight of Gene, and refers to ideas, or a collection of information, as something that has the characteristics of culture and distribution.
    This is of course the same person who wrote The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene, and introduced into the mainstream the point of view that attributes to the gene (which is of course a collection of information) the "drive" to replicate and try to survive.
    The mental leap between gene and meme is not as far as one might think...

    There is the approach that attributes to the system that people identify with - a collective ego. The basic idea is that this abstract body is attributed to the patterns of thought and behavior that exist overwhelmingly in the people who are in the system - and stem from the identification with that system.
    A simple example we all know is our identity with the country. Among other things, we are educated that we are part of the system, and in a manner parallel to the construction of the ego in the child, there is a layer of collective ego - the collective identity.
    Among other things, the system seems to be trying to perpetuate itself (for example in school lessons, holidays, the flag, the national anthem, finding existential threats and much more) and in a way that is very similar to kindergarten.
    A system that does not have a method to perpetuate itself simply does not survive.
    In the evolution of the systems - those who remain are those who found better methods of perpetuation.
    A source of systems Darwinism if you will...

  32. Chaikin: I will try to answer. As I mentioned in my first comment on the post, faith does not come from reason and reason, but from the mental - emotional aspect. That explains a lot of things.
    The fact that it survives because it has a survival value for man. Like our other emotions: love, jealousy, hatred, etc.
    Dawkins explained beautifully how the moth is attracted to the moonlight because it has evolved to navigate by it. The people who created artificial lighting sources especially in the last hundred years mistakenly believe that the moth is "attracted to fire". It is attracted to the light because that is how it was genetically programmed for millions of years during which at night only the moon shone on the ball. Large parts are still dark and the moth navigates through it, except for human settlements where it is destroyed en masse due to the disruption of navigation.
    Faith is the same thing. It developed and helped man a lot in his development up the evolution. Only very recently - in evolutionary terms - faith has not contributed nearly as much or rather has done much more harm than good. But it still exists and in a big way because the time when a person has new and better tools is very new.
    That's why I mentioned before here that the next stage after homo religios is homo atheistos. And there are already several such percentages in humanity. They mark the future of humanity while the overwhelming and absolute majority of humans actually live in the developmental past of man. It will only take time, of course, until the "homo religiosis" disappears and the "homo atheist" takes its place. Neanderthals also survived for thousands of years together and alongside Homo Sapiens until the latter survived while the former survived only as archaeological remains……

  33. Yeruham admits and leaves, but there is a limit to the capacity for suffering in the face of snoozing and trolling.
    I came here for something simple, but what I find here is mostly endless bickering about who said what and what he meant.
    I will repeat my original question: "If faith is vanity, how come it has survived for tens of thousands of years?" Among other things, I tried to present this survival as a symbiosis, that is, that humanity and the belief in vanity reinforce each other and thus survive together, but I did not find a meaningful relationship.
    glove? someone?

  34. Thanks Shmulik. I already thought that no Rachad reads what is written here.

    I also used this argument that the world was created a second ago (although I always say two weeks). This is a strong claim for exactly the reason you said - there are now endless claims none of which can be proven.

    Anyway about the cruelty. I don't think there is a matter of human emotion here. I am not saying that a wasp that lays eggs in a live caterpillar is cruel. I say that if someone designed this world then he is cruel. I think anyone who causes pain to another is cruel. Do you think otherwise?

  35. Yes. Your summary description is perfect - I attacked you because you are against racism.

    I ignored your repeated sentences - not because I had already answered them, but because the second time I suddenly realized how right you were, and I was simply ashamed.

    And in general, when I look at the things I wrote - I understand how I tried to obfuscate on purpose with all kinds of separated clauses, and examples designed to confuse.

    Sorry Nissim.
    How did I not see this before? You're right.
    The world is so cruel => there is no God. parable.

  36. oak

    You did not address what I wrote.

    I answered everything you wrote, even though your writing is quite vague.

    You don't want to even try to understand what I'm talking about.

    I'm sorry Alon, but I have no idea what your opinion is on any subject - you just say "no, you don't understand".

    You attack me because I am against racism.

    My dear, be healthy

  37. I happen to know the cyclical behavior that describes situations of 2 species,
    But you were referring to the situation of a single species. And even if I mistakenly misunderstood you, you still said that the species will become extinct, and not reach a state of fluctuating.

    And overall, the impression I get is that you are not ready to admit any mistake. Not ready to listen to any argument.

    I'm tired of investing time and effort when there is no one in front of me to listen.

    If something interesting comes up I'll respond, but for now I'm not going to mince words in front of you.

  38. oak

    I think a world where most animals die in great pain is a cruel world. I say this in the context of a world created by a Creator. Of course, if there is no creator, then "cruel" has no meaning in this context.

    I'll say it again - if someone designed a world that mainly includes death in great pain then that someone is cruel.

    You said equilibrium - so no, the world is not in equilibrium. Even a simple population of one predator species and one prey species will not reach equilibrium (read for example about the Lutke-Voltara equation).

    Valon - Mathematics is not a part of science in my opinion. I know there are those who claim otherwise and this is a long philosophical debate (in the philosophy of science you will hear arguments for both sides).
    My intention is that mathematics is abstract and built on axioms and methods of inference. It was once thought that any mathematical theorem could be proved or disproved (today we know that this is not the case).
    Science tries to describe the world and is built on observations, theories and experiments. Two very different things.

    But - the point I'm trying to convey, and probably not clear enough, is this: if the existence of a creator is a scientific concept - then it is possible and necessary to investigate his existence in a scientific way. If its existence is an axiom then let's check the opposite axiom and see if we reach a contradiction.
    That's all I say.

  39. oak,
    On the point of the axioms and the discussion between the difference between religion and science, I completely agree with Nissim.
    Science is based on evidence and God is not. Any theory that claims to be scientific is disprovable, God forbid. Science explains our existence here, with quite a few holes, and God provides a full explanation, but actually, the explanation explains nothing.
    These explanations, the one that science offers and this "God" are actually at opposite ends of the spectrum of possible explanations and the difference between them is abysmal and not gray or similar in any way. In addition, science has no such axiom that there is no God. Science, for example, does not try to deal with the claim that we were all created a second ago with a memory of this discussion and of our lives (and of the Rebbe's terrible examples). Does science assume as an axiom that we were not created a second ago? It is not certain that otherwise science would contain an infinite number of axioms, which is ridiculous. Simply put, science does not deal with claims that cannot be disproved.

    The claim that the world is cruel indeed applies human emotion to reality, so instead of saying cruel I will suggest the word wasteful, if God exists. I will point to the fact that 99.9% of the life that was once on Earth no longer exists, every year millions of babies die at birth around the world and the second season of Game of Thrones and the fourth and fifth books were terrible. All this is to say, for the common atheist this situation makes perfect sense (apart from the books, what happened to Martin???) because, as I wrote, shit happened and he doesn't need to invent explanations that are not based on evidence. For a believer, on the other hand, the above causes very serious doubts of faith, because it does not add up. God is Love and so much death? Not good. Therefore, the believer must cling to the concept of reincarnation in the case of an "unexplained" death, since this is probably the best explanation, together with the concept of heaven/hell/the slingshot and limbo (which the Christian church has recently abolished) that ages of theological debates have given rise to. In my opinion, this solution insults the intelligence. By the way, if this solution also fails, there is always the zero solution: we cannot understand the divine plan. Even more insulting

  40. Miracles,

    I'm starting to suspect one of three things is going on here.

    or you don't want to understand me,
    Or I can't explain well,
    Or you don't understand me well.

    I will try again, hoping that something will change for the better this time...

    (numbered according to your points)

    2) Please distinguish between the principle of karma and trying to set an example, and justifying human actions. I'm not saying the karmic principle is true, but are you even trying to understand what it's saying? Or are you busy being righteous?
    Or are you thinking of contradicting this theological principle by appealing to emotion? (which, by the way, is demagoguery).
    And you use the word "justified" in the sentence "... If that's the case - the Nazis are the doers of God's word, and the suffering of the Jews is justified" when in the passage I explained that there is no justification here.

    You tell someone "the world is cruel".
    He asks you "why?"
    Is your answer to him a justification, or an attempt to explain as best you can according to how you understand the world?

    3.a) From what I understand you are trying to say, you mean that at this stage there is a reaching of equilibrium, and not extinction.
    3.B) You turn to emotion again. I can try to present those things, and try to present the beauty behind them. But that would still miss my original point.
    Instead of realizing that saying such a sentence is just an opinion, you think you've proven something.
    At what level are we talking? Can I prove to you that the sun is cruel, because I was too hot, and had a heat stroke?
    This is nature. I don't see how you attribute cruelty to him.

    4) "Axiom" = "basic premise" for all that is implied by this.
    If you have made two contradictory assumptions, you have an inherent logical fallacy.
    And I did not say at any point that if someone chose an axiom then it is also necessarily true.
    It simply means - he makes an assumption.
    And regarding your understanding that there are no axioms in science - you are simply completely wrong.
    I will not begin to list the amount of assumptions that physics makes. At the very least it is clear that sweetening is part of the science.

  41. 1. Yuval - now I found what you mean. I apologize for that. I was very disturbed by your wording... "You have faith. you have god It's complicated?" Why do you state that I have God?

    2. Oak. Yes, I've heard of Karma.
    I would like to specify 2 points in this context.

    A. The Rebbe raised the possibility that the Africans were suffering because of the evil of the Nazis. If so - is it not possible to say that the Jews suffered in the Holocaust because of the wickedness of, say, the Spaniards in South America? If so - the Nazis are the doers of God's word, and the suffering of the Jews is justified. If I said that - then what would you think of me? Apparently the suffering in Africa is far away and less interesting than our suffering.

    3. To the topic of cruelty. Maimonides himself addresses the subject at length in a way that is embarrassing, so I don't think it's a sin for me to address the subject. The living world is built on what I call "cruelty". This is how it works: all living things multiply geometrically (ie - each generation has X times the previous generation). At this rate, we reach the so-called "malthusian" limit - a limit of some resource that that living creature needs to exist. If the creatures of the same species were identical they would all be extinct at this point. Because they are different, there is competition between them. When God in Genesis said "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" - he did not think things through to the end....

    So it is clear that not all living things can reproduce and die in a good return. Now - it hurts quite a bit when you get killed. The method of killing predators is not painless. The lion wants to kill quickly, he doesn't care how much the deer suffers...

    Now let's take a quick look at humans. Dying from a long cancer isn't cruel?

    4. To the subject of the axioms. In my understanding, there are no axioms in science - this is a concept that exists only in mathematics. No scientist thinks that there is something that should be assumed to exist and not investigated whether it exists or not.

    If the existence of God is an axiom then his non-existence is also an axiom.
    Do you claim that both axioms are true?

  42. Miracles,

    1) You may not be aware of the things you are saying.
    To Yuval you said:
    "What's your name? Insolent as you are. I thought we were having a dialogue here. You are rude and thoughtless.
    The only thing that rivals your impoliteness is your lack of knowledge.
    If you don't apologize, I won't pay attention to your words anymore."

    So both impoliteness, and "severing of relations" (hence the wonder of how it is that you suddenly treat Yuval - who preferred to give up the pleasure of responding to a demand).

    So it is not only the Rebbe who received special treatment.

    2) Have you heard of the concept of karma? Of course I don't believe it, but the whole principle of explaining a person's suffering today with the help of a story that it is because of something from a previous life is something very common. Most pacifist religions believe this.
    The example the Rebbe chose was a tactical error on his part, but if we are honest with ourselves, then all those who believe in a kind of reward and punishment and in a previous life explain things this way.
    And it still doesn't _justify_ the things. It is to hang them on something beyond your understanding. Most religions teach the need to help the weak. They really do not justify teasing a hungry person, but on the contrary...
    I would certainly be angry if the example he would have given would have opened my wound.
    However, your response was to say: "This man is more evil than the Nazis".
    really?

    3) You want to prove to me that the world is cruel? I don't think you understand what this entails.
    3.a) What is a cruel event?
    There is reality and we put descriptions on it. In order for you to eat your hamburger, a cow had to die. are you cruel Is the situation cruel? And what about when you eat a cucumber? Is there a line beyond which things are not cruel?
    Maybe I want your shiny car, and I don't have the money to buy it. So the world is cruel? How did the world have to be built so that there would be no situations that you would define as cruelty?
    Will your answer be a world of abundance? After all, there are always limitations, so something will always be seen as unfair.
    Perhaps it is correct to look at our world in relation to the alternative of a kind of hellish world - like in Dante's Divine Comedy?
    3.b) How do you summarize the events to represent the world?
    Do you count 62 cruel events, and 58 compassionate events (or whatever you want), and say "in the majority of 4 events - the world is cruel"?

    I'll stop here, but just so you get my point of view:
    There is reality. By nature there are limitations. Therefore there are conflicts. The alternative is non-existence.
    Any moral description that you wear belongs to the world of morality - a cultural invention that is not much different from religion (if you want I will expand). Morality is not objective, and is not a way to describe reality.

    4) Apparently I failed (and maybe Yuval too?) to convey the abstraction of the concept of God.
    Exactly in this context: there were many strange interpretations of the word "axiom".
    An axiom should not be "agreed upon by all" and there is no requirement for its simplicity.
    An axiom is a "premise".
    It turns out that any way of describing reality requires certain assumptions. Not everything can be explained a priori.
    I don't know how well you know the confectionery field,
    But even in this field, which is entirely a priori, axioms are required.
    And you know what? The same field can be described perfectly - with the help of completely different sets of axioms.
    According to this principle, God's axiom explains reality.
    What is the difference in the scientific approach? An attempt to reduce the axioms to the simplest possible set, so that the rest can follow a priori from these assumptions.
    Science hangs the concept of "most simply", in a sensory context - what we see.
    There is a point of view that says there is an interiority that precedes the senses. (Remember The Matrix?)
    For them there is a thing called faith, and they feel it (conditioned to feel it...) at a level that they are willing to put even before sensory reality. You can say that this is a philosophical position.

    And for him, conceptually, scientists have different axioms than religious people.
    If at this point as scientists we accept the reality - and that is it, then we are honest with our scientific method.
    If we additionally dress up a moral, a goal or anything beyond the scientific conclusions, then in doing so we have crossed the line that describes reality, and we simply accept things upon ourselves, in a way that cannot be deduced or assumed.
    There is a claim that it is analogous to God. Is this word too loaded? Call it what you will, but try to see the analogy.

  43. Please read:

    The only person I spoke to rudely, and the only person I don't want to hear from, is Rabbi Nachman. It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what you believe and it doesn't matter who you are and who you think you are - you can't come and say that you justify the suffering of babies and children in Africa. This is an unforgivable act. Tell me - how far is that from justifying the Nazis? Shmulik directed them to the article in which it is written

    Rabbi Yosef: Those who perished in the Holocaust - souls who sinned
    In his regular Moschai Shabbat sermon, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef claimed that the Holocaust, the Inquisition and even the drowning of the boy Yaakov Yodelwitz originated from the reincarnation of sinful souls.

    This man is the leader of a large community.

    And you are angry with me because I called one of them, who wrote here, filth.
    I'm sorry if I offended any of you who are willing to listen and try to understand such things. Perhaps I am among the few who think about the results of these statements.

    Beyond that, the Rebbe, let's say, is not accurate in the facts. For example - to say that Rambam thought that God is an axiom is a false statement.

    Yuval - I am quoting here what I wrote to you:

    "Sorry I can't keep quiet.

    Yuval - this rabbi is a bad person. He says children in Africa are the reincarnation of the Nazis and that's why they suffer. Ask the idiot why his god didn't punish the Nazis themselves.

    He is not a man who differs in his opinions. This man is more evil than the Nazis.

    I don't understand how you can talk to him.
    Samir Kuntar is a better person than him."

    Where did I say I don't want to talk to you?

    Alon - You started referring to what I said that the world is cruel. I will explain again, in two steps. Most animals in the wild die at an early age, in agony. Does anyone have an argument with this claim? A world where most animals die in great pain is cruel. Does anyone have a problem with this claim?
    And by the way, until recently this was also true for humans. For example, to this day there are places in the world where about half of the people do not die of old age.

    Alon - You said (actually Yuval said) that if I have a goal in life then it is to sanctify something and that is why you came to God... Let me share with you:
    I wrote that my goal in life is to leave a better place for my children. This is what I came to after a lot of thinking and studying the world. There is no holiness here...
    But - this is not the goal of the believing people I have known throughout my life. It's a long topic and I don't know if it's interesting to anyone Raz I won't expand now. But think about it for a moment….

  44. Thanks Alon,
    I enjoyed reading the things you brought here and especially the history of the cosmological constant. Although I do not share metaphysical beliefs such as an intelligent creator and life after death, I cannot ignore the fact that a significant part of humanity has held them for tens of thousands of years. As a foolish follower of Darwin I am trying to find out this brave symbiosis between humanity and faith, which is why I chose to participate in the discussion.

  45. Well, there is a mechanism here that sometimes publishes the response immediately, and sometimes waits for confirmation.
    I guess it depends on the length of the response (?).
    Anyway, it turned out that I posted something twice,
    And in that response I also assumed that Yuval had left the correspondence and therefore I even presented his words - and then his response appeared - chronologically scheduled before my response...

  46. The righteous Jew,

    First of all, I will state that in my opinion the state's anxiety is a worrying thing - no less than that.

    But I don't know if I want to denounce them - maybe just denounce them for politics and funding sources, between them and the fact that they will do whatever they want (including trying to present their position on this website).

    In any case, let's go with you for a second and say that they should be denounced...
    How do you think to do it? by curses? Violent language? lack of reference.

    I am in favor of DA returning them in their same tone. As soon as they start lying/insulting/boring, it is possible to ignore...

    How would you denounce them? Do you think that what Nissim did contributed to the "denouncing" action? In my opinion, proving the rabbi that he is wrong is much more important than cursing and blaspheming... something that almost never helps and does not contribute to your interests

  47. Your separation oak is out of place at all. Politics is not conducted in a vacuum and disconnected from the other aspects of life. They come out of social, economic and cultural life. And the culture in Israel is steeped in beliefs and religion. soaked
    People who hold views influenced by religion vote for certain parties.
    The religion syndrome must be denounced wherever possible.
    When the majority of the secular "respect religion/are religious" and subconsciously believe that "there is truth" in religion even if they are not observant, we will never change the political situation of budgeting which leads to the actual strengthening of the dark sector. See the article from "Haaretz" today. It describes a situation in the near future. Such discussions will almost no longer exist. Just as appeals to the High Court on the exclusion of women will also disappear since this will be the norm.
    Therefore we must denounce the religious syndrome in every place and site under every hill and fresh tree.
    We agree and just argue about the way. The religious people, who are severely divided among themselves, are united in their pursuit of the goal and are passionate about the mitzvot of Pro and Rebu. On your account, my account and the account of the productive sector in Israel. That's why they will win in the end. unfortunately. Unfortunately for all of us.

  48. Miracles = sucks. (point).

    Think about it before you lash out. I'm just telling you the feeling I got from this discussion as a side reader.

    Asking you to think about it…

  49. I tried to post my answer to miracles earlier, but it still doesn't appear, so I'm trying again…
    ———————————————————————————————————
    Miracles,
    I will try to represent the attitude of the deposed who are not there to explain...

    The Rebbe, despite choosing a very unsuccessful example, tried to say that we think about good and evil in a human context, and that there may be a much larger context that we cannot understand.

    And Yuval - in my opinion - tried to show you that if you have a goal, it means that you "consecrate" something in your life. When you "sanctify" something, it's like placing it in a higher importance, and on a conceptual level it's like God - something that deviates from the routine, which you can probably just accept on yourself, but there's really no way to prove it.

    Regarding the "rabbi's" points:
    He started to communicate in a more rational way, and for the sake of the discussion I think we could have turned a blind eye to whether he would indeed continue in a rational way. What we will never know…

    Regarding your points:
    Regarding (2) I agree, but did not go.
    Regarding (4) - forgive me, but you have not proven anything. You claimed something. Which, by the way, I think cannot be proven - for a number of reasons.

  50. And once again a stupid debate ended when atheists cursed the religious man who got into an argument with them, while they felt good about their cursing and mocking because they "cursed and mocked for a just cause".

  51. the righteous,
    It's still political level stuff.
    The problem is not the light-hearted secularists who follow the converts.
    The problem is with the natural plurality of the ultra-Orthodox population - which is much higher than ours, and they are really motivated to continue this situation - when each baby adds to the "salary" that many of them receive from the state for - I don't know what...
    As I already told you, I definitely think there is something to fight for at this level.

    And you continue to justify your zeal on the subject of "religion versus atheism", instead of acting politically to correct the injustice.

    This is not my "complacency" towards the "religion phenomenon" that harms/will harm the secular public.
    If anything, it makes much more sense that it is your misplaced focus on where to fight that causes us as a public to bear the brunt.

  52. jubilee? Since when did I say I won't talk to you? I said I don't understand how you talk to him.

    Look - to say that a person suffers because he is the reincarnation of someone else's crime is insulting. Imagine someone close to you suffering from cancer. That someone could be a small, innocent child. Can you imagine why it is okay for him to suffer? If he is the reincarnation of a Nazi - won't you try to help him? Will you think that this is God's will?

    It reminds me of the Ptolemaic solar system. Each time they perfected the measurements, they complicated the model so that all the planets, the sun and the stars circled around the earth. This continued until Copernicus published "De Revolochonibus" in which he claimed that we orbit the sun (he was not the first to come up with this, the Greek Aristarchus described it 1800 years earlier).

    It's just like in Kuhn's book - reality is distorted to the point where a new theory is needed. Susskind, Kraus, Hawking and others are the founders of the new theory.

    You have to let "God" follow the path of the circles, the phlogiston and the ether.

  53. Miracles,
    I will try to represent the attitude of the deposed who are not there to explain...

    The Rebbe, despite choosing a very unsuccessful example, tried to say that we think about good and evil in a human context, and that there may be a much larger context that we cannot understand.

    And Yuval - in my opinion - tried to show you that if you have a goal, it means that you "consecrate" something in your life. When you "sanctify" something, it's like placing it in a higher importance, and on a conceptual level it's like God - something that deviates from the routine, which you can probably just accept on yourself, but there's really no way to prove it.

    Regarding the "rabbi's" points:
    He started to communicate in a more rational way, and for the sake of the discussion I think we could have turned a blind eye to whether he would indeed continue in a rational way. What we will never know…

    Regarding your points:
    Regarding (2) I agree, but did not go.
    Regarding (4) - forgive me, but you have not proven anything. You claimed something. Which, by the way, I think cannot be proven - for a number of reasons.

  54. Alon, allow me to share about you and your thought that there could have been a "significant discussion" with the delusional faith.
    It was as significant as what was going on all the way and did not become more significant. It was already possible to understand the direction from his response to Yuval's moral questions. A few of them can conduct a "meaningful" discussion.
    My last experience with a promising person was on Facebook with the rabbi of the settlement Har Adar, an educated person, who pretends to be enlightened and tries to say the right things. He evaded and benefited like our hands here. By the way, with disgustingly arrogant reasoning.
    In light of the statistics published about the beginning of the school year and in light of the article today in "Haaretz" to which I will provide a link at the end, I return to the discussion and the differences of opinion that existed between us and to your disapproval of the definition of the situation as a "culture war" and come back and reinforce my opinions. The complacency you represent towards the phenomenon of religion as manifested in Israel is one of the seeds for the expected collapse and destruction when this sector of darkness becomes more dominant and a demographic majority.
    Below is the link and I will quote only the closing sentence: "A religious majority in kindergartens is the beginning of a direct, and almost irreversible, path towards a nationalist Halacha state. All that remains is the illusion that in such a country the government will allow the secular minority to maintain its faith without interference."
    http://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/1.1811270

  55. Nissim (the pretender?),
    There was unanimity in the name of Nissim who announced Kabal with and it was known that he had finished the discussion with me. If this is you, then you are not consistent; And if not, then please don't adopt other people's names.
    Right now, I have no channel of communication with the one who hates your soul except here. I would like to find out a thing or two with him for the purpose of something that is not at all related to the main discussion. Unfortunately, he decided (and I fully understand why) to retire from this holy community, of which you are one of the most prominent leaders. So long (and all my sisters).

  56. Shmulik - you are right and I apologize to you, I missed what you wrote.

    To the Jewish tzaddik - if I made him not respond here, we all benefited. He is an evil man.

  57. Camilla, can I use your last post and your arguments in other places where it will be useful in my opinion??

  58. Lalon

    what? The desire to understand racism? You want me to understand racism? I wrote that in my eyes the world is cruel. The Rebbe's response is that children in Africa suffer and die because they are reincarnations of Nazis.

    What a significant discussion there is here. Let's take a look at what has been said so far:

    1. Einstein believed in a creator. Einstein is a scientist who understands and therefore his opinion should be accepted.

    2. The scientists who came after Einstein lie to prove that there is no God.

    3. The question of the existence of a creator is not a scientific question. (But when a scientist says there is a God then it is definitely a scientific question).

    4. Rambam claimed that the existence of a creator is an axiom.

    And for my part:
    1. I tried to explain modern science which definitely knows how to explain the world without a higher power.

    2. I proposed a simple method for discussing the issue. A method that has yielded fruits in the past, including Einstein's theories of relativity.

    3. I brought the source for the words of Maimonides.

    4. I showed that the world is cruel.

    I am indeed very aggressive towards the Rebbe. He lies, does not know the facts and worst of all - he justified the suffering of babies and children.

  59. And so another "dialogue" was interrupted for him with the religious man on duty. How predictable. Nothing in the dynamics is surprising. Like dozens of discussions that I have witnessed and participated in, the dynamics are the same.
    Miracles - you provided him with the perfect excuse to take advantage after his attempts to distort, lie and pass on the lack of his beliefs crashed against the solidity of the atheism that was presented in front of him and one of the highlights of which was - in my opinion - Kamila's post that she wrote so beautifully, in detail, with a logic that makes the religious-faith logic as ridiculous as it is.

  60. Nissim, why do you say no one is commenting on this? Not pretty. I responded to this, in a post immediately after his glorious post. Let there be no doubt, this sentence is one of his highlights. An overwhelming argument, and indeed, does anyone imagine a mother of one of the "skeletons", taking comfort in the fact that her son is the reincarnation of a Nazi?
    Would you think I'm a moral person after a sentence like that? What would you think of me, as a person, if I said the following sentence:
    "For example, you can see a lot of starving people and skeletons here in Auschwitz, but if you knew that they were the reincarnation of Jews who sinned, who killed many innocent people, then it would certainly be easy to accept the evil of the decree."

    By the way, there is at least one person who said this, here is Yosef Ovadia:
    http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/912/007.html

    As mentioned, I would never leave my children with him. That says it all.

  61. Miracles,
    It's a shame you give your aggressions precedence over a desire to understand.
    This is the second time that it simply nips in the bud a meaningful discussion.
    As before with Yuval - you don't even try to see the other side's point of view.
    Something goes off, and you rush in - and apparently succeed in silencing the other side.

    (By the way, in both cases there was something to see - and it is possible that anger is your way of avoiding confrontation...)

    Just a pity…

  62. Sorry I can't shut up.

    Yuval - this rabbi is a bad person. He says children in Africa are the reincarnation of the Nazis and that's why they suffer. Ask the idiot why his god didn't punish the Nazis themselves.

    He is not a man who differs in his opinions. This man is more evil than the Nazis.

    I don't understand how you can talk to him.
    Samir Kuntar is a better person than him.

  63. Now we have learned what acceptance is. Again, I'm quoting his words because no one is commenting on it:

    "For example, you can see a lot of starving people and skeletons in Africa, but if you knew that they were the reincarnation of Nazis who killed many innocent people, then it would certainly be easy to accept the evil of the decree."

    This is probably how the Kabbalah sect teaches. And maybe not - maybe it's another lie of this despicable thing that calls itself Rabbi...

  64. withering
    How can you relate to the words of... something…. who said "For example, you can see many starving people and skeletons in Africa, but if you knew that they were the reincarnation of Nazis who killed many innocent people, then it would certainly be easy to accept the evil of the decree."

    Beyond the fact that he is a despicable racist just like the Nazis - he lies outright.
    He even lies about great men of faith like Maimonides.

    You write beautiful things but you waste them on a despicable person.

  65. Until here!!
    I am not ready to comment on this site anymore
    I don't use swear words like trash and filth and I would probably get banned instantly if I did.
    And if my father is willing to give a platform for such poor language, then I am not willing to continue to suffer curses and slanders.
    I was ready to accept requests to stop commenting on the website and I would have responded immediately and I also wrote so to my father, but you did not object to my commenting here and even encouraged me to a certain extent.
    And again: I gave you the view of Judaism as I learned in the books of Kabbalah regarding reincarnation and repair of souls
    reward and punishment and not my private view of life that I invented.

    So good luck to you in the future and once again I apologize to everyone who was hurt by my words.

  66. Listen, dear rabbi

    You are the one who used Einstein's ideas when it suited your purposes, and disparaged other scientists when it didn't. Modern science finds no evidence for the existence of a creator. This is reality - don't try to change it.

    Again - you do not understand modern physics. This clearly shows that complexity can certainly arise spontaneously - it must even arise.

    And regarding the Maimonides - I suggest you read one of the translations of "Morah Nabukim". In the second part he gives evidence (according to him) for the necessity of the existence of a creator. Start with chapter XNUMX. Maimonides clearly does not support your approach!!!
    FYI - this book was received much better in the Islamic world than in the Jewish world.

    And about the cruelty of the world: I didn't necessarily mean humans. We live in a world where every animal (and some plants) eat other living things. Most animals in the world do not die of old age. Do you really think that it was not possible to create a slightly better world?

    And regarding the trial:

    "For example, you can see a lot of starving people and skeletons in Africa, but if you knew that they were the reincarnation of Nazis who killed many innocent people, then it would certainly be easy to accept the evil of the decree."

    You are a piece of filth and not worth another word bro……….

    And to all the others here - do you see the effect of religious belief on people?

    My father - is there a way to file a libel suit against this garbage??

  67. good evening,
    Unfortunately Shmulik conducts a DEBATE in front of me and does not use any means and names such as: whiner, liar, etc...
    Although I already wrote to Nisim that his question about refuting a Creator is not valid because it is impossible
    regarding the Creator as a scientific theory that needs to be refuted, he nevertheless continues to claim that I do not answer him.
    Furthermore, I am ready to answer any question for Shmulik if he asks a short and to the point question.

    I will try to be matter-of-fact and promote the dialogue with Yuval who is indeed interested in a cultural dialogue and not a deaf dialogue
    where one does not understand the other and engages in slanders and condemnations.

    Yuval, to your question we are indeed both obligated to morality, me as a believer and you as a non-believer
    The conscience, which serves as a human compass, dictates the ways of morality and its expression in each and every one of us, except that in the unbeliever the conscience
    It is mainly controlled by the heart, which tries to pull it to the lustful and material side, while in the case of the true believer, it is mainly controlled by the brain, where the soul resides, and therefore the level of morality among believers is much higher than non-believers, and all this to the extent that they study and internalize the study of morality in our Holy Scriptures.

  68. Ugh,
    Unfortunately, the "Rabbi" took advantage of my appeal to Shmolik in an unfair way,
    As if Shmulik is wrong, but the "Rabbi" is mature enough to stand up to him.
    In practice (as I see it) the "Rabbi" saw in the created situation an opportunity to sting and provoke Shmolik.
    It's pretty disgusting on the one hand to sting, and on the other to apologize. For me it didn't go smoothly.
    However, I would still love to see a dialogue here.

  69. "Rabbi" Nachman Mazran, thank you ☼
    And now a hypothetical question.
    Please, if you can, imagine a situation in which you do not believe in the existence of a sovereign of the world (that is, what in our jargon is called, for example, an "intelligent creator"). In this hypothetical situation, are you still committed to morality?

  70. What a cry.
    I still can't figure out how this man works. Everything I wrote is the result of his (partial and tendentious) quotes that I copied from things he himself wrote and I also responded to the wrong interpretations that this man built from his misunderstanding. Also, he still hasn't responded to the challenges we put before him:
    1. Nice demands nice fulfills
    2. To assume, as Nissim requested, several times, that there is no creator and check if there is any contradiction.

    1. Naa demands Naa fulfills refers to his demand for us to listen to Einstein. After I proved to him that Einstein contradicted his opinion, he refused to listen to Einstein. And thus he proved himself to be a tireless liar. Beyond that, he continues to lie that he claims that "I brought the discoveries and quotes of the scientists that hinted at an intelligent designer, a super being" but he didn't bring a single quote that hinted at an "intelligent designer, a super being". If he talks about quotes he attributed to Einstein, I proved to him (again and again and again) that Einstein was not a deist but (perhaps) a fantaist and if he talks about Hawking, I showed him that he took a partial quote without understanding the context. I repeatedly showed him the correct context as well as Hawking's new claims (that there is no need for a creator) which are a direct continuation of his questioning (from more than 20 years ago) what is the place of a creator in a world where there is no need for one.
    For this man, the very question of whether a creator exists is proof of the existence of a creator and it is difficult to understand why he is so happy to make fun of himself with this strange insistence.

    After a few posts these things were made clear to him, this man began to create for himself a connection theory (which he happily shared with all of us) in which all scientists are mobilized as one man to distort science in order to prevent the Creator from stepping foot in science.

    These are not the actions of a moral person. I'm sorry, a moral person does not lie and I allow myself to call him a liar because he was repeatedly given the opportunity to explain to us why he does not retract the character assassination he committed against Einstein and Hawking. All he had to do was at the outset say I was wrong but he chose to share his connection theory with us. His weak apology is not an apology at all since he does not tell us why he knowingly lied when he disrupted his own statements and did not respond to the challenge he himself posed
    He continues to claim in a puzzling way that "the intention was to show complexity to the world, which cannot be spontaneous, beyond the basic complexity that a person sees in his life and therefore I brought the discoveries and quotes of the scientists who hinted at an intelligent planner, a super being." This is when he did not bring one such quote that strengthens his opinion. He explained why citations should be given importance (because that's what believers need - a guru) but when I confronted him with his citations, he stopped giving them (and the biased scientists) importance. The quotes I showed him said exactly the opposite of his views and included Hawking's last claim:

    Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going

    See also what he wrote: "For example, you can see many starving people and skeletons in Africa, but if you knew that they were the reincarnation of Nazis who killed many innocent people, then it would certainly be easy to accept the evil of the decree."
    Does he really believe that starving children in Africa are reincarnations of Nazis???
    I wonder, if by chance he visits Africa and has plenty of food in his hand and a child who is a "skeleton" passes by, will he smile at the skeleton and eat his meal in front of his face while calling him a Nazi?
    Are all aid organizations for Africa immoral because they help the souls of Nazis?

    I ask again, is such a man moral? Can a moral person write such a sentence? I didn't think that in my life in 2012 I would read such a sentence and here, I lived to hear it. I'm starting to think this man is bad. Old Testament Evil. I would never let him babysit my children. alive.
    Don't worry, he will reply that he only gave an example, and there is nothing to be excited about this example and he doesn't really think so, but the paper tolerates everything and so do we. well no. There is power in the word, this example did not come from a vacuum and this time, a cigar is not just a cigar.

    By the way, reincarnation is the solution that Judaism has adopted for itself to the question "evil and good to him righteous and evil to him". They have to get involved with adding mystery (awesome, we've never seen reincarnation) since there is no good way to explain the situation of a righteous person and a bad person if there is a God that is the greatest level of mystery. If you remove the mystery you simply get the reality: shit happens

    2. He was not willing to try to explore together with Nissim (if so, I would be willing to sit quietly for a few posts) the possibility that there is no creator and see where this journey will lead us. This is cowardice.

  71. Nissim, Yuval and Alon
    Please stop referring to Shmulik's deviations against me
    Shmulik, if you were offended by my words, I apologize, that was not the intention.
    The intention was to show complexity to the world, which cannot be spontaneous, beyond the basic complexity that a person sees in his life, and therefore I brought the discoveries and quotes of the scientists who hinted at an intelligent planner, a super being.
    And all of this leads to the conclusion that given complexity that is not spontaneous it requires a component / creator or creator.
    If I sent the messages in a way that is misinterpreted then I apologize, that was not my intention.

    Yuval, I agree with you that I am committed to morality and we will continue from here..

    Miracles :
    Your claims about Rambam's ways of philosophical belief are unfamiliar to me, please send a reference
    Rambam claimed that the Torah was given from heaven directly by the Creator to Moshe our Rabb, and whoever does not believe in this, is like someone who has removed himself from Judaism, (these are exactly his words)
    Therefore, he must recognize the Creator out of the necessity of faith or what will happen: leap of faith
    which is an unquestioned belief without empirical evidence

    You also wrote that it is difficult for you to accept a Creator because, in your opinion, because of the cruelty in the world,
    But when you say: "brutal" you interpret the word according to the logical meaning in reality/ not reality
    of this world and has no meaning because the perception of a person as cruel in the eyes of man is not necessarily the perception of the Creator,
    A parable of what this is like, to a father who punishes his son and the son sees the punishment as a cruel act, but it is known that it is for an educational purpose, like a child before his father, so we sons before the Almighty cannot perceive his reality, may he be blessed, and sometimes "cruelty" is required in order to find laws or promote the The soul in the spiritual ladder.
    For example, you can see many starving people and skeletons in Africa, but if you knew that they were the reincarnation of Nazis who killed many innocent people, then it would certainly be easy to accept the evil of the sect.

    Regarding insatiability: the reference is to material/physical insatiability and not intellectual insatiability
    On the contrary, the desire to learn shows that the soul's place is in the intellect and it aspires to greatness and is carved from a high source.
    But she will be truly satisfied when she is fed from the source that carved her: sacred studies.

    So far
    have a good day…

  72. Nachman,
    The meaning of an axiom is something that does not need to be proven because it is so simple and relatively self-evident. A world-creating constructive being is very far from being something that does not need to be proven (which is completely different from the question of whether or not it can be proven) and it is also a concept that is not simple and is not at all self-evident. It is so incomprehensible that it takes years of obsessive brainwashing, many hours every day, at home and outside the home, especially at young ages, when the mind is still soft and innocent and easy to shape, and even then many are not convinced and cooperate just because they don't like what the neighbors will say.
    The whole beauty of mathematics, physics, biology and science in general is that maxims (or postulates or any equivalent word depending on the field of practice) are very simple to understand and contain very little information by themselves (another thing that the concept of a creator of the world is far from being) you can build tremendous structures of thought and reach an amazing understanding of reality around us. An understanding that can be measured and checked to see how accurate it is, an understanding that can be realized with technology, which is one of the more reliable ways to check yourself that you really understood what the laws that govern the phenomenon are.

    But you increase to do even if you don't state it. Having assumed the existence of a Creator, you jump straight, without specifying what it took to do so, to the God of the Jews. We need at least three additional axioms for this: a) that the creator of the world that we assumed earlier is indeed the God of the Jews of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. b) That this God is who we think he is, that is, that he presents himself to humans honestly, is not trivial, if it was a satanic God who decided to deceive humans and chose us out of all nations to be a punching bag for the purpose of his sadistic amusements, it would be possible to explain a great many historical events that have happened to our people, chief among them the unceasing anti-Semitism with its terrible consequences, and also to explain the suffering of human beings in general, without the need to make eights in the air to explain how innocent children went through horrific torture in the Holocaust, or how an ultra-Orthodox family who all testify that they were perfect tzaddik ends up in a car accident one bright day A horror in which the cause of death for some was as a result of the fire that broke out in the vehicle, which is a death in unbearable agony. It is much simpler to understand and agrees with the reality that we experience that the creator of this world is Satan in his own right and that only he exists. Can you tell us what reason your axiom should be preferred over this axiom? c) That the same creator of the world of the Jews from ancient times who is good and benevolent, honest and decent (and at the same time also lacking characteristics and attributes...) is the God of the Christians (or Muslims), and Jesus (Muhammad) is his messenger. You assume, without impressive justification (the existence of a prophecy that is more reminiscent of the riddle of Hamitzer, and a promise written by humans in a book, seemingly an exact quote of his words, and as if he has no right to change his mind, as if he had never done so before in the same unreliable text, as if there is a trace of logic in your statement that the same quote binds the Creator of the world), that same Creator remains faithful to the Jewish people, when the overwhelming majority of the evidence indicates otherwise.

    The truth is that you assume a lot more than that, and you don't bother to state that either. You assume that Rambam's words are all pure truth, when nothing from the previous statements entails za. In fact, most of the later texts, such as the sayings of the Sages, are in fact interpretations, ones that are not automatically derived from the previous ones (such as on the subject of the soul, for example), which further strengthens the problem of comparing the set of religious beliefs to axioms, since as mentioned, they are not simple, they are not self-evident .

    Finally, you make another assumption and that is that sacred studies are the best food for the human soul. the person? Or a monotheist? The Jew? the christian? the muslim? (and there are several others), the orthodox Jew? The Reform Jew? The secular Jew? The atheist Jew? If we take the Orthodox Jews, if sacred studies are so important, why are there so many disagreements and fights between the different courts? Between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, between men and women? Are all secularists equally "hungry"? Are all the religious for whom holy studies is the bread of their rule "seventy" to the same extent? I don't know a single person who buys a car and immediately runs to replace it with a new car. I do know quite a few people (and even one ultra-Orthodox religious) who changes their car every two and a half to three years, for the simple and practical reason that during this period the chance of serious mechanical problems is very low, and therefore anyone who can afford it and is quietly interested in this kind of nuisance, it makes sense for them to do so. Those people find interest and meaning in their lives in very diverse ways, whether in artistic creation, whether in science, whether in volunteering and helping others. That ultra-Orthodox religious, by the way, is the only one who does not act in any of the ways I mentioned, he is simply an excellent businessman and has enough money to change cars every short period of time. I don't know on what basis you describe reality as you described, but it is likely that as a complete secularist who spends most of her time among complete secularists, I would have expected to encounter all those "hungry" you paint. The reality I know is completely different, and in fact the opposite. It is enough to look at the ultra-Orthodox women in the neighborhoods next to us to see women who are hard by day, ragged, with a hollow stomach, sometimes absorbed in stupid reading in the Siddur, as if they recited a mantra designed to cut between them and the gray and tedious world of reality in which they are trapped. Anyone who talks a little with such women will see souls in which real "hunger" resides. I am horrified to think how such a woman feels in a more closed, more depressing place.

    Beyond the fact that your axioms, Mr. Nachman, are not particularly successful as such, by definition, they inevitably lead to a mental prison and an abysmal ignorance of all the great knowledge that has already been gained, mainly thanks to science and philosophy, about the reality that surrounds us. And if there is someone who still has a trace of healthy curiosity in him and reads the science website (or any other source of scientific information for that matter, popular or professional) he is wasting his time in vain according to your method, because every moment a person does not invest in sacred studies, he is starving his soul... And the only question is, what is that hunger that burns in you, that leads you to waste precious time on the knowledge site?

  73. Shmulik, thank you,
    The man is indeed a master liar, as you said, but in his last response he showed a willingness to follow the straight path. Let's see if he admits and leaves, then we will decide if they will be sorry or not.

  74. I stay away from Wikipedia entries… it has the potential to be a bottomless pit.

    I checked in English and there there is a clear distinction between "The cosmological constant" as a constant attributed to Einstein, compared to - "a positive cosmological constant" when referring to the possibility of representing with a constant the evidence of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. When their terminology is also more appropriate in terms of the relationship between observation and description - as opposed to the relationship between observation and physical explanation as implied by the Hebrew wording.

  75. oak,
    go for it.
    By the way, have you brought to the attention of the editors at Wikipedia about their mistake on the subject of the cosmological constant? Does the English value also screw up?

  76. But Shmulik,
    Just starting to get interesting.
    Let's remember his conduct in the past, but for the purpose of the matter here is what appears to be the beginning of a dialogue.
    I'm curious.

  77. jubilee,
    To put it mildly, honesty is not something that characterizes the Rebbe. Let me show you some selected quotes from him:

    1. "Miracles, how innocent you are:
    It is clear that modern cosmology will restore the constant, after all, they do not want science to have a creator for the world."

    This he wrote after he constructed the following delusional thesis:

    2. "But I will take the challenge and claim that he was "biased" in this conclusion out of personal interest in his view of his life:
    So how did Einstein come to this conclusion, when he developed the theory of relativity he understood
    that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning
    He did not like the idea of ​​the beginning lest it lead him to conclude that there is a creator for the world
    Then he added the "cosmological constant" to his equation which would give a solution to this problem."

    And let's not forget that at the same time he asks us to listen to Einstein:
    3. "Why is it important to refer to Einstein's words,
    Because he is an expert in his field, just as you have a medical problem and you consult a doctor and his opinion is important to you in order to choose the appropriate type of treatment, yes also in matters of science, the opinion of a scientist who has spent his whole life studying our reality and came to the conclusion that nature is not accidental and that there is a source of higher power and intelligence is important in the processes of nature.
    And all this because he sees more deeply the processes of nature and explores all their complexities.
    But not only is his opinion important, but it is only one of the cornerstones in the journey to discover the Creator, which the Chabatites use
    To return a secular public to repentance, because if they start quoting to them all kinds of Gemara chapters, masks, etc.. it will not work, because they came from a different world and different from all this."

    He asked us to listen to Einstein because he reluctantly turned him into a deist and thought it supported his opinion. This is how the Rebbe wrote:

    4. "Einstein was not an atheist he was a deist (which is something completely different) if you read the quote that Shmulik sent it says:
    I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe"

    He wrote that he is a deist, although in the quote he gives, Einstein is not even sure that he is a pantheist, so why lie? By the way, the Rebbe began with a much more dramatic argument:
    5. "But Einstein may not have believed in reincarnation, but he did believe in God"

    The Rebbe also tells us his purpose, without being ashamed:
    6. "I would like to point out that my goal is not to convey false messages on this website, but to enlighten the readers' eyes with a philosophy of life that is a little different from what they have been used to until now: in the existence of one Creator for our world..."

    As an interim summary I will write that the Rebbe asked us to listen to Einstein, I proved to him that Einstein did not support his opinion, I asked him to be faithful to Naa, Naa demands Naa fulfills, he was not ready for that and moreover, what is left of his sincere request to listen to Einstein? Yuk. He changed his skin and now he accuses him of being biased, no less than that actually all of science and we are confused: to listen or not to listen to Einstein?

    (I'll spare you the character assassination he committed in Hawking)

    Beyond that, Nissim asked him to perform a simple thought experiment: assume for a second that there is no creator and see if we reach any contradiction. What did the Rebbe do? Ignore and babble that the Creator is an axiom. This is not what Nissim asked for. He basically asked, several times already, that we assume (a word the Rebbe has trouble understanding) that there is no Creator, just for a moment and check where this assumption leads us. that's it. so hard? He is unable because he is afraid of the results and therefore he is not honest enough to look reality in the eyes.

    Yuval, are these the actions of an honest man? Are these the actions of someone who came to learn and wait (rhetorical question, he told us what his purpose was)?

  78. Dear Rabbi

    You are finally talking sense 🙂

    You say that the existence of a creator is an axiom. I'll tell you a story about an axiom, which relates exactly to what I said before.
    About 2300 years ago Euclid wrote a series of 13 books (does "13" have anything to do with Rambam…….) called "The Basics". In the first book he describes his 5 famous axioms. Four of them are short, but the fifth - the axiom of parallels - is (relatively) long and cumbersome. In the following years, many mathematicians tried to prove this axiom. Among them are great ones like Ptolemy, Omar al-Qaim, Sakri and Lambert. This - without success. Until the Russian Lubashevsky arrived and said - "Let's assume that the axiom is not true - and surely then we will find a contradiction". Others, such as Reimann and Poincaré, also tried this method.
    And see it's a miracle - they didn't come to any contradiction. On the contrary, they discovered a wonderful mathematics that describes our world much better than Euclid's mathematics!!!
    Your friend Einstein used this math to describe gravity.

    That is - experience shows that it is worth taking an axiom, which many take for granted, assume it is not true and see the results.

    And speaking of Rambam - he did not put the Creator as an axiom - what is happening to you Mr. Rabbi???

    He (thought he) found a proof, which is based on the fact that (a) everything we see is contingent (ie - it doesn't have to be), and (b) there must be something that is not contingent. The thing whose existence has been proven (in Rambam's opinion) is called God. This proof was of course refuted by later philosophers.

    For me - the assumption of the existence of an intelligent creator is very problematic - because I must conclude that it is (it is not worth using the word "he" because he has no sex...) a cruel creator in a way that is not perceived by a person. Even I can think of better worlds……

    And for the last issue - man's insatiability is what got us out of the caves and put Neil Armstrong on the moon. Say - are you really satisfied with the knowledge you have today about the world?

  79. "Rabbi" Nachman Mazran, get a small like for trying to speak honestly. When you manage to learn the basics of the common language here, you will also get big likes.
    According to your last words, you aspire to some kind of ideal, which in order to reach it you have to fulfill several principles. One of them is to believe that the force that breathed life into you is exactly the same force that dictates moral laws to you.
    Before I continue tapping, please confirm or deny.
    Thanks

  80. Miracles,
    Indeed, the existence of a creator is an axiom and not a scientific question, therefore it cannot be referred to in tools
    scientific or any empirical experiments such as observations and measurements.
    It is very logical, if you accept the fact that the Creator created the scientist, then it is clear that the scientist will not be able to measure his maker with limited mental tools that he limited himself.

    Maimonides formulated the tenets of faith as thirteen tenets, in which every Jew must believe, and which the disbeliever in them leaves the whole of Israel and loses his part in the next world.
    One of the main ones is the reality of the Creator - all the things that exist in reality are by His power, and He is the only reality that does not depend on anything else.

    If you ask why I need all this, then I will tell you that you are right, because it is possible to live and die without knowing the Creator
    But the essence of the Jewish faith is not only a physical life in this world but also a spiritual life, which is now the body
    Yours does not feel the need for spiritual fuel, but the soul does
    It is a part of God from above, that is, it was given directly by the Creator as written in Genesis: "And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."
    The Almighty breathed into man a breath of life - from within and within him
    The soul of every Israelite was attracted by the thought of God and his wisdom will be blessed after it arose in his thought.

    That is why all material wealth and the search for material things does not bring satisfaction and there is always a feeling of lack on the part of the soul
    Because she doesn't need all this materialism but to connect with her creator through sacred studies which are the bread of his constitution.
    .
    You can see many examples of people who buy, for example, a new car and immediately want to change to a newer one or
    In all kinds of gadgets that people buy and buy endlessly and don't know why they don't feel full.

  81. And now for what is really interesting.

    I proposed a scientific way to discuss the issue of the existence of a creator. I proposed to assume that there is no creator and see if we reach a contradiction. For example - is there an observation that cannot be explained, in any way, without a creator? And if the observation does require a creator - is there a single creator? Is this creator God?

    The Rebbe's response was that the existence of a Creator/God is not a scientific question but a question of faith. Everyone can believe what they want. But, we all know the result of unfounded faith.

  82. Alon - you are confusing the main thing to take care of. If you want, we can talk about Alan Guth's equations.

    The main point of my words is that the Rebbe is comfortable accepting Einstein's opinions when they correspond to his own. Perhaps it is worth noting that Einstein, the beginning of his career, was strongly opposed to the expansion of the universe.
    Important modern cosmologists, such as Krauss, Smolin, Hawking and Susskind do not believe that there is a "starting point" for the universe, a point of creation.
    The Rebbe claims that they are not telling the truth because they have something against "God".

    Can we get off this nonsense?

  83. Miracles,
    How do we say this... would you please leave the cosmological constant alone?
    Why insist on a subject you do not understand?
    (And in this case - no, it's not enough to read Wikipedia...)

    And to make it very clear - because Wikipedia also messed up here:
    The cosmological constant was a name for a uniform repulsive force in space whose origin is unknown, and whose existence was assumed in order to correct Einstein's equations for the reasons I mentioned in the previous response.
    As I said - there is no accepted description of the power attributed to dark energy.
    If by chance this force is constant and uniform in space, then it can be described as a constant, and if one day it is proven that this is indeed the case, it is certainly possible that it will also be called the "cosmological constant" - if only to honor Einstein.

    And for the record, these are the misleading Wikipedia words:
    "With the help of testing the non-uniformity of this radiation, it is possible to decide on the nature of dark energy and determine if it originates from a cosmological constant"
    Instead: "and determine if it originates from the cosmological constant"
    It should be: "and determine if it can be described with the help of a cosmological constant".

    So again:
    When they say "the cosmological constant" they mean the force that Einstein deduced existed from the static assumption of the universe.
    If in the future there is a reason to conclude that a repulsive constant exists, it will not be possible to attribute it to Einstein.

  84. To the Rabbi...

    When a scientist supports your opinion then you must listen to their opinion, but when they contradict their opinion they don't want there to be a God. I am a scientist and I want there to be a God. I also want a Ferrari. Desires separately and reality separately.

    The cosmological constant is back (not exactly but we won't confuse you right now) because the observations show its existence - in Einstein's time these observations were not possible. What does this have to do with God????

    A Creator is not a scientific theory. That's what I think too 🙂 But honey - what I said is exactly the opposite. I said let's assume there is no God and try to explain the world. If we succeed then there is no reason to assume there is a God. It's awfully simple.

    Understand - I am not trying to convince you that there is no God. I can't prove there isn't. I can show that he (or she or they) is not bound by reality.

    Did I expand enough?

  85. Well, I'm really shocked by the "facts" that are being thrown here left and right.
    And the most refutable thing of all is that the claims thrown here do not even strengthen or weaken any side in the debate.

    Several details to correct:
    1) The common knowledge at the beginning of the 20th century was that the universe was static. The concept of a big bang was innovative (yes also innovative for believers in religion - they did not claim that the universe is expanding...) everyone including Einstein assumed this static as a given. The scientists fill the gaps in knowledge and understanding, and the gap that Einstein tried to fill was obviously related to solving the mystery of the constant speed of light.
    For those who don't know, even back then they knew how to measure the speed of light, and saw that it was constant. This was one of many mysteries that did not receive much attention - but Einstein was particularly intrigued by it.
    His solution was of course the principle of relativity, which concludes that if the speed of light is constant, then what changes in a system that has speed relative to a static system is a "shrinking" of space in the direction of movement, and a "stretching" of the time that passes. And he continued to discard the meanings in order to correct the physical laws, when the principle was to correct the places where it makes sense to update the Newtonian laws with relativistic laws.
    When he followed this method, he also wanted to update the laws of gravity, and when he described the situation in a set of laws, the universe was supposed to collapse in on itself.

    Rather recklessly, he assumed that if the universe was static, then the most elegant modification to his formulas was probably the correct solution, so he added the constant.
    Then following the mourning, came the concept of the big bang, and the cosmological constant that was added just to maintain statics had already lost its "necessity", and it is clear that in retrospect Einstein regretted adding it.

    2) Today there are incomprehensible elements that are deduced from the cosmological observations, specifically it seems that the universe is not only expanding, those that, unlike the explosion - which is supposed to slow down over time, astronomers see that the universe is actually accelerating.
    There is currently no theory for this that comes close to being in the scientific consensus. What there is (relatively) in the consensus is a general way to close gaps, when for this purpose the name "dark matter" is used to name all the mass whose existence is indirectly inferred, and "dark energy" to name the source of the unknown force that should be if you want something to match For observations that say the universe is accelerating.

    A handful of sentimental people jumped in and even without understanding the forces behind dark energy, they claimed that the force that pushes the universe to expand can be presented with the same cosmological constant that Einstein added at the time - as if this would somehow reduce the fallacy... or as if there was some kind of prediction here, or Einstein's intuitive understanding .
    No one knows if dark energy can really be described this way, but even if it is, there is no point in linking Einstein to it.

    -------------

    Ok,
    You are invited to continue debating the essence of reality with the help of quoting people...

  86. Miracles, how innocent you are:
    It is clear that modern cosmology will restore the constant, after all, they do not want science to have a creator for the world,
    Regarding your question, I did not understand where you are aiming, I would appreciate it if you could expand.
    After all, the creator of the world is not a scientific theory that needs to be refuted.

  87. to Rabbi
    If so, why don't you address my questions? I ask that you assume that God does not exist and see where there is a contradiction. This is the only way to show that God exists.

    Modern cosmology has brought back the cosmological constant and even knows how to explain it
    So according to your own words, Einstein can go back to being an atheist.

  88. Rabbi, you are right. Einstein did not believe in a personal God and in order to avoid the "so clear and self-evident conclusion" that there is a "builder of the world" he "invented" the cosmological constant and added it to the model and then he became a pantheistic deist of the type of Spinoza who was excommunicated, denounced and denounced by the dark rabbis of the Dutch community . right.
    But Einstein and surely you are wrong - there is no God. Unless you mean the imaginary friend in the mind of the believer who suffers from false thoughts, the main one being that this imaginary friend is not imaginary at all but exists in reality.

    You are indeed defending your Torah for the vanity of it. That's why you're religious. You don't have a problem with intelligence and no one claimed it against you. Your lies and slurs - well anchored in your body as I pointed out earlier - stem from your emotional-psychic aspect. And I wrote about the belief syndrome and its characteristics in my first comment, which was the first comment at all.
    Your problem - like the rest of the community of religious believers - has nothing to do with intelligence at all. Definately not. The problem is in the emotional-mental aspect. I will end with wishes for health and a good life.

  89. So the "Rabbi" admits that now what he wrote before is not true (a gross lie), since before that, he wrote that Einstein believed in God (A-Lohim as he wrote it). He accuses me of exhaustion and claims that he is pursuing justice, this after he told us that Einstein believed in "God" (scroll above), did not consider the deliberate distortion he made in Hawking's words and did not consider his own demand to listen to Einstein, a demand that was finally addressed, to his.

    Then the real hallucination begins: he takes on a "challenge" where he assumes that Einstein was biased against the existence of a creator and therefore inserted the cosmological constant (it will literally write history, no less than that) and finally continued to claim with delusional, amazing and insane stubbornness that Einstein is a deist despite In the quote he himself gives, Einstein declares himself a believer in Spinoza's God, a concept that is the opposite of deism and even more opposite (as far as it is geometrically possible) to theism.

    How hard is this point to grasp? Why by force? What can be achieved by lying? Why lie?
    He adds another quote in which Einstein tells us that he gets angry at people who claim through him that there is no God as if this is proof that he believes in God. So no, this is not proof, certainly in light of his other quotes.

    Then this dangerous man writes: "This is exactly what I meant, that science can bias the results according to its worldview, not necessarily pure science with intentions."
    I remind you that it all started with some kind of illusory "challenge" that he took on without being asked, in which he assumed that Einstein was "biased", built a shaky and shaky logical structure and ended with the illusory conclusion that does not arise from any previous assumption of his, that science can bias results. what? what? what?

    As I remember, what the Rebbe was asked to do was to deal with his own demand, from us, to listen to the "reality expert" Einstein (Ed Verkundiam) by a quote in which Einstein tells us that he believes in Spinoza's God. The Rebbe thought that this was an argument that supported his opinion, so they brought it (it is a trend). The Rebbe demanded that we listen and we listened (for those wondering what Einstein thought on this subject). The Rebbe did not. Well, you pursued justice, here, you have found justice and there is no more justice than the principle of beauty demands beauty fulfills: Rabbi, you have the duty to listen to Einstein, as he is your guru on the issues of reality and repeat the question.
    And I will write again, even if the Rebbe writes it 1000 times that Einstein was a deist, then no. Einstein was not a deist but a pantheist. cope
    I think the Rebbe is trying to perform the following trick: he takes the sentence: "I believe in Spinoza's God" and says here, I found, Einstein believes in God. is it possible? Could he be so shallow and biased?

    It should be noted that he did not completely address the character assassination he committed in the man suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease (which is really not nice) and what can he actually say? That he didn't understand why it's bad to take someone's quote without understanding the context, especially after being pointed out over and over again? Does he have enough self-respect to admit his mistake? Never. After all, he continues to throw sand in our eyes.

    Did he try to find details about who Lee Smolin is and other personalities that Nissim threw at him? of course not. The Pan-Bat sites have not yet managed to collect quotes from Lee Smolin in their favor, so why would he?

    I ask again, what does this man see in the mirror? Is he proud of himself?

  90. Rabbi, it is you who exhausts us. Either you don't understand what Einstein said because your religion misleads you or you do it on purpose because with a lie you will bring people closer to the truth of repentance. This is unacceptable. And since I caught you in a lie about Einstein's words and twisting Hawking's words, I have no ability to believe you about circumcision.

  91. Peace,
    I guess Shmulik's method is to exhaust the reader with long scrolls, so that the reader gets tired
    And agree with his words at the end, it is not acceptable and I will go out to defend justice as it is said: Justice will pursue justice.

    Once again, and the readers will judge if I am distorting the truth here:

    Einstein did not believe in a personal God
    But I will take the challenge and claim that he was "biased" in this conclusion out of a personal interest in his view of his life:
    So how did Einstein come to this conclusion, when he developed the theory of relativity he understood
    that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning
    He did not like the idea of ​​the beginning lest it lead him to conclude that there is a creator for the world
    Then he added the "cosmological constant" to his equation which would give a solution to this problem.
    And claimed that this was the big mistake he made, of course Edwin Hubble's results proved that the universe is expanding and there is a starting point and Einstein became a deist who does not believe in a personal God

    "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

    and added:
    "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are still people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views

    And that's exactly what I meant, that science can bias the results according to its worldview, not necessarily pure science with intentions.

    Nissim: I really want to move forward in the discussion, but they don't let me when they call me derogatory and humiliating names every time
    my intelligence, that's why I prefer to defend my teachings first.

    Lavi: The article about circumcision is actually very scientific. It is about the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is considered the most authoritative professional body in pediatrics.
    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4272591,00.html

    have a good day,

  92. And Bel
    At the top of the article appears "stupidity and ignorance" a definition that is suitable for discussion and debate about them
    Trying to convince the phantic blind believer that he is wrong.

  93. jubilee
    At the top of the article appears "stupidity and ignorance" a definition that is suitable for discussion and debate about them
    Trying to convince the phantic blind believer that there is no God.

  94. Okay, come back tomorrow (and I didn't try to prove that there is no God, but that he is a tireless slanderer)

  95. Shmulik, you can ask him whatever you want. If he is evil, he won't understand anyway. And if he came with malicious intentions in the first place, don't expect him to stop throwing his feet at you (and more from the bouncer).
    On the other hand, if you are worried about the fate of the innocent readers who might return to Chuba because of his preaching, then you must beat him and keep beating him until all of us, and not just him, are convinced that there is no God. Since I was convinced, I retire from this instructive and fascinating discussion with the feeling that I was bored enough for one day.

  96. jubilee,
    I insist on this point. It's not very likely, these are the facts. What he did is equivalent to the following:
    I say: "I don't think God exists".
    The Rebbe proudly presents: Here is Shmulik who said: "God exists" and then rolls his eyes and says, here, you brought quotes, what do you want from me?

    So no, not here. Here the goal is not to win for the sake of winning but to learn, wait and move forward. He came with the stated purpose of bringing us back to repentance and his last post was a disgraceful eye roll in the hope that I would give in and not continue to respond. So no, not here. I insist that the saying of Sage Neah shall be fulfilled. We need to read his posts (and in my life my life gets shorter with every such reading but the goal is important), he needs to do the same. read and refer. He asks us to go to his side because in his mind he built a thesis that Einstein is a deist, so I proved to him that it is not true and I ask him to keep his word, with the presumption that Naa demands Naa fulfills. In the ancient world, a man who did not keep his word was a man without honor, neglected and despised, a surplus fern found on the outskirts of the camp. This is the Rebbe, a man without honor.

    In conclusion,
    I don't understand why it won't help. Why is it that my simple request that he read one paragraph before and one after the quote he has trendily chosen to quote and carefully read my entire post (long, exhausting and repetitive as it may be) is an impossible task.

  97. Amiczadik,
    Anyway, we don't have to tell him he's a liar. If he knowingly lies then he knows it anyway; And if he loves, he won't understand anyway. You can try to convince him. But if it doesn't work, then it's a pity for a righteous person to waste precious time.

  98. Shmulik, as I mentioned before, it will never end. The rabbi will continue to claim that he did not falsify because he provided an accurate quote. This is true. The fact that he took things out of context, brought in convenient quotes that serve his purpose and ignored the arguments that put things to rest and eroded his own arguments is not a distortion. Not for him. Those who carefully read the full article that I provided in a previous response will also understand why. This is a great example of a sentence: the goal (converting people to religion) justifies the means (distortion, lies, etc.). Anyone who has carefully read Zamir Cohen's book "The Upheaval" and some of his style knows that he built a career using the principles of lying.
    I claim that after exposing their mistakes, their lies, the manipulations they use, the continuation of the discussion with them gives legitimacy. This is also where they draw their strength...!!! Thus they very quickly come to a comparison between religion and science as if they are two equal fields that can be compared. The deep, tireless discussion puts them as equals. This is my opinion.

  99. Miracles! You said you don't understand. informative. Instead of understanding you chose to be offended.
    I will spare myself both the apology and the continuation of the conversation with you.

  100. Shmulik! If you weren't an extender, you shouldn't have apologized.
    Please see what you are talking about and what I am talking about. You say: "The man took a quote from Hawking, and created a thesis from it. He did not read one sentence before the quote and did not read another sentence after the quote, otherwise he would have realized that his thesis was falling apart. These are the facts."
    It is very likely that you are right, but the problem is that the man is convinced that he is telling the truth. It won't help if you ask him to read more sentences, precisely for the reason you brought up and more than that: he is afraid not only that his thesis will collapse, but that along with it his entire worldview will also collapse. The problem you face (and anyone who wants to convince someone of the correctness of some belief or worldview) is not dealing with facts but dealing with emotions. First of all, he needs to be helped to understand that the problem doesn't exist, it's not the end of the world, and that he really doesn't need to be afraid.

  101. Dear Rabbi

    I suggest you listen, because otherwise you're wasting both of our time. agree?

    First of all - why don't you bring as an example L'Metra - the father of the Big Bang Theory as an example? Because he is a Catholic priest? Let's conclude that Einstein is a believing Jew. It probably doesn't matter to me.

    Second thing - let's assume there is a creator. Actually let's go with it further - let's assume there were several creators. A whole family of creators.
    Another possibility - let's assume that there is no creator. The world was created from nothing, just as those scientists you admire so much claim.

    Please - how is your approach better than mine?

  102. Amazing, I can't believe this is serious. Friends?
    Is there an eye doctor or mathematician here? This man's last eye roll was of a complete circle but with 1000 degrees and I fear that something there is broken.
    All I have to do is copy my post again and hope that the man carefully reads everything I wrote.

    jubilee,
    I don't agree that everything boils down to shades of gray. Here is a simple case of black and white: the man took a quote from Hawking, and created a thesis from it. He did not read one sentence before the quote and did not read another sentence after the quote, otherwise he would have realized that his thesis was falling apart. These are the facts.

    I apologize in advance friends for the load of this post. This must be done otherwise every eye roll will come out clean and will be made up by Yuval (:))

    Post A
    This is already too much and, I was right: he didn't address his embarrassing mistake or his lies regarding Einstein's beliefs and, after I showed him what Einstein believed according to the quote he brought, he didn't explain why he wouldn't demand as well as fulfill? Or actually he did explain.
    Let's dive in (I apologize in advance for the pagination)

    Here is a quote from the Rebbe's words:
    Einstein was not an atheist he was a deist (which is something completely different) if you read the quote that Shmulik sent it says:
    I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe

    In the passage he admits that he is not an atheist!
    To Shmulik (one who responded well in the past...)
    Why is it important to consider Einstein's words, because he is an expert in his field, just as you have a medical problem and you consult a doctor and his opinion is important to you in order to choose the appropriate type of treatment, yes also in matters of science, the opinion of a scientist who has spent his whole life studying our reality and came to the conclusion that nature is important It is not accidental and there is a source of higher power and reason in the processes of nature.

    That is, the Rebbe told us, just in this post, that Einstein was a deist who came to the conclusion that nature is not accidental and that there is a source of higher power and reason in the processes of nature, but he completely missed the meaning of Deuteronomy. Did he address this, even though I showed him his mistake over and over again???

    earlier, in https://www.hayadan.org.il/hunted-state-34-220812/comment-page-1/#comments The Rebbe writes: "But Einstein may not have believed in reincarnation, but he did believe in God"

    If that's not a personal god, I don't know what a personal god is?

    Beyond that, I showed him, through the quote he brought, that Einstein believed in Spinoza's God (whatever that means). In light of what he demanded, and I mention his demand in this post: "Why is it important to refer to Einstein's words, because he is an expert in his field, as you have

    A medical problem and you consult a doctor and his opinion is important to you in order to choose the appropriate type of treatment, yes also in matters of science, the opinion of a scientist who has been engaged all his life in the study of our reality is important..." Did he refer to Einstein's words and abandon his philosophies? It is not clear who.

    People, I ask you, did the "Rabbi" just present a factual argument about Einstein (as he claims in his last post) or did he use it, in a completely false and hair-raising manner, and refused and refuses to deal with the consequences of his arguments?

    As for Hawking, what he did here is simply ludicrous. The man, without a doubt, uses the websites of rabbis and chooses partial quotes for himself in order to do what? Lying his way to victory? The quote itself is from the summary of the history of time, which since Hawking has already written many other books, the last of which is The Grand Design. I will immediately bring the quote from the latest book on the subject of God, and I will only mention that it is customary to classify a person's opinion according to the last things he said (especially since the man is still alive) and the Rebbe, as an amateur manipulator, is not ready to address the last things Hawking said (which I have already brought up several times) because they He is not comfortable. Someone should tell him that if you quote someone, be prepared to refer to other quotes from that person.

    Regarding the subject of the quote he brought: here is a link describing the whole subject:

    http://disco-igno.blogspot.co.il/2008/06/another-toe-stubbing-post-on-hawking.html

    Please read carefully, I'll just say that the link ends with the words:

    But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

    And here is the excerpt from The Grand Design again. The book was recently written, using accumulated knowledge that did not exist 20 years ago. I mention again, the "Rabbi" reads our posts and therefore he cannot claim that he accidentally missed the quote that I brought up repeatedly in several different posts, including in this discussion (my fifth point): https://www.hayadan.org.il/hunted-state-34-220812/comment-page-2/#comments

    Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[12]
    Nevertheless, even though he read this post (this is an assumption that must exist) he still preferred to find a quote that supposedly supports his opinion, not to consider the general context from which he extracted the quote, not to do his homework (it's really hard to go to Wikipedia and read a little about Hawking before you commit In which targeted elimination and calling him creation?) Not being ready to face the consequences of his actions and contaminate the discussion again. What should it be? How dare a person behave like this and why? What does he see in the mirror?
    Regarding the description of their dangerousness to atheists and Zionists, I don't even know where to start or whether to start at all because then I will spread too much and it is important for me to convey to everyone how dangerous this man is without entering into an ideological debate (Nissim, I am tempted to ask you to define extreme left but let's leave it at that) .

    I will conclude by saying that he admitted at the beginning of this post that he came: "But to enlighten the readers' eyes with a philosophy of life that is a little different from what they have been used to until now: in the existence of one Creator for our world...". In the existence of one creator for our world. He didn't come to study, he didn't come to witness, he didn't come to be interested. He came to repent, and he does so in an awkward and sad way.

    This man makes me throw up meals I forgot I ate (partial quote from Christopher Hitchens)

    Post B

    It goes on and on and on. The Salaf does not give up and is not willing to address his own arguments and let's not forget that he admitted that he came here to convince us that there is one creator. That's right.

    1. "The Rebbe" and Hawking
    For the millionth time: Selfan, taking a partial quote from Hawking without understanding the context. The context is that Hawking says that if the universe had a starting point, then everything is so precise and then we must take a creator into account... But he continues and writes the following sentence:
    On the other hand, the quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for

    So tell me, what else can be said? How hard is it to read the link I attached:
    http://disco-igno.blogspot.co.il/2008/06/another-toe-stubbing-post-on-hawking.html

    Now, it must be remembered that this quote is from the summary of the history of time, which was written a few decades ago and since then we have learned some things about the universe. For example, you can read the fascinating article describing multiverses (which solves the fine tuning problem). The fact that this article belongs to physics and not to MDV is a tremendous intellectual achievement of rational thinking:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/parallel-universes-130812/

    Hawking, who is at the forefront of theoretical research, has also progressed and instead of asking, he says in his book from The Grand Design, which was recently released:

    Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going

    So the slanderer (and I'm sorry, there's no other word, maybe a liar?) doesn't read the links provided to him, doesn't clarify the facts of the links he himself provides and builds a thesis where Hawking is once an atheist (who said?) and once a deist based on a partial quote! Then he tells us, sarcastically, that if everyone were judged only on their last opinion, and if this were the situation in court, everyone would be justified. Do not change your mind.
    Friends, let's assume for a moment that he is right, and 20 years ago Hawking was a deist and then changed his mind due to new facts he learned. What's wrong with that? For the skeptic, a scientist who discovers that his theory is incorrect, he should not change his mind and adapt to reality. Lucky that Galileo was not enlightened by this slanderer. Lucky that Newton did not accept Aristotle's mechanics and developed his own mechanics. Lucky that Einstein did not accept Newtonian mechanics and developed special and general relativity.
    The "Rebbe" adds and tells us that a scientist is a person and can be biased and flow in order not to harm his livelihood, and Hawking is also a scientist and therefore he too can be biased and can flow from here, there is nothing to take his opinion, which has changed, seriously (as long as the original opinion supported the opinion of the Salaf ). delusional
    Now let's get back to reality. The Salfen's thesis is not correct, it is tainted with cheap manipulation of choosing quotes without context, lack of depth and cheap and clear tendency. As soon as the ground floor of his argument collapses, everything collapses around the Salaf and here is another scientist whom he happens to know (he doesn't know the rest but determined that they are haters of religion) who is an "expert on reality" but, thinks the opposite of him. Does the salesperson refer to all of this, even though I repeatedly provided him with simple links in clear English? of course not.
    I ask you, does a serious person really react like this? Does a serious person really believe that such an argument holds water? What does he see that frustrates him in the mirror?

    2. "The Rebbe" and Einstein
    I summarize what we went through with him. He lied when he wrote that he never claimed that Einstein believed in a personal God. He wrote it and I showed it in my previous post
    He lied when he made Einstein a deist, in a quote he himself gave, where Einstein tells us that he might accept Spinoza's God about him. He did this to tell us that Einstein is close in his views to him, more than to the common atheist, as if that would bother anyone, except for a skeptic.
    He lied when he wrote that he was trying to show that Einstein was a deist. That's not what he did. He tried to bribe us to join him, because Einstein is in his group. And Einstein is a genius "reality expert" (???)
    She lied when she asked us to repent because Einstein, according to the false thesis she built, believed in a personal God and Einstein was an expert on reality. I proved him wrong and asked him to repeat the question, at his own request. And he wasn't even ready to address my demand, why? Why is he running away from his own demand? Doesn't he know the saying that the good requires the good fulfills (saying of the Sages)?
    (I do not intend to refer to the white noise that he later wrote. The Jewish righteous colleague has already addressed this effectively)

    I ask you, does a serious person really think like that? A serious and mature person really believes that we are idiots here? What does he see that frustrates him in the mirror?

    And for the millionth time: we are not interested in quotes from people that are given without supporting evidence. Every quote I gave was intended to refute quotes from the Salaf or Hawking's which is based on evidence, but what is important to us is that the theory presented is based on evidence, not the man. We do not have a guru nor will there be one. cope

    3. The "Rabbi" and atheists
    Nissim is still waiting for the Rebbe to explain to him why he is not ashamed of the scum he threw at him and the atheist sect and is still waiting for him to respond to the challenge he posed to him

    And by the way, here is again the list of scientists brought by Nisim, the "Rebbe" does not know any "serious cosmologist" on this list:
    Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Pinker, Arrhenius, Chadwick, Chandskar, Francis Crick, Pierre Curie, De Lambre, De Morgan, Jared Diamond, Dirac, Eddington, Edison, Ehrenfest, Erdish , Freud, Gammow, Hardy and also Higgs.
    And nowadays it's super hard to do a Google search to check who these personalities are. No, that's not the reason. The reason is that the Salaf has determined that there are those who are "reality experts" who should be listened to, if and only if, he finds a quote, however false or out of context, that supports his opinion. If he doesn't know these personalities, it means that the Mahbatim websites did not summarize in their weekly pamphlet, how to use their quotes in favor of the religion. For a selfie, quotes are his only weapons and he's still not ready to do this legwork. shame.

    What does he see when he looks in the mirror?

  103. Yuval Chaikin: We did not create ourselves, therefore we seasoned the brain "from the outside". We got it from who?? If we received tools from the outside, someone or something had to give them to us. Your terminology is very strange to me, but we will not argue. I got you.
    Regarding the reasons of the Madalat (the dishwasher for religion) to lie:
    A. Indeed, Alon does not like my style. I'll try to be more matter-of-fact, but I can't get away with nothing. Therefore I only say that the sect of liars in the Jewish religion establishes lying as a very useful tool and it is not for nothing that Molik often calls the rabbi a liar. very rightly so. Perhaps more rightly than he is aware and knows. For the liars, curiosity is an entrenched ideology. How anchored? here:

    "What is truth and what is a lie? At the beginning of our education we understood that truth is when facts are told as they happened; And lie, change it. But this is only in simple ways, but in fact there are many ways in which it is not so. Sometimes it is forbidden to say things as they are...without benefit and necessity, and sometimes it is necessary to change, when the truth will not be useful but will harm, because then what appears to be truth is a lie, which gives rise to bad results, and what appears to be a lie leads to the purpose of truth. It was found that truth is what brings goodness and the Creator's will, and a lie is what gives success to the business of the minister of lies, Hastra Achra (Satan)."
    R. A. Eliyahu Dasler, 1953-1892, report of a letter from Eliyahu, vol. XNUMX, p.

    "And so, since it is through this mistake that a person knows the Blessed One - what does it matter to him that it is a mistake?... and since the goal that comes from this mistake is truth, and in another way without it it is impossible for the recognition [of God] to come, we find that this mistake is the only means to achieve The real purpose, and if so - then it is really the right way, and cannot be called a "lie". The difference between a lie and the truth is measured by the result of things born from it, and if the result is true, the means that invent this truth are also true."
    Rabbi Yeruham Mamir, 1936-1873, Wisdom and Morals Report, vol. XNUMX, p.

    And to broaden your mind, here is a scholarly article by a very wise student from a leading Yeshiva who returned to his opinion and reason and left his religion:

    http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/halacha/muttar_leshaker.html?print

    B. Maybe he loved it. I personally choose option A which is reasoned and certified by our sources from then to the present day. And by the way, a complete waste.

  104. to Shmulik,
    I don't understand why you continue to claim that I am a trending selphan, when I quoted from the sources as well
    Stephen and also according to Einstein.
    You won't be able to understand what exactly Steven was thinking when he said what he said about a universe that requires a creator if there is a starting point, and you won't be able to contradict what is implied by the fact that he hinted at the existence of a creator for the world, that's why I didn't make a mistake here
    Maum, what's more, it has been unequivocally proven that there was a starting point for the world and even 2 scientists received a Nobel Prize for it.
    For miracles:
    Let me put order again in my reference to Einstein's words, I argued that he is a deist and a deist by definition
    He does not believe in a religious God but in a creator who intelligently plans a kind of supreme being as opposed to an atheist who denies the existence of any god.
    But it is clear that G-d is one reality and He is the ancestor of every creature, therefore it is the same God in the bottom line.

    Lyoval: It seems that you manage to target my frequency more than all the commenters here, indeed the purpose is external to the brain
    And you did not create yourself because otherwise you would have preceded yourself, hence it is implied that the one who created you is external to you.

    To my father: I would like to contribute to the website and strongly recommend a scientific article on the benefits of the word covenant
    which reduces the risk of contracting HIV, herpes, papilloma, syphilis, penile cancer and even cervical cancer in the partner, additional details:
    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4272591,00.html

    Good night

  105. "You proved it to him." And did you convince him? At most you have convinced yourself of something that you believe in anyway. The truth, as he understands it, is not the truth according to your understanding (unless one of you is knowingly lying, but then we enter into a different discussion: why do mahbatim lie?)

    Why do rabbis lie?
    ================
    a) They knowingly lie because the (missionary) goal sanctifies all the means.
    b) They unknowingly lie because they are loved.

    And anyone who adds ideas is fine

  106. Yuval - I didn't understand. Do you state that I have a role/vocation/faith/God? are you??

    what is your name Insolent as you are. I thought we were having a dialogue here. You are rude and thoughtless.

    The only thing that rivals your impoliteness is your lack of knowledge.

    If you don't apologize, I won't pay attention to your words anymore.

  107. jubilee,
    It's perfectly fine, except that I repeatedly proved deep contradictions in his words, distortions and real lies and an unwillingness to confront his own claims, the act of a child. Hence there is no symmetry between us. This is exactly the reason why I am responding here, as I have written again and again: to stop the lies that he and his ilk write with unbearable ease and let the truth prevail because teenagers and others also read this site and must not be allowed to influence them.

    Regarding the other topic, so broad called free will (which some claim doesn't really exist), forgive me but I'm not going to get into a discussion about it now (I'm ready to be required to do so in the free comments). Here it is important for me to establish that this man is a trending salphan, who is trying, as he testified himself, to enlighten our eyes about the existence of a single creator

  108. Shmulik,
    Is the truth important to you? It is also important to the rabbis of the Panchayat. And yet, you pick a fight with him.

    And it doesn't matter if you say "I" or "my brain". You didn't create yourself.

  109. Well, what will happen? I clicked it all by mistake. I'm the unrecognized user (tum tum taaaam)

  110. jubilee,
    I don't come here to fight for the sake of fighting. I love the site, its articles and the fruitful dialogue that exists on it, and therefore, I try with my meager powers, on issues where I am able to contribute, to protect it from those who want to destroy it, no less.
    Mark Twain has a nice saying that a lie will have to circle half the globe before the truth puts on shoes. I try, together with you, to sandal the lie and allow the truth to prevail.

    Regarding what you wrote about the brain, I don't accept the terminology you created: we don't have a brain with which we decide together, it is us. You are your brain.

  111. boxer,
    We have a tool with which we decide. In Hebrew it is customary to call it "mind". We did not create it ourselves, but received it from the outside (and it does not matter for the purpose of the matter whether through Darwinism or intelligent creation).

  112. Chaikin: It is true that all language is artificial and determined by man. But words have inherent meanings or lies within human understanding. That's why I chose to artificially separate the words: a purpose is given from the outside by an external factor to a person. Meaning is given from within by the person himself. And this is the whole essential difference between the religious and the secular humanist: is morality heteronomic (external) and derived from God or autonomous and "man is the measure of all things".
    The religious dictionary serves and is used by religion: Repentance contains the associations of repentance that have a good, warm, positive meaning. What's wrong with going back (how good you are back home...) and "answer" is great. Compared to "going out with a question" - going out into the unknown, the scary and questions who wants to live with questions, doubts and bewilderments. Better the warm embrace of the defensive answers....
    Therefore, using a secular dictionary affects the subconscious immediately upon thinking about the word and before pronouncing it: thus deterioration or falling into religion and liberation from religion or going to reason will be the secular words for the same concept. Language is of crucial importance in shaping the human world.
    And Sipa, your words are incomprehensible to me: "Even if a person chooses the meaning of his life by himself, and decides on it and determines it without any outside intervention, the fact that the tools he uses to choose, decide and determine, he still must not ignore." What is meant by receiving tools "from the outside". It is not clear who gave, what tools and why???

  113. jubilee. I have no idea what you were trying to say, but…..

    When you ask whether life has a purpose, you assume an interest. Whose purpose? of every person? of a creator?

    My purpose in life is to leave behind a better world for my children. Imagine what the world would look like today if that was the goal of everyone?

    post Scriptum. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the purpose of my life is someone else's...

  114. Amit,
    "Meaning" or "purpose" is a semantic matter. If you accept that such exists, then it is imposed on us from the outside. And then, it doesn't matter if the oppressor is an evil person (and fear his name Yosiphon in the Bible: Rabsha'a) or Satan (his name Tamir has disappeared) or TBA (pure without distortions) or MDA (his words about him are accepted) And so on…
    And even if the person chooses the meaning for his life by himself, and decides on it and determines it without any outside intervention, the fact that the tools he uses to choose, decide and determine, he received from the outside should still not be ignored.

  115. jubilee,
    I agree with half of the Sipa. I don't come here because I doubt the science (doubting the theory is not doubting the method) but because I enjoy the science and enjoy reading (most) of the comments and I set myself a goal, to try to defend the site and its contents on issues where I feel I have something to contribute.
    It is quite possible that the pantheists and the converts come here, because they doubt themselves, because they lack self-confidence and want to rub it on us and throw up their arguments on us, which they will clean like babies without applying logic and criticism (and the babies forgive me for the outrageous rant) from their important, wonderful and unquestionable websites .

  116. Shmulik,
    Indeed, you agree with Debray's saifa, according to which the rabbis come here to clear up their doubts. What you do not accept is the intermediate conclusion, according to which there is no purpose to our lives. I found a quote in our sources that strengthens it (unless they say I'm taking things out of context):
    ... until the days of evil do not come and the years come when you say I have no desire in them. Until the sun and the light and the moon and the stars are not darkened and the clouds return after the rain. On the day when the guards of the house sweated and the men of the army became disfigured and the mills were idle because they were few and the chimneys darkened and the doors in the market were closed at the low sound of the tide Hana... When a person goes to his worldly home and wanders around in the sophomore market. Until the silver cord is untied and the golden marble runs and the urn breaks on the floor and the wheel runs into the pit. And the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return... the waste of the wastes... all the waste.

  117. Oops, my previous name - "one who responds well" somehow resurfaced. For the avoidance of doubt "one who responds well" = Shmulik

  118. my father
    Why do you bring up the memory of those who were slaughtered, those who were sacrificed and we are here because of them,
    It is true that their blood is evidence that there is nothing but nothing, nothing. If she had managed to hear the will of the murdered,
    There would be no room for those parasites. To those, the enemies of the people and the country,
    That land, which rose on their blood and in their memory.

  119. the righteous,

    1) Regarding your clarification about the inclusion - although you narrowed down the scope of the inclusion, you still included (for all the converts). Then you made sure to add justification that the inclusion is a legitimate tool. That's why I didn't leave the subject.

    2) No matter how you look at it, mocking customs and so-called traditional clothing to gain "moral ground".

    3) I don't understand on what basis you judge another culture and say that their dress details are ridiculous.
    Maybe our customs are contradicted? - shirt and pants? What is this self-righteous Puritanism!? Do the women wear makeup? I mean they paint their faces like in African tribes as if they are going to battle? (and so')
    These are cultural things, and we too have customs that are carried over from the past, and remain only because they are customs.
    It's just that with us our customs are our cultural background, so it seems normative to us; Just like theirs, their customs seem normal, and we seem strange...

    4.a) "I volunteered to be at the front - it's ugly, requires getting dirty, and often leaves you with stains. But someone has to do it" = "Martyrdom".
    4.b) "You can sit in the back, support and assist and stay clean" = "Dodging"
    (Although you added "to support and assist" but for me it's just to whitewash the essence behind your intention)

    5) In my opinion, our losses against them are at the political level, and stem from their sectoral power that shifts the distribution of the burden in their favor. At this level, it makes sense to do our best, and I would even say that we should fight against them - because the budget is final (that is, a zero-sum game), and in order for us to get what we deserve, it has to come at the expense of what they get (which, of course, is unfair - because it was obtained through sectoral extortion ).
    But this is a struggle on a sectoral basis, in a political field, the essence of which is "we need to get what we deserve", and not "atheism is enlightened, and religion is stupid".
    In my opinion, your urge to "fight" stems from the political situation, but you are fighting the fight of "enlightened atheism; Stupid religion."
    Of course, there is a place for discussion about this metaphysical conflict, and there is a place to put the "Rabbi" who has the agenda, who comes to preach, but not to listen - these are just collecting points from our reactions in order to defend his purpose.
    But I don't see it as a battle, and I think that analyzing from a quiet place would be much more effective.
    See Shmulik's last response to the "Rabbi": when you respond objectively, and calmly drop the ground under each of the "Rabbi's" points, it is very easy to see how ridiculous and manipulative the "Rabbi's" words are.
    The more you do it from a calmer place, and the more you reduce the "seasoning", the easier it will be to truly notice how embarrassing the words of the "Rabbi" are.

  120. It goes on and on and on. The Salaf does not give up and is not willing to address his own arguments and let's not forget that he admitted that he came here to convince us that there is one creator. That's right.

    1. "The Rebbe" and Hawking
    For the millionth time: Selfan, taking a partial quote from Hawking without understanding the context. The context is that Hawking says that if the universe had a starting point, then everything is so precise and then we must take a creator into account... But he continues and writes the following sentence:
    On the other hand, the quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for

    So tell me, what else can be said? How hard is it to read the link I attached:
    http://disco-igno.blogspot.co.il/2008/06/another-toe-stubbing-post-on-hawking.html

    Now, it must be remembered that this quote is from the summary of the history of time, which was written a few decades ago and since then we have learned some things about the universe. For example, you can read the fascinating article describing multiverses (which solves the fine tuning problem). The fact that this article belongs to physics and not to MDV is a tremendous intellectual achievement of rational thinking:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/parallel-universes-130812/

    Hawking, who is at the forefront of theoretical research, has also progressed and instead of asking, he says in his book from The Grand Design, which was recently released:

    Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going

    So the slanderer (and I'm sorry, there's no other word, maybe a liar?) doesn't read the links provided to him, doesn't clarify the facts of the links he himself provides and builds a thesis where Hawking is once an atheist (who said?) and once a deist based on a partial quote! Then he tells us, sarcastically, that if everyone were judged only on their last opinion, and if this were the situation in court, everyone would be justified. Do not change your mind.
    Friends, let's assume for a moment that he is right, and 20 years ago Hawking was a deist and then changed his mind due to new facts he learned. What's wrong with that? For the skeptic, a scientist who discovers that his theory is incorrect, he should not change his mind and adapt to reality. Lucky that Galileo was not enlightened by this slanderer. Lucky that Newton did not accept Aristotle's mechanics and developed his own mechanics. Lucky that Einstein did not accept Newtonian mechanics and developed special and general relativity.
    The "Rebbe" adds and tells us that a scientist is a person and can be biased and flow in order not to harm his livelihood, and Hawking is also a scientist and therefore he too can be biased and can flow from here, there is nothing to take his opinion, which has changed, seriously (as long as the original opinion supported the opinion of the Salaf ). delusional
    Now let's get back to reality. The Salfen's thesis is not correct, it is tainted with cheap manipulation of choosing quotes without context, lack of depth and cheap and clear tendency. As soon as the ground floor of his argument collapses, everything collapses around the Salaf and here is another scientist whom he happens to know (he doesn't know the rest but determined that they are haters of religion) who is an "expert on reality" but, thinks the opposite of him. Does the salesperson refer to all of this, even though I repeatedly provided him with simple links in clear English? of course not.
    I ask you, does a serious person really react like this? Does a serious person really believe that such an argument holds water? What does he see that frustrates him in the mirror?

    2. "The Rebbe" and Einstein
    I summarize what we went through with him. He lied when he wrote that he never claimed that Einstein believed in a personal God. He wrote it and I showed it in my previous post
    He lied when he made Einstein a deist, in a quote he himself gave, where Einstein tells us that he might accept Spinoza's God about him. He did this to tell us that Einstein is close in his views to him, more than to the common atheist, as if that would bother anyone, except for a skeptic.
    He lied when he wrote that he was trying to show that Einstein was a deist. That's not what he did. He tried to bribe us to join him, because Einstein is in his group. And Einstein is a genius "reality expert" (???)
    She lied when she asked us to repent because Einstein, according to the false thesis she built, believed in a personal God and Einstein was an expert on reality. I proved him wrong and asked him to repeat the question, at his own request. And he wasn't even ready to address my demand, why? Why is he running away from his own demand? Doesn't he know the saying that the good requires the good fulfills (saying of the Sages)?
    (I do not intend to refer to the white noise that he later wrote. The Jewish righteous colleague has already addressed this effectively)

    I ask you, does a serious person really think like that? A serious and mature person really believes that we are idiots here? What does he see that frustrates him in the mirror?

    And for the millionth time: we are not interested in quotes from people that are given without supporting evidence. Every quote I gave was intended to refute quotes from the Salaf or Hawking's which is based on evidence, but what is important to us is that the theory presented is based on evidence, not the man. We do not have a guru nor will there be one. cope

    3. The "Rabbi" and atheists
    Nissim is still waiting for the Rebbe to explain to him why he is not ashamed of the scum he threw at him and the atheist sect and is still waiting for him to respond to the challenge he posed to him

    And by the way, here is again the list of scientists brought by Nisim, the "Rebbe" does not know any "serious cosmologist" on this list:
    Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Pinker, Arrhenius, Chadwick, Chandskar, Francis Crick, Pierre Curie, De Lambre, De Morgan, Jared Diamond, Dirac, Eddington, Edison, Ehrenfest, Erdish , Freud, Gammow, Hardy and also Higgs.
    And nowadays it's super hard to do a Google search to check who these personalities are. No, that's not the reason. The reason is that the Salaf has determined that there are those who are "reality experts" who should be listened to, if and only if, he finds a quote, however false or out of context, that supports his opinion. If he doesn't know these personalities, it means that the Mahbatim websites did not summarize in their weekly pamphlet, how to use their quotes in favor of the religion. For a selfie, quotes are his only weapons and he's still not ready to do this legwork. shame.

    What does he see when he looks in the mirror?

  121. Dear Rabbi, I will answer briefly.
    I do not understand you.
    You say yourself that Einstein did not believe in a personal God, and even preferred not to belong to any religion.
    Hawking once believed that a creator was needed, but later said that he was wrong and that there is no need.
    Lawrence Krauss, Lee Smolin and Leonard Shuskind are among the leaders in the study of the origins of the universe. As someone who claims to quote scientists, we have nothing to continue the discussion without you knowing these people in depth. Their discoveries do not fall short of those of Einstein.
    Without understanding what you are talking about there is nothing to talk about.

  122. Rabbi Nachman: Don't stop commenting because that's the only way, from the reactions of the people of religion and faith we come out strengthened and learn about the essence you hold and the lie you cling to.
    I believe that this discussion will not stop even if the experiences of the people of faith are able to exhaust themselves in endless debates on a small and marginal point - like what Einstein and others believed or did not believe. I brought a clear statistic that closes the issue. Not for you I know but for the readers. Ignoring the obvious research and sticking to one, two or ten names is appropriate for discussions with religious people. Faced with the fact of the CBS that 65% of ultra-Orthodox men do not work, they will tell you that their cousin works, like the two sons of the neighbor across the street and all. Anecdotes. They "don't know" the statistics and disbelieve in them because here around them everyone is working and it is not clear where the disbelievers' "facts" come from. Really weird. The same thing happens here. They ignore the broad and unambiguous picture showing a direct relationship between education and atheism and an inverse relationship with belief in a religious God.
    Just a final reference to your words because I am clear from the false springs from which you derive your views and your arguments in which you believe with all your heart and with absolute confidence, as Alon pointed out in his words: you find in every nook and cranny of matter a strengthening of beliefs and religion. It is absolutely understandable. But it is not "from the truth". When a person sees religion as the purpose of his life and his whole identity converges to the narrow angle of religion, your arguments are understandable.
    But a secular-quantitative Jew who understands that Judaism=religion is a statement that contains a lie compared to Judaism=culture of which religion is a part is a true and much more accurate statement sees reality completely differently.
    A person's identity consists of belonging to an ethnic group, nation, nation, culture and also religion. Reality is not one-dimensional, shallow and superficial and man is also incredibly complex. In his words about the "religion of Moses" Einstein meant that he belonged to the Jewish ethnic group, perhaps to the Jewish people. He called it "the religion of Moses" in spite of his complete hypocrisy. Today things are clearer and it can be explained with more precision - I am Jewish but I am not religious. I am an atheist Jew. My Jewishness is expressed in belonging to the ethnic group, even to the Jewish people. My culture is Jewish (even if partly because I am also French, Greek or Russian in other parts of my culture).
    But there's no point, for my part, in getting into endless arguments and discussions with you about what Einstein believed or didn't believe, what's more, others here do a wonderful job of proving you and tattooed your arguments up front.

    I will try to divert the discussion to a different angle and ask you a question in light of the fact that you are obviously a believer:
    I challenge you to think of one question for which there was once a scientific answer, even if partial or insufficient, and that today, in retrospect, they realized that the best and most satisfactory answer to this question came precisely from religion. One example. Thanks.

  123. Alon: You are generalizing in your responses to my words: I was not laughing "at their clothing" but at the members of the "ridiculous hat club" of the sages of all religions. There are amusing pictures about this on Facebook that connect church leaders, Islam and Judaism. All with different covers on their heads for the purpose of giving authority and seriousness and respectability. If you have already included Ashaz, I will adopt the words and add that the ultra-Orthodox public, for the most part, is indeed dressed ridiculously. Passing through Bnei Brak in the hot summer days and seeing them with clothes adapted to the cold of Europe especially their fur hats is really ridiculous. If it's not ridiculous to you it's strange but it's acceptable. I think it's ridiculous.
    Regarding the "excluded" I already explained that my intention was to aim more precisely and not to include all religious people and in my view the clarification should have been sufficient and sufficient.
    Regarding the view of the situation - it is clear that we disagree. For some reason you don't notice the culture war going on everywhere in Israel at the moment. Too bad. Unfortunately, you represent too many secularists whose way of seeing this leads us to a crushing defeat against the assembled legions of the evil one (the Lord of the world). I did not describe you as a dodger and me as a martyr. far from it. It is your description that is unfounded. I believe that my style is similar to that of the late Tommy Lapid and not his son's. Both are the same in their outlook and in their way the style is different. a matter of taste. Tommy led to great success that dissolved. You have a different style. Fine.
    Just to remind you that the defeat of the secular side in Israel of the present is related in my opinion to the fact that Judaism has not passed the stage of "militant atheism". It despises, belittles and invalidates while exposing the lies, frauds and manipulations of religion. It is a process that Europe has benefited from and is therefore incredibly secular. Relatively of course. Let's use the example of France. In a huge survey of tens of thousands of people in the world, it was announced that there has been a slight increase in the number of secular people in the world. France is an excellent example of secular Europe. I choose her because she went through militant atheism in the 18-19 centuries before and after the French Revolution. That's why atheism is so established and strong there.
    We will not go into a long and detailed explanation, but we are in an internal and external collapse of secularism in Israel. Our children will experience this well for themselves. unfortunately. And surely for your future happiness as well.
    good week.

  124. Nissim, regarding your claim that most cosmologists are atheists, unfortunately I do not know any serious cosmologists from the list you provided: apart from Stephen Hawking, to whom I referred to him speaking in two hats, once as an atheist and once as a utilitarian who advocates the existence of a non-religious god.
    But let's take a moment to consider what Shmulik said: that we should consider only the last things that the scientist said,
    It's a shame that it wasn't tied up in court, then everyone would have come out entitled.
    A scientist is also human and can be biased and change his opinions during his life and go with the flow in order not to harm his livelihood.
    You can see, for example, that Einstein as a scientist did not talk about his Jewishness, but according to records of his conversations with his wife when he received an invitation from the University of Prague, named after Karl Ferdinand, and said to his wife Mileva:
    "I am offered the position of full professor. And you know, it's a renowned, very prestigious university
    "There were forms attached to the offer that I had to fill out, indeed
    So I did. One of the questions there was what religion I belong to
    belongs I answered that I do not belong to any religion. the forms
    They were returned to me with a letter in which I am required to fill them out
    Properly, that is, to declare what my religion is..."
    "And how will you answer this question?"
    "If they force me to belong to any religion, I don't have one
    Sufficiency in this matter. I will write: 'Belongs to the religion of Moses.'

    The religion of Moses, so claimed the great scientist Einstein and without doubts.
    Would any of you atheist Jews who live in Israel behave like this? Or simply don't enroll in the university as a matter of principle.
    And why am I bringing up Einstein again, because he was a complete secularist who opposes belief in a personal and universal God
    the religious customs, but despite all this he belongs to the religion of Moses
    The explanation for this is that every Jew has a spark from his DNA and this is a divine spark from above that gives its signals when his spiritual roots are put to the test, such as in choosing other religions over Judaism or a few moments before death, when people testify that they recited the Shema Yisrael.
    This is precisely the hidden love that exists in every Jewish soul," which is a hidden love in the heart of the unity of Israel that we inherited from our ancestors.
    I don't think I'm manipulating people on this site,
    I deliver the things directly from the sources and do not insert my personal opinion and the readers will judge,

    I also have no objection to stop commenting on this site according to my father's request, there are many other possible communication channels
    To express the world view of Judaism in a cultural way without quarrels and slanders.
    , I simply feel that on this website there are a lot of atheists of their caliber, babies who were set up and diverted against the religion by the Tishkorot, which does "holy" work in order to present the "religion" in a negative way and even cause hatred of brothers.
    But even in religion there are people in flesh and blood and a hood with a beard, this is not a guarantee of honesty and trustworthiness, but a way of land that preceded the Torah.

    have a good day

  125. Yuval Chaikin: I definitely see your explanation as a complementary explanation that adds to the essence of faith and its origins. There are studies that point to the evolutionary origin of belief and give an explanation identical in spirit to your explanation.
    Like Mulik, I disagree, to a certain extent, on your conclusion that an atheist has no purpose to his life....Since God is no more than an imaginary friend in the mind of the believer and religion is based on false and vain lords, it is clear that my religion also has no purpose...!!! Purpose means that there is no external purpose for a person that assigns a role to him as a person assigns to the devices he produces such as a washing machine or a television. Indeed, it is not for nothing that Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak and other quacks and merchants of religion often tell about the heavenly "book of instructions" for man. A magical activation book that will help a person to act and work better in the world of God (Lord of the world). But it is suitable for those who see themselves as nothing more than a super sophisticated washing machine or a robot for that matter.
    Since your opinion is the same as mine on the subject of religion, you meant the internal, invented purpose that a person gives to himself. In doing so, you are wrong and mistaken and adopt, mindlessly, the position of the religious who always look up to the secular who lives a vain and empty life without a purpose and purpose compared to the holy purpose of his life and the calling in it…….
    On the topic of the purpose of life, we should say goodbye to the "religious dictionary" that poisons our thinking and move to a secular dictionary that is much more accurate, to say the least
    Simply put, we will replace the word purpose, which refers to an external being that gives purpose, with the correct and accurate word "meaning". Viktor Frankl (a Jew of our people...!!!) in the light of his experience in the Holocaust and in the horror camps of the Nazis developed the term meaning of life. Here it is already clear and easy to understand that man invents for himself the meaning of his life. And here every person has a meaning that he gives to his life. every person. Without meaning we will not live. According to his book, those who found some meaning in their existence survived in the camps. Those who did not give up and perished or committed suicide. just like that. The meaning a person gives to his life can be the illusion of religion and the lie of God or other meanings - more realistic and tangible: family, values ​​and the like.

  126. jubilee,
    I can agree with most of your points but I cannot agree with their sipa. I absolutely do not accept the fact that because I am an atheist, there is no purpose to my existence. And also mentions that sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

    It is true that there is no purpose that a heavenly dictator obliges me to fulfill, but I am excited by the discovery of the Higgs, elated by the pictures that Hubble takes, happy to see the human race crack the secrets of the universe through rational thinking (not happy about other things the human race does), sad that Neil Armstrong died (at all , not strong days for the Armstrongs), happy with my family and raising my children (I somewhat agree with Prof. Kahneman that on average it's as enjoyable as doing laundry :)) I enjoy doing sports, friends, reading a good book, and more.

    The average religious does not and should not have any doubt and there is no contradiction in his approach. If God created everything, then He created everything. It is true that some of them today already have a hard time accepting the Torah as it is, and therefore a large part of the stories have turned, like a magic wand, into allegorical stories (someone like that worked with me, a very intelligent man). It seems to me that, by and large, the Habbatis and the converts have this inner doubt.

    It's hard for me to tolerate serial pollutants and that's why I react to them, not because I feel suspicious. The ham is our bread, our soul, and we are proud of it. These are the lies, the eye rolls and the absolute truths of the haters that make us miserable.

    Nissim, I would love to continue debating with you but in the free comments area. Here, I want to expose the lies, slurs, and two-facedness of the Panchayat

  127. A short story about religion, faith and science
    ====================
    In one of the first comments here, I asked how it happens that faith, even though it is a led vanity, rises and flourishes and prospers. Here is an attempt to offer a solution:
    Not only among us, the human beings, there are those who hang on to the highest intelligent power of the Zen and sustains everything. For example, all the animals that man domesticates and trains look down on us. The tendency to conform and subject ourselves to the will of a higher being is an innate trait whose roots are deeply rooted in the tree of evolution.
    We humans are lucky that, unlike other animals, we do not have a being that is more intelligent than us. However, the desire to find such is firmly embedded in most of us. so what are we doing? Inventors! And when there is no such thing as real but only imaginary, the sky is the limit. So there is faith, and it takes over and embraces everything. He is the creator, who controls the laws of nature and is also the ruler of the times, knows the future to come and gives us correct laws to follow. And if we believe in him, we will live forever, etc.
    And as the variety of his attributes increases, the paradoxes associated with him multiply. Every person, at some time in his life, is faced with a decision between two possibilities: whether to ignore the paradoxes but hold on to the comfort of faith, or to admit that faith is nothing but vanity and to live in the despair of knowing that there is no purpose to his life.

    Whoever believes, either here or there, is complete in his faith and does not need to convince or be convinced. Only those whose rest is troubled by doubt come here and spend their time reading and writing for and against. Me too ☺

  128. The extreme left is people like Gideon Levy and Amira Hess. These are the same people who are willing to risk the existence of the country to advance their agenda. It's just that they think that the "Palestinians" as a whole want peace. It is those who, after an attack, feel sorry for the family of the suicide bomber.

    Do I really need to continue?

  129. This is already too much and, I was right: he didn't address his embarrassing mistake or his lies regarding Einstein's beliefs and, after I showed him what Einstein believed according to the quote he brought, he didn't explain why he wouldn't demand as well as fulfill? Or actually he did explain.
    Let's dive in (I apologize in advance for the pagination)

    Here is a quote from the Rebbe's words:
    Einstein was not an atheist he was a deist (which is something completely different) if you read the quote that Shmulik sent it says:
    I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe

    In the passage he admits that he is not an atheist!
    To Shmulik (one who responded well in the past...)
    Why is it important to consider Einstein's words, because he is an expert in his field, just as you have a medical problem and you consult a doctor and his opinion is important to you in order to choose the appropriate type of treatment, yes also in matters of science, the opinion of a scientist who has spent his whole life studying our reality and came to the conclusion that nature is important It is not accidental and there is a source of higher power and reason in the processes of nature.

    That is, the Rebbe told us, just in this post, that Einstein was a deist who came to the conclusion that nature is not accidental and that there is a source of higher power and reason in the processes of nature, but he completely missed the meaning of Deuteronomy. Did he address this, even though I showed him his mistake over and over again???

    earlier, in https://www.hayadan.org.il/hunted-state-34-220812/comment-page-1/#comments The Rebbe writes: "But Einstein may not have believed in reincarnation, but he did believe in God"

    If that's not a personal god, I don't know what a personal god is?

    Beyond that, I showed him, through the quote he brought, that Einstein believed in Spinoza's God (whatever that means). In light of what he demanded, and I mention his demand in this post: "Why is it important to refer to Einstein's words, because he is an expert in his field, as you have

    A medical problem and you consult a doctor and his opinion is important to you in order to choose the appropriate type of treatment, yes also in matters of science, the opinion of a scientist who has been engaged all his life in the study of our reality is important..." Did he refer to Einstein's words and abandon his philosophies? It is not clear who.

    People, I ask you, did the "Rabbi" just present a factual argument about Einstein (as he claims in his last post) or did he use it, in a completely false and hair-raising manner, and refused and refuses to deal with the consequences of his arguments?

    As for Hawking, what he did here is simply ludicrous. The man, without a doubt, uses the websites of rabbis and chooses partial quotes for himself in order to do what? Lying his way to victory? The quote itself is from the summary of the history of time, which since Hawking has already written many other books, the last of which is The Grand Design. I will immediately bring the quote from the latest book on the subject of God, and I will only mention that it is customary to classify a person's opinion according to the last things he said (especially since the man is still alive) and the Rebbe, as an amateur manipulator, is not ready to address the last things Hawking said (which I have already brought up several times) because they He is not comfortable. Someone should tell him that if you quote someone, be prepared to refer to other quotes from that person.

    Regarding the subject of the quote he brought: here is a link describing the whole subject:

    http://disco-igno.blogspot.co.il/2008/06/another-toe-stubbing-post-on-hawking.html

    Please read carefully, I'll just say that the link ends with the words:

    But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

    And here is the excerpt from The Grand Design again. The book was recently written, using accumulated knowledge that did not exist 20 years ago. I mention again, the "Rabbi" reads our posts and therefore he cannot claim that he accidentally missed the quote that I brought up repeatedly in several different posts, including in this discussion (my fifth point): https://www.hayadan.org.il/hunted-state-34-220812/comment-page-2/#comments

    Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[12]
    Nevertheless, even though he read this post (this is an assumption that must exist) he still preferred to find a quote that supposedly supports his opinion, not to consider the general context from which he extracted the quote, not to do his homework (it's really hard to go to Wikipedia and read a little about Hawking before you commit In which targeted elimination and calling him creation?) Not being ready to face the consequences of his actions and contaminate the discussion again. What should it be? How dare a person behave like this and why? What does he see in the mirror?
    Regarding the description of their dangerousness to atheists and Zionists, I don't even know where to start or whether to start at all because then I will spread too much and it is important for me to convey to everyone how dangerous this man is without entering into an ideological debate (Nissim, I am tempted to ask you to define extreme left but let's leave it at that) .

    I will conclude by saying that he admitted at the beginning of this post that he came: "But to enlighten the readers' eyes with a philosophy of life that is a little different from what they have been used to until now: in the existence of one Creator for our world...". In the existence of one creator for our world. He didn't come to study, he didn't come to witness, he didn't come to be interested. He came to repent, and he does so in an awkward and sad way.

    This man makes me throw up meals I forgot I ate (partial quote from Christopher Hitchens)

  130. Rabbi Nachman - Your God did not help 120 Jews - most of them women and children, including my mother's two cousins ​​who were 4 and 6 years old at the time, who were massacred on Yom Kippur 1942 in the town of Kobilnik in Poland (now in Belarus). They said the prayer of Natana Hafik in which it is said that repentance and prayer and charity pass the evil of the decree. Apparently the Nazis didn't hear that.
    I intend to be there soon for the 70th anniversary of the massacre. This is one of the big reasons (besides of course the knowledge of science) that made me an atheist.

  131. Dear Mr. "Rabbi" Nachman Mazran

    I will go with you and consider what you say.

    First - no one is talking about the Jewish people here. We are not the oldest nation (far from it), nor the only nation that survived many years without a state.

    Hawking, at the beginning of his career did write what you said, referring to the fact that he cannot explain the conditions for the creation of the Big Bang. In his book The Grand Design he clearly says that there is no need for morning.

    "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking and Mlodinow announce at this point. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

    Please don't waste our time arguing this point.

    Most cosmologists today do not believe in a creator. I already mentioned a number of names and you did not address it. Why?? Do you mean just preaching without listening?

    I certainly agree that scientists have a lot to say in the field. What I don't understand is how you agree with this but are not willing to hear what they have to say!

    Your claim that atheists endanger Zionism is strange. Those who founded the State of Israel are a group of secularists and not religious people. Those who practiced Zionism are not Torah people.
    I certainly agree that today, religious Zionism is one of the most positive factors in Israel. And I also think that the extreme left, mostly secular, is a threat to the continued existence of the state. But, that is not the issue here.

    I also want to remind you that the ultra-orthodox, who I assume believe in God, pose a tangible risk to the existence of this country. They, according to themselves, are not Zionists.

    I absolutely do not believe in God. I have been serving in the army, mandatory, permanent and today reserve, for 36 years. Aren't you ashamed to question my Zionism?

    I ask you not to be amused and not to attack like a cornered cat.

    I suggested earlier how to proceed on the subject of the existence of a creator or God. You didn't respond. Is there a reason for this?

  132. Hello and good week,

    I would like to point out that my goal is not to convey false messages on this site, but to enlighten the readers' eyes with a philosophy of life that is a little different from what they have been accustomed to: in the existence of one Creator for our world, in the existence of a Jewish people who survived for thousands of years without their own state, under conditions that were not always favorable, in the language the few

    And to the substance of the matter:
    When I mentioned that Stephen Hawking takes a creationist approach that favors the existence of a creator, I relied on things that were written and here I am copying + pasting things that were written by him and you can verify what is written, as one in his path:

    "The initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings just like us.”

    That is, he himself conveys different messages, which on the one hand support the existence of a creator, and on the other hand contradict messages, that there is no need for a creator in this world, therefore there is both proof and refutation here at the same time (meets the scientific criteria for the correctness of a scientific theory 🙂 )

    To defend the slanders uttered by Shmulik, I will point out that I never claimed that Einstein believed in a personal God, but only that he was not atheistic in his views and that he believed in an intelligent planner and a higher power.

    I once again think that scientists in the field of physics and astronomy, by necessity of their role and the findings they publish, have an important weight in understanding the complexity of the universe and that the chances of it being created spontaneously are slim to zero, because once we understand this we will accept the "hard" fact that there is an intelligent planner for the universe and our world in particular and from there we need To prove that the same Creator chose us as a virtuous people and implemented a mechanism of reward and punishment in creation.

    When I claimed that atheists are moral, you proved it very nicely here, when you discussed the saying: "Thou shalt not lie"
    I saw that this concept is very important to you, no less than ultra-Orthodox in Mea Shearim, or any other religious person.

    Again, I did not claim that sympathizers hate Israel, but only that they are dangerous to Zionism in that they have no affinity or any ideological connection to the land of our ancestors, therefore it is very natural that someone who is not emotionally attached to a certain object will give it up more easily than someone who is emotionally, ideologically attached to that object, see an example By the connection between atheists and leftists for example.

    I think I have explained myself better now.

  133. the righteous,

    It's a pity for me that people find justifications for sentences that defame a population. I certainly agree that there are discussions where it makes sense to generalize, but logical and careful use is required. To say in general that they are "sleazy" and to laugh at their outfit - this is unjustified, and presents your words as ostentatious, and not objective.

    I'm more sorry that you see this situation as a kind of war.
    Sorry, but I don't see a battle here, and I don't accept your (arrogant) classification as if I'm some kind of dodger, while you're a martyr fighting for me.

    To Einin's body, as someone who represents my position in the conflict - in my opinion you cause more harm than good:
    When you laugh and slander, you seem to have nothing of substance to say. And the offensive style comes in contrast to the enlightenment you are trying to represent.

  134. Alon: I refer to your words because there is a fundamental issue here for clarification and explanation that is not sufficiently understood.
    1) I can agree that the rabbi is not knowingly lying and he believes in the "truth" of his words. It certainly goes well with the understanding of the people of faith and religion. But here his mistakes were made clear to him with signs and miracles and he continued. But that's not the point. The Rothschild mentioned here followed a similar practice. There is something to shock, perhaps, about a worldview that all stems from brainwashing, that is: religious education.
    2) The second example of my words could indeed have been more accurate. My many experiences with Dalits and those who are "professional" on the subject from the religious side did reveal a nagkaholist approach. I didn't mean that every religious person would be like that.
    In general, regarding generalizations - although the site is scientific, there are articles here that I do not understand. Even in certain discussions when people discuss cosmology and physics I realize how ignorant and mindless I am. My general education was not focused on anything related to the natural sciences. But the discussions in the style before us are not discussing a clear and definite scientific topic such as the exact sciences / nature. This is a discussion from the social sciences and that's where I'm more educated. When you deal with the social sciences: psychology, sociology, anthropology, generalization is essential and possible. In contrast to physics or chemistry where every rule and law will be absolute, here it is different because the degree of variation and exceptions is great. You surely understand this and the statistical methods used in the social sciences to understand and characterize phenomena. Therefore, when discussing groups - and the religious are undoubtedly a distinct group in society - it is possible to generalize and it is even a must. We will not go into explanations about how the human mind is fundamentally divided into generalizations, but we will emphasize that in every generalization in the social sciences it is worth remembering that these are not absolute and fixed laws, for example: at a pressure of 1 atmosphere and a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius, water will boil. Always. Since we are talking about human beings, it should be remembered that the generalization only describes the group and that each and every individual cannot be judged according to it except after an individual examination of that individual, where there is a significant chance that it will indeed be compatible with the generalizations of the group, but this is only a chance.

    Having said all this, it is important to remember that we are a society divided into tribes and sectors between which there has been a more significant culture war in the last decade. The most significant conflict that will substantially affect society as a whole and every detail in it is the conflict between the free versus the religious or religion versus secularism.
    In a war there are the first line fighters, the supporters of the fighting, and the front line soldiers. I've already come across arguments identical to yours and this was my answer: I volunteered to be at the front - it's ugly, requires getting dirty, and often leaves you with stains. But someone has to do it. You can sit back, support and assist and stay clean. It's fine. But you have to understand the big picture.
    good week.

  135. It seems to me that the topic of the discussion has already been diverted too much. What is interesting is to have a discussion with an intelligent religious person who is willing to speak honestly, and is willing to listen.

    There is really no point in arguing about the facts. Einstein's religious beliefs can be debated, because he is no longer alive and his information is not entirely clear. On the other hand - Hawking says outright that he does not believe in a creator... But it has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God.

    I don't know why the topic even came up. This is where the issue of intelligence comes in: relying on a person's opinion to determine whether God exists or not is foolish.

    I already wrote before how in my understanding the issue should be investigated. It's a shame that no believer addresses this.

  136. withering,

    I thought it was clear what I stood for, but maybe it's not clear because there is confusion here about the essence of the "threshold":
    There is a threshold for deviating from a cultural discussion, and there is a threshold for our ability to say that we know that the "Rabbi" intended to lie.

    In terms of the threshold for deviating from a cultural discussion, I think I have reasoned well for what reasons I think the rabbi deviated (1. Diversion of discussion 2. Slanders 3. A flood of logical failures), and I even stated explicitly regarding the slanders: "On this alone he exceeded, in my opinion, allowing discourse", and regarding The logical fallacies I argued, whether they are knowingly or not: "it is not possible to have a discussion". I mean, in this aspect, I think I have already given a well-reasoned answer.

    What may have caused the confusion is that I argued that at the level of our ability to call him a liar, a very high threshold is needed:
    When a person is called a liar, it is implied that the person told a lie on purpose. As I see things, the "Rabbi" said things that are not true, and then you say that if the things are not true, then they are lies, and if these are lies, then he is a liar. And that specifically seems problematic to me.

    I tried to answer your words, but I must admit that everything is not clear to me. It is not clear to me the direct contact to determine the threshold, it is not clear to me whether you are related to the administration of the site, and in general I feel that the situation is not understandable to me, therefore I also have some discomfort in giving the answer.

    In any case, I am definitely in favor of a high level of discussion. And in case it's not clear, all my responses here came for exactly that purpose - only that I first turned my attention to those I consider "on my side", because only then do I feel that I can demand it explicitly from the "other side".

  137. bread and butter…

    Alon,
    You determine what the appropriate threshold is. I asked in principle, is there not a single case worthy of effective condemnation? One that prevents the discussion from continuing until a return from raising a clearly logically incorrect argument or relying on an "addition" that is easy to show is simply not true? What will be your limit?

    For the avoidance of doubt, I do not mean selective activation, on the contrary, if I have failed in a jarring logical fallacy or if I have brought a quote or a reference to an intoxicating document that does not contain what I claim it contains, not only would I be happy if they would testify to my mistake, I demand it offensively, in order to That I learn from my mistakes, so that I don't fail others who may come later and say "Well, Kamila said so and so and she is known to understand in the field". Is there room to be more forgiving towards those who ask hesitantly but towards those who claim to know? They must be carefully examined. There was a man here named Rothschild, who in my view was an example and model of uncompromising rational thinking, and he demanded it from others as well as from himself, and he was criticized from the right and the left (and it is good that it was so), but in the end, the criticism came down to the style he chose to use. You could tell at that time, that even if he too may be wrong, he is a role model of real rational discussion. I will always prefer to listen to what someone like him can offer over dozens of inclusivist logic curves, since, why are they so careful, most of them were the offspring of religious degenerates or new-agers or conspiracy paranoids, in these three groups (not only, but mainly, there was a period that I even counted) there was many times the same terrible outpouring of excessive self-confidence, abysmal contempt for the other and worst of all - the use of distorted logic and the use of dubious facts at best and outright lies (what do you call it after it was made clear to them with the support of the appropriate evidence that it was a lie? Confusion in good faith? ) in the worst case.

    You set the limit, but remember that there is no point in discussing this site without adhering to the two bases I mentioned earlier, at least on them, at least an effort to adhere to them. We all fail here and there, the fundamental difference is in the willingness to take something back once it has been made clear that it is fundamentally wrong. Any other behavior is simply a hindrance to those who invest the best of their time to aspire to a little bit of the culture of rational discussion, unless there is someone here who comes here for the guys... not that it's bad, simply places like this can be found in almost every website and forum. Quality rational discussion is much harder to find. You, me, and the other commenters have the responsibility and duty to maintain as high a level as possible, so that everyone can come, even those who have less faith in the rational working tools or the relevant facts are less accessible to them, and can enjoy an exemplary discussion and not a confusing tangle of arguments from one side and without the on-call Nachman On the other hand.

  138. Worry in the sky.

    According to Gallup, the number of religious people in the world is decreasing, although they are still the majority.

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/global-survey-on-jews-increased-secularism-can-teach-us-nothing.premium-1.460403

    Of the religions surveyed, Jews define themselves as the furthest from religion.

    The exception is the State of Israel, where there is an increase in the number of religious people.

    And we - here we come?

  139. the righteous,

    I don't want my position to defend him. The words of the "Rabbi" outrage me. The truth - I've already run out of all the juice... At a level that I'm really no longer comfortable continuing this line.

    For the sake of integrity, I will nevertheless try to refine and summarize what bothers me here:

    1) There is a judicial layer, which claims to determine that the Rebbe is knowingly lying. This seems problematic to me for the reasons I said in the previous response. I understand that some may see this as a "compromising position", but as people who claim a high standard regarding certainty about reality, I seek to help maintain the standards of the group, and not pretend to know what goes through the mind of the "Rabbi". (But there are many other concrete things at the judicial level, as I detailed in the previous response).

    2) At the level of confronting his claims, you also commit logical fallacies. You generalize, you laugh at customs (and it's clear that someone else can mock our conduct/customs in the same way), and your words also cross the line of defamation ("religious with an emphasis on ultra-Orthodox people who are sophisticated in their deception. They are somewhat inclusive").
    I admit that there was a part of me that enjoyed hearing blatant things against the "Rabbi's" position, and that there is a tendency to ignore the logical violations when they come from our side. But that's not my concern. These are quite demagogic responses. If you invest your time in answering the "Rabbi", do it in an orderly manner.

    Personally, I now prefer not to answer him at all - mainly because based on his behavior, I don't think the "Rabbi" is really ready to listen to us.

  140. Please read again the first paragraph in my previous response. The important thing in my opinion is that there should be a sanction against those who contaminate the discussion. Please note, "pollution" is not just expressing one opinion or another, but persistence in raising arguments based on logic (broken logic) and false facts. These two are the salt and butter of a discussion, any rational discussion, and without them the discussion loses its flavor and value, and when the logic and distortion of reality rear its head, not only is the taste lost, but the boiling stew becomes a real poison, maybe not for those whose stomachs are strong, but certainly for the curious who come just to taste. A sanction doesn't have to be a block, it doesn't even have to be a sanction on behalf of the site. It can (and should, in my opinion) exist by the respondents themselves. Just as the commenters are asked not to feed the troll, so it seems to me appropriate that the commenters should not feed those who refuse to play by the rules of rational discussion. Just as democracy should defend itself against those who subvert it and not allow them to exploit these principles to their advantage, so an open and respectful discussion culture should not allow those who abuse the possibility of open discussion to make their voices heard. Any opinion is legitimate, provided it is based on the basic principles of rational discussion. Is anyone here really opposed to keeping a discussion as clean as possible of logical fallacies and bringing "facts" that are found to be false? And if there is someone who disagrees, could they explain to me what the contribution of the claims that are affected by one or more of these two is?
    I wanted to remind you that the power is first of all in your hands (and in my hands) and if you also believe that a discussion should take place on some minimal basis of communication (and the veterans among you may remember the distinction between style and content) then perhaps it is time to take a firm stand against those who refuse to cooperate with principles base these. Perhaps it is appropriate to exclude those refusers or at least to limit the reference to them until they accept at least these basic principles.

    And to all those who remain silent (even when they write - Yuval) "In order for evil to win, there is no need for good people to remain silent" Edmond Barak

  141. Camila: Glad you joined the discussion. I read you in previous discussions and I, the little one, enjoy a lot from the skin and breadth of your knowledge like others, for example Rothschild, our dears, who took a break from the madness here to rest and search.
    Regarding your proposal, I object. It is extremely important to let the pagans (the degenerates into religion are innocent and innocent) speak. It does an excellent service to anyone whose reason rules him and not his superstitions. Exposing the lies only points to their essence, because everyone knows that religion is based on false foundations and religious beliefs on false foundations. It just helps to highlight it. Shmulik bothered and tattooed Shmulik's false arguments. I believe, in complete contrast to Alon, that there is no problem with the descriptive word "lie". Even multiple use of it does not harm. It is not a curse but a word that describes the actions of the person - using false arguments. There is nothing wrong or indecent in that. on the contrary. This is inevitable on such a respectable site where very educated and serious people respond.
    ================================================== ===============
    In the first response to the article here - which I signed - I briefly explained the essence of the "religious disorder" shared by the majority of the human population. "The rabbi" is no different, of course, and he exactly meets the definition. We must not forget that beyond, above and before the words, rationale, reason, logic and other means of the mind is the emotional-mental part that controls the believing person. Therefore, with the believers, reason is the slave of their faith. Even proof by signs and wonders or evidence, or clear facts will not move them from their unbelief. This can be compared to someone who is mentally ill and suffers from paranoia. After all, any explanation that he is not being persecuted and the people in white coats are doctors who want to help him will be met with the "explanation" that these are government agents who want to do this or that to him, depending on what his feverish mind comes up with. With believers it is the same. The Jewish religion also contains the antidotes to rational, logical and intelligent thinking and they learn that when sages say that the right is left and the left is right they must accept and believe. "Sages" not in our sense - educated people who understand a thing or two about the affairs of this world, but rather - religious sages such as Elig the Rabbidiah or other clowns who wear robes and/or hats, bonnets and other head coverings as part of their membership in the "World Club of Funny Hats and Bonnets". The sages of Islam, the Church and other various religious sages are among him. It is some quality of the religious leaders that they must wear an evil headdress because that's how they look and maybe sound (to their gullible believers) serious and important. Something like that…..
    ====================================================================== ================
    In response to the rabbi's claims, I will address two points:
    A. His claim that atheism is a religion - really, a serious attitude to such a foolish claim ennobles and empowers the claimant and the claim, which is so ridiculous that it must be answered, in my opinion, in the following way: Dear Rabbi Nachman, here is a video of Bill Maher - a well-known American atheist, the son of a Jewish mother and a Catholic father who is on the knees of faith Catholicism and in his adulthood he understood the stupidity of faith and the folly of religion and returned to his opinion and reason. He opens the section by saying: "Idiots must stop claiming that atheism is a religion. A little later he explains that "atheism is a religion like fertility (of sex) is a position in sex...":
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQp6GMzGPpU
    B. Religious with an emphasis on ultra-Orthodox sophisticated in their deception. They are somewhat inclusive. Thus, for example, in discussions about the well-known fact that 65% of ultra-Orthodox men do not work, they tell you that they themselves, like their uncles and two neighbors in the next building actually work hard....Always reminds me of conversations with the insurance agent, he tells you about insurance cases that happened very recently The kind of cases he asks you to insure yourself against…..the personal story has its own power. This is how the media work and this is how the media work. The same in trying to convince that there is some real false religion in which he wastes and consumes his life, he tries to tell us about believing scientists and academics. After all, there are thousands of stories like this...obviously, but, that is not the point and that's how you don't look and examine the matter. It is appropriate to check the population of scientists and see how many of them are religious and believe in the "religious god" that is the imaginary friend of the believers. And what turns out? It turns out that as you go up in rank and the importance of scientists, the number of religious people and those who believe in a religious god of the type of the imaginary friend known in our mummies: "God" decreases and decreases. And instead of arguing with Rebbe Menachman about this, I will provide the evidence for the correctness of my claim:
    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

    If this is enough, I will bring another source:
    http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

    No matter how you turn it around, the more ignorant and ignorant the person is, the more our faith and the degree of his religiosity will increase. and vice versa.
    This is why atheists and other non-religious people call themselves "enlightened". This is to differentiate them from the people of the sector of darkness and the great darkness.

  142. Camila, an interesting idea that I totally agree with and of course I act like that (although sometimes I'm a bit blunt).

    Alon, I again apologize for the too frequent use of the word liar, but in this case, the man had the opportunity to address the claims I made against him, he chose to perform a clumsy dance around the subject and rolled his eyes and then continued to feed us with puzzlingly wrong information about Hawking's faith, as if nothing had happened. The man lost the presumption of innocence.

    Beyond all the crazy things he wrote, he managed to drag us into a war of quotations because this is the only ammunition he has, and therefore I repeat that his claim regarding the existence of a "reality expert" has not been proven (actually total nonsense, hallucination, ad verconium) and therefore there is no need to refer to any quotation that he brings What is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without reference. On the other hand, the quote I brought, from Hawking's book, is based on the science of physics which is supported by evidence.

  143. Regarding the appropriate procedures for the site (registration, filtering, etc.) - I have nothing to say.

    However, I ask that we look at the "Rabbi" in a more orderly way.

    The way I see things, he wrote very problematic things for the following reasons:

    1) Dragging the discussion to areas that are not relevant to the post: first an attempt to convince that God exists. Second, mixing political issues. Probably, a continued discussion with him will continue to drag him wherever he wants to talk.

    2) His words against people who don't think like him have already crossed the line from inclusion to defamation. Without reservation and with complete confidence, he discredited secularists and leftists, and on that alone, in my opinion, he exceeded the possibility of discourse.

    3) The logic he uses in his arguments is what is called in English "fallacy" which completely deviates from the norm. Generalizations, implications, selective information, ad vercondiam (appeal to authority), and much more.
    In this aspect, or he does it on purpose, then it is clear that a discussion cannot be held,
    Or he simply does not have the logical skills to conduct a serious discussion (perhaps due to cultural background - but still, it is simply not possible to conduct a discussion).

    In my opinion, these are things that can definitely be attributed to the "Rabbi", and if there is room for an administrative act, it should be based on those things.

    And despite all these things, I still ask to avoid using the word liar.
    When using this title, we attribute to ourselves:
    1) The ability to decide with certainty where the truth lies.
    2) That the "Rabbi" knowingly said incorrect things.

    These are too strong things.
    We are all sometimes selective in our words; Trying to present things in a way that suits our positions.

    In my personal opinion he did not lie but distorted reality. Using such a loaded word towards him is the easy way to confront him, which I think misses the point (that is, the same problematic points I mentioned at the beginning). Suggests that we beware of tactics that silence unusual positions too easily. (Fahrenheit 451…)

    (As mentioned, I still think it is not possible to hold a discussion with him - for the reasons I listed above)

  144. The last word!
    Comments cannot be blocked as long as entry is free.
    It is possible to condition the right to comment on registration with an address and password, as is customary on respectable websites, and I will gladly join such an offer, if it comes up.

  145. A proposal for the agenda regarding treatment of liars.

    If and when an obvious lie is discovered (as was recently discovered in the words of Nachman), the entire discussion in front of him will be reduced to this point and this point only. As long as he refuses to take on himself the moral (secular) burden of "thou shalt not lie", as long as he does not agree with a committee that erred in quoting, distorted the interpretation or just finger-picked what is convenient for him, he will be excluded from participation in the discussion from that moment until further notice. That liar will always be able to come back, apologize for his lies, explain where he was wrong, what the lie was and what he should have said as someone who values ​​telling the truth.

    The rationale behind this proposal is simple. There is no point in arguing with a person who proves in his conduct that he does not knowingly tell gross lies. Sometimes it is difficult to assess what is a lie, sometimes the truth is elusive or simply unknown, but this is not the case in all cases. Usually things are simple and the lie is obvious and glaring. A lie may be said in good faith, for example, distracted in the heat of the discussion or due to simple ignorance, but once the spotlight is turned on the lie and the moment the relevant truth is brought, there is no reason for a rational and moral person to continue defending his lies. All of us, men and women, make mistakes sometimes, and most of us are mentally and morally strong enough to admit it when we are presented with unequivocal evidence that we were wrong. There is no point in giving an opening here to those who refuse to keep the rule so simple and at the same time so important for a discussion, any discussion but especially in a discussion on a site like this, of being careful to tell the truth. To summarize, I suggest to my father to add the condition, which sounds almost silly, to the website's regulations, which is "you shall not lie", and if you have already been caught in an obvious lie, and the lie was exposed in its entirety, the continued participation of the person who lied is a candidate, and the condition is that he apologizes and retracts the lie. In this way, a liar commenter will be blocked only as long as he insists on spreading and standing behind gross lies that have been proven to be such.

    I ask that you state your position on the issue and if it seems to you, please join the request by contacting Abi Blizovsky directly so that he can get an impression if the demand justifies the introduction of such a rule.

  146. Miracles,
    I am actually very amused that he cites Einstein as a supporter of his views by citing his quote, which he clearly misinterprets (this wise man thought a fantheist is a deist) and tells us "preachy". Well, then rather and rather, a wise man is needed, needed. Why should we give him up on his firm determination? I'm not convinced that an argument that he thought he was a winning ace can easily be dismissed.

    He needs to explain, not to us but to the man in the mirror, why he distorts facts that he himself brings (I think that calling Hawking a creation exceeds what he did to Ian Stein), why he thinks lying is okay and why he won't abandon his hiding after we did it to him Judo for his argument?

    What will happen now is one of three things: he will not respond, he will respond under a different pseudonym in which he will try to defend himself while hurling insults and accusing us of hating the religion, or he will respond with a "smart" response while ignoring what we wrote

  147. To the nice Rebbe - I have to give you a nice quote from Edison:

    I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul. . . . I am an aggregate of cells, as, for instance, New York City is an aggregate of individuals. Will New York City go to heaven? . . . . No; nature made us–nature did it all–not the gods of the religions

    This is from Edison's newspaper article from 100 years ago.

    I thought you would enjoy…..

  148. Dear Rabbi I stand behind every person I mentioned as an atheist.

    Stephen Hawking is not a creationist. Really, you're either stupid or a liar.

    Modern cosmology, the theories of Hawking, Kraus, Smolin and many others, among them Nobel laureates, holds that there is no problem of the formation of a universe like ours from……..nothing. It's really hard to understand, but it matches the math, matches the observations and is also supported by experiments.

    Hawking does not fall short of Einstein, and in my opinion the scope of his research even exceeds Einstein's.
    Einstein, by the way, did not believe in anything close to the "Jewish God" - he says this explicitly in several places in his letters.

    Edison also did not believe in anything like the God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam. He lived in a time when they didn't know how to explain the formation of the universe and he did talk about the possibility that there is a creator, but certainly not a God to be worshipped.

    I do not at all understand your idea of ​​bringing in "experts" to show that God exists. Everyone you mentioned is not an expert in the field of the formation of the universe.
    I'm sorry, but even Einstein had no idea about the mechanism behind the big bang. All the discoveries about the expansion of the universe at the time of Einstein had limitations - it was obvious to scientists then that the rate of expansion decreases with time. Only in recent years have we known that this is not the case.

    Please - stop with the stupid idea of ​​quoting scientists. Most of them do not believe in God. There is no debate about that.
    Can we agree on this point??

    The only way to deal with the existence of God is to show evidence. The fact that you don't know how to explain something does not rule out the existence of a creator.
    If so can you agree??

    A possible way to show the existence of a creator, or God (2 different things) is to assume that there is not - and then see if you reach a contradiction.
    It takes courage for that, and a lot of integrity - I don't think that a person who claims that Hawking is a creation meets these conditions. If you back off from this nonsense, we can continue the discussion.
    This is the right way and this is how science works.

    Another way, much less good, is to look at the world and see if there are contradictions to the existence of God (there is no point in talking about a creator). This is a much worse way and it cannot prove anything.
    This is the way of religious apologetics, especially Christian. To date, this method has not produced cows, to say the least.
    The Jewish excuse here is "God's ways are hidden". If you think like that then this method will get us nowhere.

    So let's go back to my initial proposition - let's assume there is no creator or God - if you show me one contradiction, I, and I suppose every other atheist will agree, will believe in a creator or God.

    Of course - because there are 100 times more Christians than Jews - I will probably choose to accept the Christian faith. After all, you must agree with me that the majority rules…….

  149. Alon, I didn't write that I didn't read the entry but not most of it (the point was to refer you to the issue of evidence) but I agree that the essence is important and I will try to cut down on the use of the word liar

    to all friends,
    1. The Rebbe now claims that his use of Einstein was all in order to prove to Max Power (nothing about the Simpsons) that Einstein was not an atheist, but is not ready to face his quote himself. He did not admit that he was wrong, so that leaves him a liar and a slanderer.

    2. He did not face the consequences of his actions. He thought he was showing us all that Einstein was a deist. What actually happened is he showed us all (which many of us have probably already heard before) that Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, a concept that is the opposite of the concept of deism and even more the opposite of the concept of theism. He told us, right here on this page, that you should listen to Einstein because he is an expert on reality, picked one quote that he thought supported his opinion, out of many, many other quotes and then refused to admit that he was wrong, refused to face his own claim and did not change his worldview after he read us To do so based on a quote he himself brought! A person who refuses to face the consequences of his actions is a coward
    Hence my claims that he is a cowardly liar stand, but I promised that I would reduce the use of the word liar and I am hopeful that so far I have kept the reduction and the promise and not because I am afraid that my father will block me. If he blocks then he will block except because I agree that too many derogatory words, although they are completely correct in this case, harm the argument.

    3. He slandered atheists while shooting in every direction he told us leftists (well, only in some sects of the left) hate Zionism and none of you answer him. Don't sit still. In my eyes, teenage readers, who do not read a comment, this is considered his victory and should not be given to him, not even one. He clearly didn't hear the link to Bill Maher, who told us that religion is belief in a higher power and atheism is, well, not that. He thinks we have a habit of coming down on other religions and "using the same straw man arguments against other people's religions". According to this sentence, he does not understand what "straw man" means, so I will explain again that an atheist generally asks for evidence. How hard is it to understand? But as soon as the pantheon proudly tells us about his religion when he tries to prove something from it, I will go down on his every claim, with everything I have. It's called freedom of speech.

    4. Later he writes: "I think you are no less moral than religious people and this has nothing to do with religion, but morality regarding our rights on the land of our ancestors is lacking, because you have nothing to do with the tradition of our ancestors on the holy land and you have no connection to this land, apart from that is a place to live and therefore you are dangerous, because those who have no connection to the land, do not feel an obligation to it either and it will not be a problem to give up large parts of it..." Tell me, is this serious? What works in the mind of such a man? What happens when he looks in the mirror? What does he see there? Is he proud of himself? And why are you silent?

    5. Then he continues to lie (sorry with you Alon) and carry out character assassination aimed at living people. He calls Stephen Hawking a creationist (without apparently understanding what the term creationist means!), so for the rest of the readers: Stephen Hawking is not a creationist. From his latest book, The Grand Design, taken from the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)
    Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going
    Again: "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going"
    And so that we don't rely on just one source, here is another link:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator
    Does that sound like creationism? Where did the audacity to write what he wrote come from? What goes through his mind that he writes such things? What does he think, that we will accept his lies without being called to check and investigate?

    The rest of the people brought by miracles are "some spiritual people and some people who hate religion, therefore they are not a judging criterion for me"
    Dirac hates religion? From Wikipedia:
    "Werner Heisenberg [in Physics and Beyond, 1971] recalls a friendly conversation among young participants at the 1927 Solvay Conference, about Einstein and Planck's views on religion. Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg, and Dirac took part in it. Dirac's contribution was a poignant and clear criticism of the political manipulation of religion, which was much appreciated for its lucidity by Bohr, when Heisenberg reported it to him later. Among other things, Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest - and as scientists honesty is our precise duty - we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of ​​God is a product of human imagination. […] I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another. […]” Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli had kept silent, after some initial remarks. But when finally he was asked for his opinion, jokingly he said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet' ". Everybody burst into laughter, including Dirac

    Is this religious hatred? This is a fair description of religion.
    Did Edison hate religion? Addison was a deist and probably believed in Spinoza's God. of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison
    Nature is what we know. We do not know the gods of religions. And nature is not kind, or merciful, or loving. If God made me — the fabled God of the three qualities of which I spoke: mercy, kindness, love — He also made the fish I catch and eat. And where do His mercy, kindness, and love for that fish come in? No; nature made us — nature did it all — not the gods of the religions.
    and also:
    Edison was called an atheist for those remarks, and although he did not allow himself to be drawn into the controversy publicly, he clarified himself in a private letter: "You have misunderstood the whole article, because you jumped to the conclusion that it denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter. All the article states is that it is doubtful in my opinion if our intelligence or soul or whatever one may call it lives hereafter as an entity or disperses back again from whence it came, scattered among the cells of which we are made

    That is, this man, who commits character assassination to whoever he wants (Einstein and Hawking) using quotes whose meaning he did not understand and is not willing to contain on himself (cowardice) and the others (the lucky ones) he simply defines (again with unbearable and unforgivable ease) as a hater of religion or spiritual people and therefore there is no point in referring to their words, simply because he is not capable.

    I also mention that he threatened us by bringing such a huge amount of scientists that it might bring down my father's site and instead he brought a total of 6 scientists, which in light of his previous lies I will not even try to check what they said, because I repeat, who cares what They said on the subject of God. Bring evidence, and not charming sentences, we'll talk

    Since I have proven time and time again that he is knowingly lying (at least until he admits that he made a grave mistake and gets what he expected others to do) I state that this man is dangerous, really dangerous and we must not remain silent in the face of the nonsense he spreads unconsciously.

  150. Correcting a mistake (and apologizing to my father for the mistake)
    For the penultimate post:
    I just now noticed that I wrote "my father's blatant manipulation" when I was obviously referring to the rabbi.
    I apologize to my father for the mistake.

  151. Shmulik,

    I honestly don't understand the point of sending me to read something you haven't read yourself.
    In any case, I was a bit busy in English - and when I switched to the Hebrew entry I found the following passage:
    "However, it is generally agreed that atheism is against agnosticism, according to which it is not possible to decide about the existence of a deity (whether for the reason that it is not possible to decide one way or the other based on empirical observations and results, or for the reason that the question is fundamentally undecidable, and therefore there is no point in dealing with it ), but there are atheists who also define themselves as a type of agnostic (see agnostic atheism). There is almost absolute agreement that atheism is against theism."

    In any case, it is known that the line between agnosticism and weak-atheism is blurred, and it is also known that different cultures use these concepts slightly differently.

    In the end, I don't want to impose definitions on you, just let you know about the conventions.

    The essence is the main thing - and we probably agree on that...

  152. Peace,

    Shmulik, in order for your response to be truly factual, I suggest you listen to Alon's words and filter out derogatory words
    that you often use them against me recently as: liar, weak-minded, coward and more...
    In any case, my father is threatening to block me, but as I imagine on every website that runs a serious forum, there are regulations that warn against the use of profanity and slander of any kind or any other wording of an offensive nature, therefore I do not understand why my father does not draw your attention to this matter.

    And to the point of the matter: once again the main use I made of the subject of Einstein was to show that he was not an atheist as Max Power claimed and I think I proved it directly from the sources.

    I also argued that atheism is a religion and will prove:
    As in religion there are customs also in atheism the following customs:
    To go down on other people's religions, to use the same straw man arguments against other people's religions, to impose the modern value and social standards on people as "what is morally right" and at the same time have the audacity to say that this is "enlightenment and progress as opposed to religion".
    Atheism is long not a lack of belief in the existence of God but simply the negation of theistic religions with an anti-theistic religion that has its own standards.

    Regarding the hatred of Israel, you probably didn't understand what I wrote, below: "Like the repentant natures in their hatred of Israel, only that your hatred is for religion." Distinguish between hatred of Israel and hatred of religion.

    I think you are no less moral than religious people and this has nothing to do with religion, but the morality regarding our rights on the land of our ancestors is lacking, because you have nothing to do with the tradition of our ancestors on the holy land and you have no connection to this land, except that it is a place of residence and therefore you are dangerous, because who who has no connection to the land, nor does he feel an obligation to it, and it would not be a problem to give up large parts of it, even Ben-Gurion, who was known as a complete secularist
    Claim: The Bible... it is our mandate. Our historical right has existed since the beginning of being the Jewish people..."
    And so it was indeed written in the Declaration of Independence: "From this historical and traditional connection, the Jews strove in every generation to return and hold on to their ancient homeland; "

    For miracles: Stephen Hawking is a creationist who openly admits that the universe without a creator is an obscure enigma, as for the rest of the people, some are spiritual and some are people who hate religion, so they are not a judging criterion for me.

    Regarding Francis Crick, he claimed: "An honest person equipped with all the knowledge available to us now, can only say that in a certain sense the origin of life seems at the moment almost like a miracle, so many are the necessary conditions for this to happen"
    So he's probably some kind of unusual atheist

    We will end with a list of creationist scientists according to Shmulik's request:
    Professor David Weiss (doctor and cancer researcher):
    Professor M. cheap:
    Gustav Theodor Fechner (Institute of Psychophysics):
    Professor Smart (Glasgow State Astronomer):
    Professor Immanuel Kant:

    "God exists. Because nature, even in its chaos, cannot but behave in an orderly and correct manner... All creatures are connected by one reason, which is God's wisdom. Therefore, they are unable to draw different results from those that lead to the perception of the perfection of that divine concept itself." (The general theory of nature and the theory of heaven)

    And more and more, I just won't bore you with the details

  153. oak,
    Atheism is atheism, meaning anti-religious God and not anti-deism. I call myself an atheist because I demand evidence, especially for something so powerful, like the claim of the existence of a religious God (and not just any evidence, but extremely strong evidence because the claim is a strong claim)
    Wikipedia has the entry atheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism But let there be no doubt, I did not sit down and read the whole thing (or most of it) and therefore I make it clear that I call myself an atheist who has rejected a religious God due to a lack of evidence.
    I don't understand the agnostic point of view. She is sitting on the fence about such a critical issue that it is easiest to say I don't know. Obviously I don't know but I go one step further and claim that not a single piece of evidence has ever been brought forward for the existence of a religious god, therefore I do not accept the existence of a religious god. That makes me an atheist.

    By the way, we are all atheists as I'm sure every religious Jew will not accept the existence of Thor (despite the Marvel movies), Zeus or the evil Egyptian god I'm just adding another god that I don't accept due to lack of evidence.

    Regarding my excessive use of the SHKR root, you may be right but I am so sick of lying people and it's time to say so. I demand that the liar explain his deliberate distortion and if he explains it with his innocent mistake that will oblige him to fundamentally change his world view since that view is based on the belief of Einstein "the expert on reality" who died about 60 years ago, I will be ready to stop calling him a liar, until then, that's what that he.

    By the way, it would be cool if Dr. Gali Weinstein will tell Selfen a little about the essence of Einstein's faith (if she reads the comments, she is probably on her way to the emergency room)

  154. Dear Mr. "Rabbi" Nachman Mazran
    There are many mistakes in your words.

    First thing - your use of Einstein is pathetic. At your convenience, Einstein is a scientist and an expert in his field. But - only when it's convenient for you. Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Pinker, Arrhenius, Chadwick, Chandskar, Francis Crick, Pierre Curie, De Lambre, De Morgan, Jared Diamond, Dirac, Eddington, Edison, Ehrenfest, Erdish , Freud, Gammow, Hardy and also Higgs (owner of the famous particle) - all experts in science and all ….. wait for it ………all atheists.

    I don't define myself as an atheist - I don't believe in God, Santa Claus, Big Foot or a monster that lives in Loch Ness. I do not believe in all of these because there is not a single piece of evidence for any of them.

    The interesting question is why, after all, so many people believe in a "creator" of some sort. There are several reasons for this - but none of these reasons is because there really is a God... (if anyone is interested...)

  155. Shmulik,
    Although I agree with you, the excessive use of the word "liar" makes your response less factual, and more peevish - and it's a shame, because you have points.

    People are trapped in their worldview.
    It's human. We all interpret reality according to the filters of our worldview.

    The problematic thing is when we are not aware that "this is how we operate".
    Then we tend to interpret the actions of others as being done maliciously.

    In my opinion, despite my father's blatant manipulation - he did not come with bad intentions.
    He thinks he's trying to help us.
    And yes - it is clear that he is brainwashed (so are we - but less so...), but that is exactly why we need to look at him in this light.

    Either they answer him to the point, or decide that there is no point or that this is not the place for such a discussion, and block him, or ignore his words.

    In any case, in terms of your terminology for atheism, as far as I know you have confused atheists with agnostics.
    The "agnostic" point of view says:
    "There may be a God and there may not be, I don't know, and until I have evidence for this or that - I simply don't know." (In fact, the tendency is to add "and jealousy that is not there").
    Atheism, according to my understanding, is a theological position that says:
    "There is no God".

  156. Father, I hope you don't block the man (who only uses a pseudonym, perhaps because he is ashamed that his colleagues at work know his opinions?). While calling against vaccines is dangerous on the immediate level, the distortions and lies are not so dangerous on the immediate level, and they do him a disservice to his friends because he is so bad at what he does and do us a wonderful service because he allows us to present our arguments again.
    where to start

    Let's start with him presenting a quote. Einstein says, according to the quote, that he doesn't know if he is a pantheist, but the Rebbe turns him, without batting an eyelid, into a deist. What do you call a person who knowingly twists quotes? liar. The liar goes even further, because he has an agenda that he doesn't hide, who lies knowingly and it's just disgusting.
    I wonder, why lie? What does it give? Does he think we won't get over the lie? Does he think that by lying he will convince us of something? Does he not understand that the whole purpose of science is to expose the lies?

    Let's continue with what the liar tells us, that Einstein is actually an expert on reality, so who better than him to evaluate reality? In addition to the fact that this is complete nonsense since I do not know a single great physicist who thinks he has the authority to become a guru and command us to believe in God, so let's remind the liar that Einstein is a physicist and physicists live and fall on evidence. True, sometimes they come up with theories still without evidence, but the real test of these theories is in the confrontation with reality. That is, in the presence of evidence that confirms the theory and in the absence of evidence that contradicts the theory. Even if we assume for a second that Einstein was an absolute dus, he never claimed to have any evidence for the existence of God, so I ask again, who cares what he thought? So it turns out that the liar cares. So now the liar is told that, according to the quote he himself brought, Einstein actually wondered if he could define himself as a fantasist. The deist believes in a god who created the universe and the pantheist, on the other hand, makes the claim (which I never fully understood the point of, but that's not the point) that the entire universe is God, the so-called God of Spinoza.

    I mean, the liar, who cares what Einstein thinks, currently has a problem: the liar is trying to recruit us to his group, by winking at us that it is worth being in his group, because Einstein is also there (along with countless other scientists, according to the liar, if he has to write all of them, he will have to open another discussion, but I'm still waiting to see the list). But what was revealed, by a light examination of the quote before us? Einstein thinks the opposite of the liar. Einstein thinks there is no personal god, Einstein thinks the whole universe is God (whatever that means).

    That's what's crazy, will the liar now change his mind? Will the liar try to deal with his argument that because Einstein knew reality so well, it's worth believing him (and remember, the liar owes a rabbi, he can't get along without a rabbi) even now that it turns out that Einstein thinks the opposite of the liar? of course not. Will the liar try to read the link I provided with countless quotes from Einstein against a personal god, against a vengeful god, against a religious god and deal maturely with claims that don't line up with his worldview? of course not. That makes him a cowardly liar. Because he is afraid to confront his worldview with reality. He is afraid of evidence and therefore he lies.

    We will give a brief explanation of the concept of atheism. The liar-coward in the final stage of his post completely disintegrates from logic and discussion culture and shoots in all directions. First he does not understand that there is no such thing as a scientific basis for atheism. Atheism itself is not a worldview but a rejection of claims that are made without evidence. that's it. Want to convince me there is a God, fine. Bring evidence and don't lie. The atheist does not even claim that there is no God who created the world, because it is impossible to disprove such a claim, but he only asks for evidence for a religious God. This request for evidence is considered fanciful by the liar-coward. It's already funny.

    And finally he accuses me and my ilk of hating Israel, of being left-wing, of hating Zionism and this already borders on libel. With the liar-coward, under every sewer, there is a deeper, smellier sewer.

    I really don't understand how he gets frustrated with himself in the mirror

    The Tzadik, great link and here's another one:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQp6GMzGPpU

  157. my father

    If I am not mistaken, more has been written in the science in response to the words of Rabbi Nachman Matzeran and his various friends, than on any other scientific topic that has ever appeared in science.

  158. Rabbi, how do you want his eyes to be opened thanks to your lies?
    Einstein did not believe in the same God as you even if he called him by the same name. He did not in any way believe in the personal God of the Mu'athites and no linguistic tricks would change that. He believed in a metaphorical God at most, but apparently you don't understand what a metaphor is. He explained a concept in terms that people understood, but took the original meaning out of it.
    And besides, unequivocally if you came to reply, block. Just like the child killers who come to convince people not to get vaccinated.
    No one will impose a criminal agenda on the science website.

  159. Max Power,
    Einstein was not an atheist he was a deist (which is something completely different) if you read the quote that Shmulik sent it says:
    I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe

    In the passage he admits that he is not an atheist!
    To Shmulik (one who responded well in the past...)
    Why is it important to refer to Einstein's words,
    Because he is an expert in his field, just like you have a medical problem and you consult a doctor and his opinion is important to you in order to choose the appropriate type of treatment, yes also in matters of science, the opinion of a scientist who has spent his whole life studying our reality and came to the conclusion that nature is not accidental and that there is a source of supreme power and intelligence is important in the processes of nature.
    And all this because he sees more deeply the processes of nature and explores all their complexities.
    But not only is his opinion important, but it is only one of the cornerstones in the journey to discover the Creator, which the Chabatites use
    To return a secular public to repentance, because if they start quoting to them all kinds of Gemara chapters, masks, etc.. it will not work, because they came from a different world and different from all this.
    I know it's outrageous, but Shmulik you and your friends chose the path of atheism, not out of rationality or
    Some kind of scientific way, but the opposite is out of fear and awe of religion as it is perceived in your eyes.
    You have no scientific basis for atheism and therefore you are also in the catapult and are considered a fanatical sect like the narcissists in their hatred for Israel, only that your hatred is for religion. And various sects of leftists who hate Zionism.
    May your eyes be opened and boys return to their limits!!

  160. Hebrew reader, why does it matter what Einstein believed? When a religious person wakes up in the morning, does he get up in a panic until he remembers that Einstein used the word God?

    Beyond that, I didn't understand what quote you were talking about. As for Zeev's, then I can't argue with him here. It is really unfortunate that an abortion is performed and of course it destroys the fetus and creates mental damage of one kind or another to the mother. What's more, I wouldn't want to see boys and girls come in the marriage covenant and bring a baby. By the way, I want to see him pass a law that prohibits sex outside of marriage. In a normal place such a totalitarian bill would have been raised by God's people. With us, Yuk.

    If you are talking about Michaeli's quote, then what is not clear here? After all, this woman is delusional and it is unfortunate that she is still in the Israeli Knesset: "...in the end they become lesbians"? She says it like it's a bad thing

  161. Einstein was an atheist, his statement that God does not play with dice is an empty statement, waving at Einstein as if he believed in God is similar to how the Catholic Church will wave at Galileo who believed that the earth is stationary and the sun moves around it, and as evidence Galileo signed it.

  162. my father

    I have to admit
    that for the majority of humanity it is better to know and believe that they will always be, that there is no shortage and no end to life,
    And something spiritual continues forever, the present life is only a certain stage it is not the end,
    It is more interesting and relevant to discuss this point. Because the rest of the debates and discussions only concern the effects of that belief,
    Maybe we will discover and agree that it is a deep inner need and then we can deal with treating it accordingly.

  163. Einstein believed in God, and the religious also believe in him. But it is not the same God, and certainly not the same type of faith. And you don't have to be a genius like Einstein to understand this.

    But I didn't understand the quotes regarding the damage caused by abortions. Abortions do not cause any physical and mental harm to the woman undergoing them? That sounds pretty illogical to me, given the nature of the action. Are there scientific studies that prove this?

  164. Father, I ask again, who cares what Einstein believed? Why does it matter? Because in 1929 someone defines himself as religious (in a completely different sense from the Chabat, of course), we all have to line up? He read my post, and from everything I wrote he understood that he should look for the quote in English. What wretchedness and mental shallowness on the part of the military, but not terribly unexpected, boring even.

    For a moment I was also tempted to bring counter-citations from the relevant Wikipedia entry, but for what? That would be really pathetic. There are several reasons for doing so, and one of them is not to leave a single stone unturned in my love. A second reason is to prevent character assassination that he commits to a man. The third reason is to expose the ridiculousness of his argument and his duplicity, so that when he looks in the mirror, he will be disgusted with himself.
    After all, he found a quote, which he mistakenly thinks strengthens his opinion, without realizing that he actually needs to look for quotes that refute his opinion in order to strengthen his belief (this is how science progresses, by refuting what was known before). That's part of the fun. The second part that is related to the two-facedness (and also intensifies the ridiculousness) is his complete disregard for the rest of the things the man said, against the opinion of the rabbi.

    So there will be no counter-quotes from me, but only the name of a book and a link, to show that it is not allowed to skirt a discourse like this and that the subject is so much more complex and interesting, in order to save Einstein's honor and to send the pan to do some homework. The name of the book is Einstein's God and the link is: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#section_2

  165. Nonsense. He did not in any way mean that he was religious in the sense that you understand him.
    But it's probably impossible to explain to you what he meant because it's like explaining to a blind man what the color red is.

  166. In 1929, during a dinner party in Berlin, someone* asked Einstein if he was religious. "Yes, you can call it that," Einstein replied. "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind the discernible laws and connections there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent, I am, in fact religious.”

    From a dinner conversation between Einstein and the German critic Alfred Kerr, *recorded by Count Harry Kessler

  167. Shmulik is absolutely right. The misery of the existence of some religious and religious people leads them to cling to every shred of a clue that strengthens them in their false life. This includes distorting, twisting, neutering and performing obscene acts on texts. And we will not begin to detail what obscene acts were committed in the sources of Israel by people of faith and religion. Really deviations. Because, as has already been said, "the paper endures everything and the believer eats everything". and we shall say amen.

  168. Father, it is simply unnecessary to address the nonsense people like him say.
    People like him will misinterpret what they read, because they can, and paper, as we know, tolerates everything.
    They will do this because they are vile and weak-minded.
    Regardless of what was originally said by this or that person, people like him will not even bother to look for the quote in the original language, but will copy/paste from other Mukhbat websites, because they are in a panic, and need a crowd to believe like them.
    People like him need authority because they are unable to sustain a single creative thought in their lives. It is the reference to this authority that exists in theology and philosophy that stops them from moving forward because who cares what someone said who was brought in without proof or evidence? What is said without evidence or proof, can be dismissed without reference.
    What do they think, that because someone threw out a sentence without proof, evidence, supporting testimony, etc., we all have to shut down? With them yes, with us never, and that's why we are better.

    I guess what will happen now is that more people will come up with other counter-quotes from Einstein as proof of the opposite of what the quack said, but for what? Einstein (if I'm not mistaken) divorced his first wife, should I also divorce my wife, just because Einstein did it and he was a genius? Is Einstein a guru? No, of course not, because in science there is no such thing, and it horrifies my fans

  169. Referring to a leading candidate for a place in the Senate from the state of Missouri, he said that the woman's body knows how to recognize if the rape is legitimate or not and block the reproductive system. It seems that a mistake has been made here, it is part of a sentence that was said in the trial of the Honorable Katsav "The woman's body...legitimate rape" which is connected to the honorable senator's words on contraceptives: "Block the..."

  170. to Rabbi It is strange to claim that Einstein believed in God, and passionately defend this nonsense, when the man in question himself did much more than others to push the feet of God out of our lives.
    When the speed of light is constant, and the sun cannot be stopped in Gibeon, and the universe does not stand its ground, what is left for the unhappy God to do? Punish 22 children to death on the Bonim beach because I didn't keep Shabbat? Come on….

  171. Rabbi Nachman: According to your writing style, you are religious. As a religious you are forced to resort to discussion methods that include distortion, castration, half-truths, etc. Rabbi Zamir Cohen made a book out of it. more than one. He also added lies and cheating readers.
    Einstein mentioned the word "God". Any connection between this word and the meaning you claim that Einstein supposedly attributed to it of "builder of the world", is unfounded and drawn from your good religious imagination. But what do I know, those who imagine the existence of an imaginary friend who commanded him and all his people (....!!!!) various and even strange commandments can also imagine various imaginings about Einstein.
    Since Einstein was wise and knew the nature of the religious, he also took the trouble to clarify what he meant by the word "God". He prophesied righteous men of your kind who would use his statements for cheap religious manipulations to promote an anachronistic and primitive worldview.

  172. Rabbi Nachman, you are talking nonsense. He didn't believe in your God. He saw the embodiment of nature as a kind of God but certainly not a personal God who cares if you itch your nose on Shabbat.

  173. To my father, you wrote:
    "70% of humans believe in reincarnation. Even Einstein believed in reincarnation" (Eli Yishai) by the way contrary to explicit things that Einstein said and wrote."

    But Einstein may not have believed in reincarnation but he did believe in God
    In any case, Einstein's deep faith in God
    It was established in his soul already in his youth. On February 1414, 1921, during his visit to the home of the liberal German nobleman, Count Harry Kessler (the distinguished biographer of Walter Count of Ratineau), Einstein told him these bold and significant words: "The deeper you penetrate into the mysteries of nature, the greater your reverence From God" (Kessler in his book "The Diaries of God" 1937-1918" page 242)

    If a person who researched and labored in science all his life came to the conclusion that there is one creator of the world and many other famous scientists there
    In order to mention them here, I would have to open a separate website, so that would be preachy..

  174. You can always copy the address into the appropriate place on the Facebook page. In addition, you must find a Facebook page where all the links appear (there is a link to it on the right).

  175. Again, for the avoidance of doubt - I tend to believe that we have an influence (less than what many claim) and that at the operative level we should follow the strict approach, therefore operatively I think it is important to invest budgets and enact "green" laws.

    I read what is written in the article, and it certainly appears from the words that the position is under attack. But a few points:

    1) It is a bit demagogic to say that climate science is under attack, when in fact a position/interpretation in science is under attack. It is not on the same level as the creationists, because here there is a conflict in the analysis of the data, within a scientific framework. And not a conflict whose essence is metaphysical.

    2) I also agree with most of the claims in the linked article, but at the point where the speaker refers to the claim that there were such increases in the past, his answer is: "But today man is the main force, and this is through increased emissions of greenhouse gases into the air."
    But this is a "logical violation", because he presents as an argument, what he is trying to prove - that is, he assumes that man is the main force, and he assumes that this is also the reason that explains all (/part?) of the warming. And that is what they are trying to prove in the first place.

    And regarding your words:

    3) I don't know why there is a 5-sigma confidence level: because there is a rising trend in temperatures (which I think everyone agrees on), or because the human factor is the factor. I would love to see an article that shows such a level of confidence regarding a certain factor in the increase in temperatures that results directly from human activity. Unfortunately there are so many factors, non-linear processes, and lack of information, that I do not believe there is a study that shows this with such a level of confidence.

    4) As far as I understand, "scientific consensus" is simply the most common position among scientists. And the concept is used mainly when there is a subject that has not been proven unequivocally.

    I have no intention of "bullying", and I have no agenda against the issue of global warming. on the contrary. I want everyone in the camp (of which I am also a part) who understands that something needs to be done about it, to present things in the most scientific way possible.

    What is the purpose? Defend a scientific position, or do something about it?
    Investing energy to defend an (extreme) position is not effective.
    In my opinion, at the level of scientific substantiation, most of what is possible at the level of data isolation, and proving a causal relationship, has been exhausted.
    Most people would agree that based on these, there is reasonable doubt.

    In my opinion, the right thing is to "fortify" the more obvious elements that show that there is feasibility, and invest effort at the legislative level. It is much easier to defend a less speculative position, as well as to show that the remaining opposing positions are unfounded.
    The political level is the one that is suitable for emotional passion, but those on this level, as part of the passion of the battle, present a scientific position as a scientific fact, and by blurring the boundaries between the political and the scientific, try to reap achievements - sinning against science, and in my opinion also against the goal in the end.

  176. Scientific consensus is achieved when the same result is achieved in different ways and with different and independent measuring devices. Global warming has support from dozens of different fields of science, which raises the probability beyond 5 sigma that it is true.
    It is not clear to me why the interpretations of the conservatives should be treated scientifically, when there is no scientific content in them but only attempts to look for loopholes on the other side - just like the creationists who look for loopholes in evolution but do not offer anything concrete instead.
    And as for the attempts to politicize science, please read the content of Prof. Yoav Yair's lecture at a special evening organized by the science site on the subject of threats to science and reason - a cynical and cunning attempt was made by certain sectors to attack climate science.
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/professor-yoav-yair-at-hayadan-event-0711115/

  177. Regarding global warming, this is a consensus born out of a process of positive feedback and the fear of scientists in many cases to be identified with those with interests. There are also other examples. The Hebrew University has Prof. Nir Shabiv and Prof. Yosef Gil, the former a physicist and the latter belongs to a scientific field such as DHA, and both of them claim with absolute certainty that there is no convincing way to link global warming to human influence. The range of error in the predictions on which this estimate is based is simply far too large.
    From my impression so far, this issue is much more controversial among scientists than is 'leaked' to the general public, because for whatever reasons the opposite opinion to the one that puts the responsibility on man is not very popular.

  178. What do you want from the poor man?
    After all, he just adjusted to the fact that "legitimate rape" is so rare that women don't get pregnant from it.

    To differentiate, of course, from "illegitimate rape", from which women get pregnant all the time, for example:
    When the woman dresses naked and the poor man can't resist, when the woman irritates the man so much that he simply has to show her what it is, when the woman passes by on the street and the man doesn't have money to pay the prostitute, when the woman didn't prepare dinner as her husband explained to her, when the woman didn't type the letter of the boss properly, when the woman went shopping at the supermarket late at night and didn't notice that they were waiting for her in the parking lot, when a girl is rude to a guy in a pub, etc.

    Really, it's hard to understand what all the fuss is about...

  179. Scientific consensus is not scientific fact. In things that are deduced indirectly, a great deal of confidence is required.
    For example, sigma-5 to say with sufficient confidence that there is a Higgs boson particle, or a particle with similar properties to the boson. Even before that there was a scientific consensus for its existence, and in my opinion for more well-founded reasons than the consensus for global warming. But it was customary to treat those with other interpretations/theories with much more respect.

    In the field of global warming there is much more mixed emotion, perhaps because the feeling that this issue has a direct effect on our lives, but in my opinion the scientific aspect should be separated from the political/political aspect.
    I am also one of those people who think that the possibility that we do have an impact on the climate is reasonable enough - so the logical thing to ensure our long-term existence is to act immediately. But that's the same reason I buy insurance.
    But I do not treat any interpretation as a fact, and in my opinion the criticism against conservatives should be on the political level. Their interpretations should be treated scientifically.

    (And if the studies are biased, this is a completely different problem that does need treatment - just like all biased medical studies - that defile the field of medicine)

  180. These beliefs, even though there is a great distance between them and a good picture of reality, endure, are successfully passed from generation to generation and develop and prosper. What is the secret of their power?

  181. Because global warming is the scientific consensus, and the opposing arguments come from vested interests - mainly oil gods who also have the money to buy scientists and therefore should be treated with suspicion. Fact - Science and Nature, like me, take an unequivocal position.

  182. I agree with almost everything, just why this need to "gain more ground" - why mix elements that we know where the mistake is, with a field that is scientifically controversial... The whole issue of global warming and climate change as a direct result of human activity starting with the industrial revolution is not clear-cut .
    I have no opinion on this subject, but I have noticed that many scientific-liberal people tend to look at this subject somewhat in the same way that religious people accept the words of their faith: they tend to justify their faith, and interpret everything that relates to the subject from a point of view that already assumes that it is right, and thus feel that there is Reinforcement for their interpretation of reality, and whoever does not see things as they do is ignorant...

  183. My father, this is not stupidity, this is faith, which is likened to a virus - the cause, and religion, which is likened to a disease - the result.
    It is very possible that this is a smart and intelligent person. We know enough examples of religious people who are the complete opposite of stupid and ignorant. They are just, well, religious. and believe It is stronger than them and overcomes them. This is the way of faith to turn reason into a slave that satisfies all the whims of faith and man, man and his beliefs, whatever they may be: from religions, to semi-religious ideologies such as communism and fascism, to beliefs in astrology, extraterrestrials, and the multitude of New Age beliefs.
    Faith belongs to the emotional side of a person and the mental side of a personality. It is not related to the intellectual-intelligent side. In order to truly understand the people of faith, and some call them "delusions of faith", it is necessary to examine and find out well the mental-emotional aspect of the person. This is the ultimate explanation of how it is that people fall into the scourges of faith and the disasters of religion. This is the only thing that explains how an ignorant, ignorant, poor and stupid crowd follows superstitions (every belief is superstitious. Because it is a belief) just like smart, educated and very serious people in individual cases.
    It is not the intellect or reason or education. This is the belief that originates from emotion and soul. Therefore, the treatment and the cure will not come - usually and usually - through rational, logical, intelligent persuasion but through psychology.

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
Search