tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-374945593972878840.post2088936306057178729..comments2023-09-22T06:24:01.470-04:00Comments on Libertarian Jew: Is Monotheism a Sign of Mental Retardation or Intellectual Superiority?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-374945593972878840.post-59540668180907456402010-03-01T00:39:26.488-05:002010-03-01T00:39:26.488-05:00Yeah, I blame this on me skipping the paragraph af...Yeah, I blame this on me skipping the paragraph after the France business where you talk about the difference. Also, thanks for ruining the Matrix (just kidding).<br /><br />Along with the Finite/Infinite issue, I tend to think of Christianity in terms of Buddhism or Islam - therefore Jesus is the main prophet and founder, so I don't have to argue with people all day. I offended my 7th grade history teacher when asked the difference between the three Western faiths and I said belief in one G-d, instead of her desired answer of "views on Jesus". So I keep out of those arguments for my own sake.<br /><br />Historically, I think the Demi-god/Herculean thing made it easier for former Pagans to convert in the Roman empire because it was a familiar trope. So for mass conversion's sake, it was a brilliant business maneuver. For making sense to people who were already Jews, not so much. I feel that this frustration is where much of early Middle Ages to Renaissance Christian Anti-Judaism stems from, ie "Why won't they just convert and see the light like everyone else?" Same with Muslims in the 6th century. What they fail to grasp is that selling a monotheistic/Abrahamic faith to the founders of the original is a hard sell and using Pagan tactics/tropes isn't going to help your case. <br /><br />Because the other two Abrahamic faiths have rockin' head honchos, people get confused about Judaism. I've had many people ask me about praying to Moses and stuff like that, and I have to tell them that's not how the game is played. This all reminds me of the scene from The Hebrew Hammer where the school's single Jewish kid walks down the street during Christmas and a store has a sign saying "Monotheists Need Not Apply". I was amused - over a billion others are not, and so it goes :)Beckyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11554485977271811174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-374945593972878840.post-8925556328775209642010-02-28T22:19:02.295-05:002010-02-28T22:19:02.295-05:00Becky, I hope you had a freilichin Purim!
I think...Becky, I hope you had a freilichin Purim!<br /><br />I think the main issue is your interchangeability between “all reasonable doubt” and “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” When referring to “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” it goes a step further by encompassing unreasonable doubt. Going to the France example: let’s say somebody opines that France is a mythical conspiracy created by cartographers. Obviously, the possibility of this argument having any credence is as close to nil as one can get. However, one could create unreasonable doubt in the process because theoretically, even though you’re sitting there with a bunch of strong evidence proving France’s existence to the point where the odds of you being correct is 99.99999999999999999999999%, there is still a small possibility (albeit miniscule to the extreme) that this quack is right. After all, philosophers have even put our very own human existence into question—so why not that of a nation-state? The fact that an iota of unreasonable doubt about anything or anyone can be created means that “beyond a shadow of a doubt” is not realistic. <br /><br />Unreasonable doubt doesn’t dictate most people’s lives, which is why we ignore it. Although there is an infinitesimally small possibility that one’s house can collapse without a cause, one’s medicine can actually kill somebody, the movie “The Matrix” was right about the fact that we’re in a simulated reality while being hooked up to machines that channel our body heat as an energy source for sentient machines, we do not base our lives on such idiotic improbabilities to the point where we become ultra-paranoid about such nonsense. This is why Holocaust deniers or 9-11 Truthers have no credibility. Not only can these people not create any reasonable positive evidence, the reasonable positive evidence overwhelmingly disproves their theories, thereby satisfying the standard of “beyond all reasonable doubt,” which is more than sufficient to base conjectures and postulations. <br /><br />The same can go for my argument. You can have some philosopher who tries to argue that G-d is subject to the laws of nature, and he can go through intellectual acrobatics to prove it. I’m sure that in order to create the unreasonable doubt, he would have to argue that G-d is finite. The issue here is that aforementioned infinite being is G-d, which means his argument is logically invalid because he is applying finitude to an infinite being. Could he still create unreasonable doubt? Yes, he can, especially since so many people erroneously equate Jesus (a man, aka a finite being) with G-d (an infinite being). You can even have the Christians jump in and argue [unreasonably, of course] that Jesus was both man and g-d, even though a being cannot simultaneously be finite and infinite. As long as unreasonable doubt exists, you can never prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. But there is plenty that you can prove beyond all reasonable doubt……Libertarian Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07063486300815461137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-374945593972878840.post-28164114047858277012010-02-27T18:27:08.932-05:002010-02-27T18:27:08.932-05:00I find some fault in your theory that people don&#...I find some fault in your theory that people don't use "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in their daily lives. Yes, there is a minimal chance that your wife could poison you or a bypass surgery goes haywire, but the question of France existing rubs me the wrong way. There is so much irrefutable evidence of its existence that puts it beyond a shadow of a doubt. To argue otherwise reminds me of Holocaust deniers - there is so much empirical data, aka proof, that to argue that the Holocaust is a lie is the very height of anti-intellectualism, and worse yet, anti-common sense. Survivor testimony, photographs, Nazi home movies, Allies' liberation footage, and perpetrator confessions are enough to lead to "beyond a shadow of a doubt". If you agree with this, then you must agree that France's existence is also irrefutable because its evidence is similar: people that have visited, postcards stamped with "Paris", movies made in France, live news footage in France, etc. Also the cultural legacy of both, but I will take France as the prime example: French food, music, movies, language...<br /><br />Not really arguing whether or not atheism or monotheism is wrong or right (I personally am a monotheist), but there definitely are some things that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Religion is not one of them, obviously, but France is -- I think Atlantis or Pizarro's El Dorado would have been a better example for you to use for geographical areas that can't be proven to not exist beyond a shadow of a doubt. <br /><br />I'd be interested in your thoughts.<br /><br />BTW, Comment removed to add this: Regardless of debate, Happy Purim!Beckyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11554485977271811174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-374945593972878840.post-91621957170481386072010-02-27T18:00:55.370-05:002010-02-27T18:00:55.370-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Beckyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11554485977271811174noreply@blogger.com