Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by SuperWatto, Feb 27, 2013.
Variation on the common quote:
Kimball, I am only responding to things you write.
Of course not everything in science is provable. But they are experimentally verifiable. And better than a "best guess." However, you'll note that scientists make sure to let everyone know of the uncertainties, and DO NOT claim to be sure when they are only speculating. What timmoishere is saying that the claims made by religious authorities do not even come close to such a rigor. He should have used better terminology, but that's between you and him, not you and me.
I always thought that that quote was stupid.
I've never heard the first part of that quote, but I do really like the second part. I think it makes a very good point.
So who were atheist Jews chosen by?
Except you aren't responding to what I wrote, because you keep trying to go beyond what I actually said.
Again, the context of my comments matters, and that was that it was in response to
@timmoishere saying that "The only things worth believing in are those which can be proven." You took my response to that (where I was trying to demonstrate that there are many areas of knowledge, even within science, that can't be prove) and kept trying to extend it beyond the scope of what I was actually responding to. I provided specific counterexamples to show that his assertion was wrong. That's it.
I never made any sort of sweeping statement about "all of science". That was all your interjection into what I said. And, of course, when I tried to clarify, you kept trying to force a different context and meaning onto what I said.
@timmoishere wants to clarify what he really meant, then he is free to do so. He didn't limit his statement in any way to only religious subjects, though. It's not exactly your place to try and speak for him about what he "really" meant. He is quite capable of speaking for himself.
I do somewhat agree with Kimball here. When it comes to things like history (and he didn't say everything, just much of the knowledge), we don't have a way to test that. That said, I do think that there is a point where a statement gets grandiose enough that it shouldn't go further without evidence, and certainly, if there are ways to address a question with evidence, and ways without evidence, I think the former is the stronger.
That's incorrect. And it's the key part of this whole thing. The statement does acknowledge a wide variety of opinions. But this range is not unlimited. The statement is explicit about that point. It declines to endorse atheism, which would be the "completely" allegorical interpretation you want to favor. In fact, it defines it's own most extreme pole in the following fashion.
This is not saying that God does not exist. It is not saying that God is only an allegory for Jewish culture. It suggests that God, while a part of the physical universe, is perhaps not a thinking being, but more a power or principle of the universe, like karma. As if this weren't clear enough, they make explicit reference to the opinion of Jewish mystics. Who were not atheist. For you to therefore interpret this as atheism, when it doesn't match the examples of historically similar lines of thought, doesn't fit with the given description, and flatly contradicts the statement that belief in a God of some kind is critical is an unsustainable position. You are pretty deeply warping the position of Conservative Judaism to find some justification for your atheists friends.
They think they're religious. Fine. Let them. I don't particularly care what they think of themselves, nor did anyone challenge their right to self-assess. We've simply acknowledged that their position is not, in fact, "accepted" by the governing bodies of Judaism. It is heretical. That's all it can or ever will be.
By your own logic, it would stop being heretical if the Conservative Jews decided it was fine to not believe in Yahweh...
So Jabbad and his friends just need to start infiltrating theological centers of power, like liberals do in the Catholic Church.
Yes, EBB, that's correct. I'm not trying to pass judgment on the Jewish religion. It's not my place to tell them what they should and should not believe. I'm simply depending on their own statements about their beliefs to be truthful. If they say that, to them, atheism is heresy, then we should agree that to anyone supposing his or herself to be a Conservative Jew, it is heretical. Whereas the other Jabba seems to want their whole religion governed based off what his personal acquaintances think is cool.