Jews are followers of Judaism only

A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Jews are followers of Judaism only

The last time I raised this issue some insisted to me that Jews were an ethnic group. Despite numerous obvious examples of why they were not they got all huffy about it and continued to insist.

Today I find confirmation of my position from an unexpected source, the Supreme Court of Israel.

Haaretz

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1106971.html

Wed., August 12, 2009 Av 22, 5769 | Israel Time: 02:12 (EST+7)

Removing hypocrisy

By Edna Ullmann-Margalit

The High Court justices made some emphatic statements last Thursday when
they issued a precedent-setting ruling banning the segregation of Ashkenazi
and Sephardi girls at the Beit Ya'akov Girls' School in Emmanuel. The right
to a separate education based on ethnic affiliation is not an absolute right
when it clashes with the right to equality, the judges ruled.

The url works if you want to confirm the rest of the article says nothing different.

Seems like there is a "near absolute" right in Israel (one presumes it is in law) to a separate education based upon ethnic affiliation and the courts do recognize it.

Note in this case both ethnic groups are considered to both jewish and Israeli.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Ok, but that still doesn't

Ok, but that still doesn't explain the fact that jews, no matter where they live, tend to have vastly different cultural traditions than other people in their community. Many jews also don't seem to have any problem with holding differing beliefs that are radically different from what the religion itself teaches and are many times incommpatible with traditional beliefs.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Stosis wrote:
Ok, but that still doesn't explain the fact that jews, no matter where they live, tend to have vastly different cultural traditions than other people in their community.

What is based upon the religion is expected to be different as a Jew is a follower of Judaism. Calling a German potato pancake Latke does not make it other than a German dish. What did you have in mind?

Stosis wrote:
Many jews also don't seem to have any problem with holding differing beliefs that are radically different from what the religion itself teaches and are many times incommpatible with traditional beliefs.

Judaism is a ritual/taboo system which barely passes muster as a religion these days. Beliefs are not specified in the religion nor are any required. Only the observance of rituals and avoidance of taboos is required to be follower of Judaism. There is no basis in the Law to require anything else regardless of ones beliefs.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Stosis

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Stosis wrote:
Ok, but that still doesn't explain the fact that jews, no matter where they live, tend to have vastly different cultural traditions than other people in their community.

What is based upon the religion is expected to be different as a Jew is a follower of Judaism. Calling a German potato pancake Latke does not make it other than a German dish. What did you have in mind?

They have their own holidays, languages, country, history (both psuedo-history from the torah and their own history after that) and this is all off the top of my head. Why do you only bring this up when it comes to Jews. Are Germans only people who live in Germany? What about all the Germans living abroad? What about the ones who were born in other countries but still identify with the German people, despite not having citizenship in the country or one of their parents being a non-German?


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Stosis wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Stosis wrote:
Ok, but that still doesn't explain the fact that jews, no matter where they live, tend to have vastly different cultural traditions than other people in their community.
What is based upon the religion is expected to be different as a Jew is a follower of Judaism. Calling a German potato pancake Latke does not make it other than a German dish. What did you have in mind?
They have their own holidays, languages, country, history (both psuedo-history from the torah and their own history after that) and this is all off the top of my head. Why do you only bring this up when it comes to Jews. Are Germans only people who live in Germany? What about all the Germans living abroad? What about the ones who were born in other countries but still identify with the German people, despite not having citizenship in the country or one of their parents being a non-German?

The holidays celebrate the death of enemies but are of religious origin.

Yiddish is a  German dialect with some Hebrew thrown in. Ladino was similar for Spanish so there are no unique languages. Hebrew was limited to the Masoretic until it was turned into a working language by the Zionists and the Masoretic is the religion. So there were no unique languages.

There is no such thing as having one's own history unless it is totally fictitious like the OT which is again religious. It is all shared history with special emphasis.

What people choose to identify with is their choice but it is nothing beyond that. I have no problem with an atheist declaring himself a Jew nor with anyone declaring themself to be Napolean. I give them equally serious consideration. I have read of several people who still identify with their brethern space aliens. They also get equally serious consideration.

However I did intend this post the be a singular refutation of the claim that Jews are an ethnic group. I have not claimed I am write because of the Israeli Supreme Court. I have only pointed out they agree with my position.

The basic problem here is atheist ex-Jews who do not have the balls to assume the full consequences of atheism. An atheist Jew is as oxymoronic as an atheist Christian.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Your obsession with things

Your obsession with things Jewish is remarkable.

 

Have you noticed how you rarely draw concusions from your (many) critical observations about Judaism which can be applied to theistic belief in general, or that you even attempt to do so? It kinda makes me think that perhaps your beef with Jews has little or nothing to do with your professed atheism.

 

What is it actually based on?

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ok, seriously. Definitions

Ok, seriously. Definitions of ethnic group:
"An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed."

In other words, even if they make it all up, as long as there are actual identifiable groups of like minded divisions or singular concepts, jews fit the definition of an ethnic group simply because they claim it. Technically, everyone can qualify to be part of one if they want to, even if it's believing in the Force.

"ethnicity - an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties; "ethnicity has a strong influence on community status relations"

They have created a culture, and regardless of its validity, it fits the actual definition of the term. Hardcore Trekky groups could claim the same. Some jews do try to link all jews as one ethnic group, and that is not true. But that doesn't stop jews from being part of ethnic groups.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Obsession? It is an American thing.

Nordmann wrote:
Your obsession with things Jewish is remarkable.
In the US Israel is covered more than any state the nation is covered. It gets more coverage than any other nation in the world gets covered. If I were hearing such nonsense in such quantities about any other state of the US or nation of the world I would likely give it the same attention.


Nordmann wrote:
Have you noticed how you rarely draw concusions from your (many) critical observations about Judaism which can be applied to theistic belief in general, or that you even attempt to do so? It kinda makes me think that perhaps your beef with Jews has little or nothing to do with your professed atheism.

What is it actually based on?

As there are no Jews posting in this forum I continually wonder why the negative replies.

I have explained that in Strike the root. Clearly taking down Judaism takes down both Christianity and Islam at the same time,

It does appear to be of interest to many here as I was temporarily banned for misquotation of material I did post on this subject. So I have to ask why, when I posted this to address the issue of ethnic group which was a loose end from a discussion months ago, there is such a "got something about Jews" issue. Clearly I have nothing against followers of Judaism any more than any other atheist. But I am talking about Jews not about atheists who cannot possibly be Jews.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
Ok, seriously. Definitions of ethnic group: "An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed."

Heritage is not religion. Religion is not heritage. I regular state it as having nothing in common except the religion. I do agree followers of Judaism are Jews.

As for the definition itself, it is obviously not the one used by Israel's Supreme Court.

Vastet wrote:
In other words, even if they make it all up, as long as there are actual identifiable groups of like minded divisions or singular concepts, jews fit the definition of an ethnic group simply because they claim it. Technically, everyone can qualify to be part of one if they want to, even if it's believing in the Force.

The force of course is being pushed as a religion in several countries but not as an ethnic group of "forcers" or some such.

But once we get to saying a person can be whatever one claims that is using poor formulation to assert reality. I am reminded of the fight scene in the Jerk when Navin Johnson declares he is a nigger. One can claim anything. The claim does not make a fact.

In this case, certainly anyone can claim to be a member of the Mosaic confession or to be a follower of judaism and if one is in fact as claimed then it is simply a declaration of the the correct label. But if one is not of the confession or a follower then one cannot be a Jew. Jew has only one meaning and that relates to the practice of the religion.

In this case ethnic group has a meaning which does not apply to Jews. Words have meanings. They cannot be arbitrarily used. In this case we see those who are presumably among the greatest legal minds in Israel do understand the meaning of ethnic group.

Vastet wrote:
"ethnicity - an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties; "ethnicity has a strong influence on community status relations" They have created a culture, and regardless of its validity, it fits the actual definition of the term. Hardcore Trekky groups could claim the same.

It is ridiculous to declare Jews are a race and a rather absurd throwback to 1930s Germany. I sort of thought that idea was long dead and rightly so. As to culture, there is clearly no common culture and after literally dozens of times over many years requesting people who make such a claim to identify the culture which applies to all Jews independent of religion I am still waiting for an answer. You may be the first to do so. Do not let me discourage you from trying.

Vastet wrote:
Some jews do try to link all jews as one ethnic group, and that is not true. But that doesn't stop jews from being part of ethnic groups.

As to followers of Judaism being of different ethnic groups that is what I have said. As they are of different groups then Jews cannot be an (singular) ethnic group. But that still leaves the only thing connecting Jews is the religion. As atheists have no religion and recognize no religion they cannot claim to be Jews.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Seriously, if you think

Seriously, if you think taking out the jews takes down christianity and moslems as well, you are quite delusional. Such an act would STRENGTHEN the christians and moslems, not harm them. That's why most people here frown upon attacking only one religion. Even if you win, you've just strengthened your other opponents that you didn't even credit as a threat.

Your arguments didn't counter my points, so there's nothing else to say.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
Seriously, if you think taking out the jews takes down christianity and moslems as well, you are quite delusional.

While I do have an ultimate cynicism in the ability of reason to triumph over idiocy I have presented this as the least effort and most productive approach. If any participant here thinks atheism will ever "win" by any action of ourselves or our "cousins" they are pissing up a rope. Darwin did not break the hold of religion. Ben Franklin did. We await another invention of the lightning rod variety.

Vastet wrote:
Such an act would STRENGTHEN the christians and moslems, not harm them. That's why most people here frown upon attacking only one religion. Even if you win, you've just strengthened your other opponents that you didn't even credit as a threat.

You present a hypothetical regarding the elimination of Judaism. It is factual that Islam's ability to discredit Christianity spread Islam and vice versa.

If we attack any religion from your position we assume a fatalism that atheism can only result in people changing religions not abandoning religions and hopefully theism entirely. If we accept that fatalism we are little more than a support group. And from some posts I think many consider it that.

Discredit Judaism and Christianity's God the Son loses a father and no god to begat the Jesus character. Discredit Judaism and the was no angel of that god to inspire Mohamed and then no Allah. This presupposes Christians and Muslims do in fact know and understand the basis for their religions. This is a false assumption regarding 95%+ of their professed members. Perhaps higher. I am guessing based upon similar surveys of citizens of all countries knowing the elementary facts of their governments.

So we are here just jerking off or maybe we can decide on a goal and then find a productive path towards it.

I can go further if you like and preferably if you do not like.

It isn't as if you can pretend to be a deaf, dumb, blind half wit and miss all the Ashkenazi surnames involved in legal actions regarding religion in the US. It does take a little reading to find those organizations such as the ADL and the ACLU have not only been behind all the efforts to purge anything vaguely related to Christianity from public life but have also Judaism in public life. Menorah displays where Manger scenes are prohibited and in favor of supporting Jewish schools with public funds such as Kyryat Joel in New York a few years ago.

What is sauce for the goose is the perfect basting material for the gander.

I have no problem reciting such things here as there are no Jews here.

I also realize how hard you are trying to find a way to attack me that does not force you to admit you consider yourself a Jew instead of an atheist. It drips.

Vastet wrote:
Your arguments didn't counter my points, so there's nothing else to say.

As to countering your points, I presented not a single argument. I recited facts. I did in fact invite you to present facts which are contrary to what I presented. I have done that before. I have done that again here.

I still see no contrary examples.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You're totally missing the

You're totally missing the point. Attacking only the religion itself instead of its causes is where your strategy falls on its face. Indeed, your own comment "can only result in people changing religions not abandoning religions and hopefully theism entirely" applies to your position, not mine. I find the perfect metaphor in: You give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats the rest of his life. Teach a person why ALL religion is bad, you have an atheist, or at least an agnostic. Teach a person that A religion is wrong, and they'll just join another religion, and you're back to square one.

Attacking judaism above and beyond any other is literally counter-productive. And worse, gives you the appearance of hate monger, not a rational atheist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Yiddish

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Yiddish is a  German dialect with some Hebrew thrown in.

No, that is just plain wrong and you know it, too.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
I have read through this

I have read through this thread and I have no idea what it's about. Is it me? Or is this totally inconsequential?

You can't talk about Jewish etnicity in the context of Israeli supreme court, without first establishing that Israel is not representative of Jews in general. It is a unique construct, both a country and a military instalation, constantly fighting. It's economy rests on exporting "security" solutions and wars. It's tourism industry is based on high tech defense demonstrations for foreign corporation representatives - the only tourists are there to browse surveilance, weapons and military training industry, like a Wal-Mart of death. It is literally the only country in the world supporting every violent US act and issuing scorn for even the most modest peaceful approach. Israel's business at the moment is war. It is the only country in the universe whose economy starts booming the moment they engage in military violence.

Contrary to Israeli opinion, US jews opposed the war in Iraq in far greater percentages than US citizens, both before the war and all the way to today. Why? Because of the again emerging shadow of dual loyalty that can potentially limit their personal interest in the US. The accusation, of course, is nonsese. Just like any other ethnical group Jews have only one allegiance: each man to his own interest. But the accusation of dual loyalty can be a very real threat in a country where you can be isolated and harrased for not being patriotic enough. While it was popular to support Israel, some US jews were the self-appointed Zionist champions, not because they believed in anything in particular, they were really liking the Super-American status and cashing in on it. Today it's different.

What Israeli supreme court says has no bearing on whether Jews are an ethical entity. Indeed, what Israeli supreme court says should have little bearing on anything at all, other than material evidence in a new set of Nuremberg trials; featuring US leadership as main defendants.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:I have read

ZuS wrote:
I have read through this thread and I have no idea what it's about. Is it me? Or is this totally inconsequential?

You can't talk about Jewish etnicity in the context of Israeli supreme court, without first establishing that Israel is not representative of Jews in general.

You have it exactly right and it is as I said in the beginning and again explained later. I have expressed my position that Jews are not an ethnic group. People disagreed. I simply posted an article on people who agree with my position. That it happens to be the Supreme Court of Israel is merely icing on the cakes.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Stosis wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

Stosis wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Yiddish is a  German dialect with some Hebrew thrown in.

No, that is just plain wrong and you know it, too.

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away a man was telling me how unique was Yiddish and was giving me examples. I responded to his examples showing I understood what his examples meant before he told me what they meant. He was surprised and asked where I had learned Yiddish. I told him he was speaking German. He refused to talk about Yiddish ever again.

That was some 20 years ago. Since then I have looked into the subject and found quotes from Jews saying it was important to go to German universities and learn proper German instead of "this gutter dialect" we speak. I did not find it in the original but in the translation so I do not know the word the translator chose gutter to represent.

In fact since the gutter dialect of German issue was made there have been inventions of it being an "old" dialect of German and some have been so bold to date it to the 17th c. without a lick of evidence.

If you have evidence of something else please let me know. "Unfortunately the physical evidence was lost" exposes the claimant as a bullshit artist.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You're totally

Vastet wrote:
You're totally missing the point. Attacking only the religion itself instead of its causes is where your strategy falls on its face. Indeed, your own comment "can only result in people changing religions not abandoning religions and hopefully theism entirely" applies to your position, not mine. I find the perfect metaphor in: You give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats the rest of his life. Teach a person why ALL religion is bad, you have an atheist, or at least an agnostic. Teach a person that A religion is wrong, and they'll just join another religion, and you're back to square one. Attacking judaism above and beyond any other is literally counter-productive. And worse, gives you the appearance of hate monger, not a rational atheist.

Everyone has their own strategy. Everyone has always had their own strategy which can be traced back centuries if not millenia. As NONE have succeeded there is no way to discriminate among strategies.

Rather consider the internet GOOD. All strategies can be pursued at the same time. There need not be organized movements -- the Dawkins fallacy.

It also seems perfectly rational to give the religionists as many fronts as possible to defend at one time. It makes no sense to exclude any particular form of attack.

And there is absolutely no excuse for not using the nonsense of Judaism as one of the attack strategies.

If we have Jews declaring they are atheists, good. If we can tear them away from claiming they are still "jews" we lower the risk of relapse and of their children "reclaiming their heritage" and crap like that.

All religions undergo extinction events eventually. According to one tradition Judaism dodged a bullet during WWII. So what if it had not? Who mourns Adonis?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You assume a strategy can

You assume a strategy can win in one fell swoop. Only one can: Extinction. Assuming that because strategies have not brought ultimate victory overnight means they are uneffective or less effective than others neither wins you the battle nor the war.

There is similarly only one strategy that will lose the war, and that is a strategy of alienating the casual theist, doing so by concentrating on one of the weakest of our enemies. Compared to moslems, christians, and even scientologists, the jews are nothing.

Except they have the sympathy vote. People of all walks of life will defend jews, not for their religion and culture, but to prevent a recurrence of the holocaust. The jews are totally invulnerable to your tactics. Hitler gave them a defence that your strategy cannot harm. They don't even have to lift a finger against your strategy. Everyone else will do it for them.

All effective strategies should be used. Yours doesn't qualify.

And WWII didn't come close to wiping them out. Not even remotely.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Stosis

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Stosis wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Yiddish is a  German dialect with some Hebrew thrown in.

No, that is just plain wrong and you know it, too.

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away a man was telling me how unique was Yiddish and was giving me examples. I responded to his examples showing I understood what his examples meant before he told me what they meant. He was surprised and asked where I had learned Yiddish. I told him he was speaking German. He refused to talk about Yiddish ever again.

That was some 20 years ago. Since then I have looked into the subject and found quotes from Jews saying it was important to go to German universities and learn proper German instead of "this gutter dialect" we speak. I did not find it in the original but in the translation so I do not know the word the translator chose gutter to represent.

In fact since the gutter dialect of German issue was made there have been inventions of it being an "old" dialect of German and some have been so bold to date it to the 17th c. without a lick of evidence.

If you have evidence of something else please let me know. "Unfortunately the physical evidence was lost" exposes the claimant as a bullshit artist.

How can the physical evidence be lost? Yiddish is a living language, all the evidence that is needed is right there. Now tell me, do you oppose the fact that Dutch, along with many others in the dialectic continuum that strechted accross most of central Europe, is classifed as a separate language from German?


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Vastet

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You're totally missing the point. Attacking only the religion itself instead of its causes is where your strategy falls on its face. Indeed, your own comment "can only result in people changing religions not abandoning religions and hopefully theism entirely" applies to your position, not mine. I find the perfect metaphor in: You give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats the rest of his life. Teach a person why ALL religion is bad, you have an atheist, or at least an agnostic. Teach a person that A religion is wrong, and they'll just join another religion, and you're back to square one. Attacking judaism above and beyond any other is literally counter-productive. And worse, gives you the appearance of hate monger, not a rational atheist.

Everyone has their own strategy. Everyone has always had their own strategy which can be traced back centuries if not millenia. As NONE have succeeded there is no way to discriminate among strategies.

Rather consider the internet GOOD. All strategies can be pursued at the same time. There need not be organized movements -- the Dawkins fallacy.

It also seems perfectly rational to give the religionists as many fronts as possible to defend at one time. It makes no sense to exclude any particular form of attack.

And there is absolutely no excuse for not using the nonsense of Judaism as one of the attack strategies.

If we have Jews declaring they are atheists, good. If we can tear them away from claiming they are still "jews" we lower the risk of relapse and of their children "reclaiming their heritage" and crap like that.

All religions undergo extinction events eventually. According to one tradition Judaism dodged a bullet during WWII. So what if it had not? Who mourns Adonis?

I can see some sense in what both of you are saying.

Vastet: you are right that focusing on a single aspect can be damaging in this context.

Mouse: you are right that multiple approaches can be beneficial, if you are trying to reach a broader segment of the public by aligning with their concept of reality and their concerns.

Your arguments compliment each other as well.

As Vastet says, multiple approach can be problematic, because demagogues don't care for argumentation, but really defend themselves by confusing the discussion and never discussing anything with any meaning, so multiple approach works well for them here - we don't want that. However, Vastet proposes multiple approach himself, without knowing it. He proposes unification of arguments against all single religions to an argument against all religions, which opens up a new approach: argument against all misconception. Notice that this also includes misconceptions generated by science, just like any other single way of thinking: famili first, liberty vs rights, liberal vs conservative, yes even the concept of duality of any argument - why the hell did I just list everything in pairs?? These certainly do not appear in reality as any real individual positions, which means that my own understanding contains misconceptions.

At the same time, Mouse argues that we should attack on all fronts, which really argues for both his and Vastets position. As long as he agrees with Vastet's argument, he must agree that "any" strategy is not just as good as any other - Vastet's position can lead to realisation that misconception is the problem rather than religion and agreeing with this means that one must review one's own positions and approach continuously, often from the perspective of a unified whole. In short - "who mourns Adonis" type arguments, while very useful in creating some perspective in practical discussion, have other aspects to them as well. One of these aspects is deeply anti-human and in my opinion destructive: no one alive today was alive to experience Adonis' social phenomenon and equating it to religions of today disregards the current social experience as a factor that should be considered.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
I just read my own post

I just read my own post above and was like.. wtf. I am stupid. How liberating.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Since your second post was

Since your second post was inspecific, and your first made an error based on my posts, I will clarify for any others who may be conused or have read into my posts incorrectly.

I have said it before, but it was long ago. Probably the posts I said it in are too buried to have been read in ages:
Multiple strategies are needed to win the war. From nice people to pricks, from intellect to trolling, and from emotion to logic.
But one must recognise that some events are SO emotionally charged as to leave a subject incapable of being discussed without automatically shutting the audience out, from all sides of the equation. Only time can heal such wounds to such a degree that they can be rationally discussed. The holocaust is the single most emotionally charged topic of our species today, and for the last 50+ years. Attacking the jews, and only the jews, is literally the dumbest angle one could possibly choose today. Even if everything you say is right, you're still automatically wrong simply because you're

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
targetting the most

targetting the most celebrated victims in history. Whether for, against, or make believe, everyone has an opinion on the holocaust.
The vast majority are very passionately against, and won't tolerate discussions so obviously similar to those raised by Hitler. The few who are on the other sides will support anything anti-jewish, so reaching them is disgustingly easy, and completely pointless.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:targetting the

Vastet wrote:
targetting the most celebrated victims in history. Whether for, against, or make believe, everyone has an opinion on the holocaust. The vast majority are very passionately against, and won't tolerate discussions so obviously similar to those raised by Hitler. The few who are on the other sides will support anything anti-jewish, so reaching them is disgustingly easy, and completely pointless.

Attacking Jews is idiotic, but the reason you cite stems from a false assumption - that the religion is the root problem. I think you both are not seeing forest for the trees when you aim at religion instead the power interest that is clearly behind it. Yes, attacking any individual religion is counter productive, but so is attacking all religions because of the same reasons - you attack a symptom rather than the source and bog yourself down in inconsequantial discussions of mirage controversy.

Attacking Israel is not that controversial, even by the standard of Jewish people: http://www.counterpunch.org/bruinsma01052008.html

You should aim your guns that way.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You are simply wrong.

You are simply wrong. Religion is the problem. Not power. Power seeking is of far lesser concern.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You are simply

Vastet wrote:
You are simply wrong. Religion is the problem. Not power. Power seeking is of far lesser concern.

I will have to go with Bertrand Russell on this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Power-Social-Analysis-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415325072

"Product description: In this remarkable book, regarded by Russell as one of the most important of his career, he argues that power is man's ultimate goal and is, in its many guises, the single most important element in the development of any society."

I think that the description above is mistaken in insinuating that Russell concludes anything in particular about what "man's ultimate goal" is, but he certainly did see the work as one of his most important and he expected it to become a kickoff for a whole new way of scientific work with society. In the book he gives religion it's place in the world and I dont have to tell you how he feels about it. In his mind power relations are the underlying motive for all organized deliberate misconception, including religion. Read it.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You want to argue against

You want to argue against capitalism, take it to politics. I too know it as a long term threat. I also recognise that it is beyond anybodies ability to truly solve for the foreseeable future without the use of mass violence. It's also a long term threat, not a short term one. There is little that the seeking of power can do to threaten our species. Indeed, we must seek more power to ensure our survival. Hence it is not worth the effort compared to religion; which is not only a clear and present danger to everyone, but also does threaten our survival.

So you are wrong. Religion is the more significant threat.
It should also be noted that religion doesn't exist because of power, but a lack of it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You want to

Vastet wrote:
You want to argue against capitalism, take it to politics. I too know it as a long term threat. I also recognise that it is beyond anybodies ability to truly solve for the foreseeable future without the use of mass violence. It's also a long term threat, not a short term one. There is little that the seeking of power can do to threaten our species. Indeed, we must seek more power to ensure our survival. Hence it is not worth the effort compared to religion; which is not only a clear and present danger to everyone, but also does threaten our survival. So you are wrong. Religion is the more significant threat. It should also be noted that religion doesn't exist because of power, but a lack of it.

I am pretty sure you misunderstand what Russell means by "power". He does not mean authority or any system of government per say, he is really talking about principles of human relations which are the root of everything that we do, including politics, religion, education - you name it. This is why he considered it important - he thought that there is an underalying force to the things that we do and that this force plays out in all human relation. I think he was right.

Therefore you have to let go of the traditional concept of power and understand it as an integral part of reality, something we can't avoid even in the most insignificant human relation. A mother and a child are in a very complex power relationship between each other, mother and the external world, child and the external world; a university classroom is a battlefield in this sense; you and I are engaged in power manipulation as we write this thread. Understand power in social science as the law of gravity in physics - not good, not bad, but condition for everything else. Maybe the word "power" was bad choice on his part, but it really ties in on the phenomenon that grants us most control of human relations - the many faces of power.

ON UNDERSTANDING religion: Just like any other complex human relation, religion is subject to Russell's power concept. You say that religion exists independant of it, but Russell says that if you believe that, you might as well believe that the solar system exists independant of gravity. We don't know what gravity really is, but without this central concept in physics we would be a lot more confused than we are today. The same can be said about power relations in our human community - to a certain degree they can help us understand how our society functions and this includes religion.

ON INFLUENCING religion: if you wanted to push Pluto out of it's orbit, calculations of gravitational pull would be essential to your plan. The same has to be true about religion - if you want to influence religion, you have to understand the power relations that created it and keep it alive; you have to understand it the way people who created it and people who promote it today understand it. Atheists often go with some one sentence explanation of faith and religion, as if understanding it can be put in a few words and is otherwise inconsequential to fighting it. This is a huge mistake - if you don't truly understand religion, not only do you not know what makes it tick and how to get rid of it, but you don't even know whether you want to get rid of it. You simply do not know what it is, what it's used for, or how.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
On power, I don't

On power, I don't misunderstand at all, hence my use of the term capitalism. All observed life operates according to its rules, the most base of which is aquirement of power. The only salve is socialism. It is not a cure, merely a treatment. As you point out, power struggles are everywhere. They cannot all be dealt with, it's contrary to the nature of life. Hence it cannot ever be eliminated. Thus it is a waste of time to try. Therefore religion is a better target.

On religion, you misunderstand me. I did not say that religion is independent of power, I said the opposite. I'll repeat: Religion exists due to a LACK of power. Thus it is impossible to be independent of power.

On influencing, I very much understand religion and all of its aspects. That's why I use tactics as opposed to only using logic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:On power, I

Vastet wrote:
On power, I don't misunderstand at all, hence my use of the term capitalism. All observed life operates according to its rules, the most base of which is aquirement of power.

You are getting somewhere, but there is more to it I think. We see acquirement of power as a way to control our environment and we see control of environment as the way to satisfy what we really want. This means that you can attack need for acquirement of power on levels beneath it. Different religious systems aim at these levels beneath acquirement of power - they try to alter what general public wants and try to eliminate the perception that need to control the environment is necessary. They have this in common with socialism. They also have the failure in common with socialism, since they can be used to turn a revolutionary crowd into comformists and leave unclaimed power to the few scoundrels.

Comformism is just a word, but the concept is a symptom of the force of human relation at work. Just like a marble can appear to lie still because of the continuous application of gravity, so do the voices of descent appear to die down in a society under constant and prolongued intellectual and/or physical preassure. We need to use this concept to our advantage, but we can't do it if we don't know how it works and are not willing to abandon prior misconceptions once we are faced with truth.

Vastet wrote:
The only salve is socialism. It is not a cure, merely a treatment. As you point out, power struggles are everywhere. They cannot all be dealt with, it's contrary to the nature of life. Hence it cannot ever be eliminated. Thus it is a waste of time to try.

If you read my last post, I directly tell you that I do not want to eliminate this concept of power. It would be the same as saying you wanted to eliminate gravity - there is no way to have a reason for doing that. Since you don't know what would happen if gravity wasn't there, there is no way to aim at anything in particular. It's just a mechanism shaping our reality and I think we should learn more about it. Religion, in my opinion, is a great subject for study.

Vastet wrote:

On religion, you misunderstand me. I did not say that religion is independent of power, I said the opposite. I'll repeat: Religion exists due to a LACK of power. Thus it is impossible to be independent of power. On influencing, I very much understand religion and all of its aspects. That's why I use tactics as opposed to only using logic.

That is exactly what you could say about socialism - it exists due to lack of power. I think that general attack on all religion at this point is misguided and might even be good for our real enemy. We should look at the nature of different religious organisations, pick the ones that support violence and inequality and generally disagree with our world view, attack their weaknesses, make an example of a few of them and let the comformism work on the rest of the spectrum. They are usually eazy to target in US, since their leaders tend to be swindlers and are actually atheistic pragmatists.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There's only one thing I

There's only one thing I feel the need to comment on here:

"We should look at the nature of different religious organisations, pick the ones that support violence and inequality and generally disagree with our world view, attack their weaknesses, make an example of a few of them and let the comformism work on the rest of the spectrum."

I do that. My principal targets are christians, jews, moslems, and scientologists; the truly dangerous religions that also have the power to be dangerous. I don't recall ever attacking Greek or Roman mythology, or wicca, or budism; for example.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There's only

Vastet wrote:
There's only one thing I feel the need to comment on here: "We should look at the nature of different religious organisations, pick the ones that support violence and inequality and generally disagree with our world view, attack their weaknesses, make an example of a few of them and let the comformism work on the rest of the spectrum." I do that. My principal targets are christians, jews, moslems, and scientologists; the truly dangerous religions that also have the power to be dangerous. I don't recall ever attacking Greek or Roman mythology, or wicca, or budism; for example.

Ok, so now read my last post with emphasis on religious organisations, not whole religions. Do you think Dr. Martin Luther King or Desmond Tutu should be repudiated and attacked because of their beliefs?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ah, but a religion must be

Ah, but a religion must be organised to qualify as a religion. Else it's just faith, which doesn't have the same power to control the masses.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
You're totally missing the point. Attacking only the religion itself instead of its causes is where your strategy falls on its face. Indeed, your own comment "can only result in people changing religions not abandoning religions and hopefully theism entirely" applies to your position, not mine. I find the perfect metaphor in: You give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats the rest of his life. Teach a person why ALL religion is bad, you have an atheist, or at least an agnostic. Teach a person that A religion is wrong, and they'll just join another religion, and you're back to square one.

You are expressing a difference in favor of antitheism vice atheism. But even then you are expressing antireligion vice antitheism. Pro or con the existence of god(s) is as inconsequential as the existence of ghost(s). The existence of religions is a different matter and in fact yes some day it may become necessary to deal with religions more directly. However the Soviet Union from 1919 through 1989 or so dealt forcefully with the existence of religion. Its actions were far beyond anything a rational person would advocate much less be able to implement.

Fact is the Russian Orthodox church has grown rapidly since the fall of the SU. At the present rate of re-establishment one can suggest the effort and lives were wasted.

So there appears no point in trying to duplicate the Soviet failure by peaceful means.

Vastet wrote:
Attacking judaism above and beyond any other is literally counter-productive. And worse, gives you the appearance of hate monger, not a rational atheist.

I am fully aware that Jews and particular the zionists have leveraged any commentary that is not favorable (or if unfavorable preceeded with praise which negates the criticism) into the invented "sin" of hate. I really do not give a damn. I have seen it done so often in so many circumstances there is no way to avoid it. The Ashkenazis at least have created a paranoid culture. The greatest harm I can do to them is to agree with them.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Stosis wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Yiddish is a  German dialect with some Hebrew thrown in.
No, that is just plain wrong and you know it, too.

As I did in fact understand "Yiddish" and found the means of understanding that to be my knowledge of German I only know what I understood.

I have discussed this in other forums.

For those who think Yiddish is dead because of the holy holocaust have

a) Never been to New York City

b) Do not know that Israel banned or prohibited or otherwise enjoined any publications in Yiddish or its use in any public performance or venue including radio and its late adoption of TV. It was considered the gutter dialect of those wimpy Jews who refused to fight back against the Nazis.

Needless to say regarding b) the official party line denies this ever occurred despite it being well recorded and common knowledge in Israel. It is only non-Israelis who are not permitted to recite what is well known in Israel.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
You assume a strategy can win in one fell swoop. Only one can: Extinction. Assuming that because strategies have not brought ultimate victory overnight means they are uneffective or less effective than others neither wins you the battle nor the war. There is similarly only one strategy that will lose the war, and that is a strategy of alienating the casual theist, doing so by concentrating on one of the weakest of our enemies. Compared to moslems, christians, and even scientologists, the jews are nothing.

Keeping in mind the only Jews are those who confess the religion there is really nothing I can do they have done to themselves. The confession is so primitive that well over half of those claiming to be Jews are not.

If you were paying attention the post with which I started this thread was simply pointing out they are NOT Jews by virtue of ethnicity as there is no single Jewish ethnicity. I am simply separating the fake Jews from the real Jews.

Vastet wrote:
Except they have the sympathy vote. People of all walks of life will defend jews, not for their religion and culture, but to prevent a recurrence of the holocaust. The jews are totally invulnerable to your tactics.

Get a grip. Every time there are surveys of popular belief in the holy holocaust it is 80% and higher calling it bullshit. It is much more common to believe in alien abductions than gas chambers. Believers in gas chambers are the minority whackos who want to believe.

Besides, you know any belief protected by law is bullshit. You might as well bring back the blasphemy laws.

Vastet wrote:
Hitler gave them a defence that your strategy cannot harm. They don't even have to lift a finger against your strategy. Everyone else will do it for them. All effective strategies should be used.

If my approach is as useless as you suggest then there is no basis to complain that I choose to waste my time on it.

Vastet wrote:
Yours doesn't qualify. And WWII didn't come close to wiping them out. Not even remotely.

They are a stiffnecked people ... not really but that is what their book says so they will strive to imitate a real shit translation.

As to WWII, the Jewish world population surveys show there was no "wiping out" if you should ever take the time to look at them. Even without looking for the evidence 80+% of the people know bullshit when they hear it.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
targetting the most celebrated victims in history. Whether for, against, or make believe, everyone has an opinion on the holocaust. The vast majority are very passionately against, and won't tolerate discussions so obviously similar to those raised by Hitler. The few who are on the other sides will support anything anti-jewish, so reaching them is disgustingly easy, and completely pointless.

That an idea is popular among those who have the reins of society is almost a certain guarantee of the opposite idea among the rest if for no other reason than contrarieness.

The US in particular has a much better example of a "real" holocaust, the Amerind.

Fact is in the real world there is no problem with a recitation of history. The fact is there is an absolute intolerance of any attempt to compel or prescribed behavior for any reason including history.

The Amerinds got over it. When are both the real and the fake Jews going to get over it? The Armenians got over it and only got pissed when the Jews refused to recognize it. The Gypseys got over it as did the Adventists and the Menonites. When will the Jews get over it?

Sorry but the case is otherwise. It is a criterion of the culture never to get over anything even the mythical Haman story in Esther/Hadasa. When eternal persecution is an invented article of faith you do nothing but create an insane culture.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ugh.'You are expressing a

Extra post

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ugh.

x 2. Oops.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ugh. 'You are expressing a

Ugh.

'You are expressing a difference in favor of antitheism vice atheism. But even then you are expressing antireligion vice antitheism. Pro or con the existence of god(s) is as inconsequential as the existence of ghost(s). The existence of religions is a different matter and in fact yes some day it may become necessary to deal with religions more directly. However the Soviet Union from 1919 through 1989 or so dealt forcefully with the existence of religion. Its actions were far beyond anything a rational person would advocate much less be able to implement.'

I'm not professing anti-theism at all. I am anti-religious. Ghost believers don't have organisations telling everyone what to do, so your comparison is invalid. And good luck finding me say that we should start killing people off and imprisoning them ala USSR. You're insulting me and every other atheist here by drawing a ridiculous comparison between rational discussion and oppression. Even more so by saying peaceful discourse is as effective as

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
violence. I'm starting to

violence. I'm starting to wonder if you should check in to a psychiatric hospital. At the very least you need to study psychology, which you obviously haven't.

"I am fully aware that Jews and particular the zionists have leveraged any commentary that is not favorable (or if unfavorable preceeded with praise which negates the criticism) into the invented "sin" of hate. I really do not give a damn. I have seen it done so often in so many circumstances there is no way to avoid it. The Ashkenazis at least have created a paranoid culture. The greatest harm I can do to them is to agree with them."

I never said to agree with them, which is actually the SECOND worst thing you could do. The worst thing is what you are doing: blaming the jews for everything wrong with the world, including the existence of christians and moslems. Everyone simply ignores you for the bigot you are. I am close to doing the same. Actually, reading the rest of your post put me over the line. I'll not waste further time with an imbecile.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
Ugh. 'You are expressing a difference in favor of antitheism vice atheism. But even then you are expressing antireligion vice antitheism. Pro or con the existence of god(s) is as inconsequential as the existence of ghost(s). The existence of religions is a different matter and in fact yes some day it may become necessary to deal with religions more directly. However the Soviet Union from 1919 through 1989 or so dealt forcefully with the existence of religion. Its actions were far beyond anything a rational person would advocate much less be able to implement.' I'm not professing anti-theism at all. I am anti-religious. Ghost believers don't have organisations telling everyone what to do, so your comparison is invalid. And good luck finding me say that we should start killing people off and imprisoning them ala USSR. You're insulting me and every other atheist here by drawing a ridiculous comparison between rational discussion and oppression. Even more so by saying peaceful discourse is as effective as

A Deist is an anti-religion theist. There is a difference between an atheist and anti-religion. Openly professed Deism preceeded openly professed atheism by more than a century.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
violence. I'm starting to wonder if you should check in to a psychiatric hospital. At the very least you need to study psychology, which you obviously haven't. "I am fully aware that Jews and particular the zionists have leveraged any commentary that is not favorable (or if unfavorable preceeded with praise which negates the criticism) into the invented "sin" of hate. I really do not give a damn. I have seen it done so often in so many circumstances there is no way to avoid it. The Ashkenazis at least have created a paranoid culture. The greatest harm I can do to them is to agree with them." I never said to agree with them, which is actually the SECOND worst thing you could do. The worst thing is what you are doing: blaming the jews for everything wrong with the world, including the existence of christians and moslems. Everyone simply ignores you for the bigot you are. I am close to doing the same. Actually, reading the rest of your post put me over the line. I'll not waste further time with an imbecile.

When I first started posting here I was banned for the lies people were telling about me. When I returned I issued a standing challenge to quote me rather than lying about me. So far no one has taken me up on that.

So I challenge you to quote me where I, in any manner, "The worst thing is what you are doing: blaming the jews for everything wrong with the world, including the existence of christians and moslems." Where did I in fact cite responsibility for them? Please quote me.

As for not wasting further time with me, please do not. In doing so you also waste my time calling you out on the lies you tell about me.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The worst thing

Vastet wrote:
The worst thing is what you are doing: blaming the jews for everything wrong with the world, including the existence of christians and moslems. Everyone simply ignores you for the bigot you are. I am close to doing the same. Actually, reading the rest of your post put me over the line. I'll not waste further time with an imbecile.

I don't remember him having said anything to the effect. He has claimed some weird things, but so have you. I don't think he's an imbecile, just severely wrong on several points, just like you are.

Here's a "religious organisation" meddling in politics and public affairs you might wan't to set your sights on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catonsville_Nine

 

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Be careful what you wish

Be careful what you wish for.

"Discredit Judaism and Christianity's God the Son loses a father and no god to begat the Jesus character. Discredit Judaism and the was no angel of that god to inspire Mohamed and then no Allah."

There's no two ways about it, you specifically and irrevocably tie existence of christians and moslems to the jews, and also specifically and irrevocably state that defeating the jews will cause these religions to collapse. Which happens to be as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Zus, I am right, and both of you are wrong.

Feels good doesn't it? Oh yeah, here's an irrelevant link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
Be careful what you wish for. "Discredit Judaism and Christianity's God the Son loses a father and no god to begat the Jesus character. Discredit Judaism and the was no angel of that god to inspire Mohamed and then no Allah." There's no two ways about it, you specifically and irrevocably tie existence of christians and moslems to the jews, and also specifically and irrevocably state that defeating the jews will cause these religions to collapse. Which happens to be as ridiculous as it is wrong. Zus, I am right, and both of you are wrong. Feels good doesn't it? Oh yeah, here's an irrelevant link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps

But you insist upon saying responsible for.

No one is responsible for the stupidities of others.

Why do you keep working so hard to find a reason to claim I have something against Jews? It is not like you are a Jew. You could not be posting here if you were a Jew.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml