Atheists’ view of Judaism (Jehovah, prophet, Islam, Biblical)

[Winterbeard]

Originally Posted by cb2008

What is it about Judaism that makes it sit well with Atheists?

Speaking only as some sort of Agnostic, Judaism doesn't seek to convert the gentiles, they don't particularly give much credence to an afterlife either. It might believe itself to be the one true religion, but it doesn't go about telling everyone else they'll burn in hell (I seem to recall they don't believe in hell anyway). They don't take some of the stories in genesis as literal, so are more open to scientific discoveries regarding creation etc.

Just my 2cents.

Never had a run in with a Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh either, but interactions between them and myself are far less common.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by cb2008

I notice All religions come under attack, criticism and ridicule by Atheists in this forum. If they know little about one, such as Hinduism, they make stuff up and have at it.

All Atheists know more about Hinduism than you.

You read something on Reddit, it sounded good to you, so you jumped in head first.

Your knowledge of Hinduism is so limited you can't even explain why you reject the more than 100 Hindu sects in favor of the one you pretend to know something about.

You can't even explain why you choose one particular denomination of Hinduism and reject the other three and you're not even sure which denomination you subscribe to, because there are two possible denominations.

And then there's Krishnaism, the monotheistic version of Hinduism that rejects all the Hindu gods and claims Krishna is the only god that ever was.

You are unable to explain why the supposedly enlightened Brahman created the hideous Caste System.

You claim to be a Brahman but then that's probably because most amusingly you don't understand that if you were in India you would be one of the Untouchables.

Originally Posted by cb2008

But one religion i have never seen attacked is Judaism.

Judaism is attacked all the time right here on this forum.

If you were a Brahman you'd know that.

Originally Posted by cb2008

I am glad that it seems to have escaped the Atheist attention. But i am curious as to why. What is it about Judaism that makes it sit well with Atheists?

Again, you only embarrass yourself which is not very Brahman-like.

I have repeatedly explained ad nauseum that the Hebrews were polytheists. Judaism is NOT a monotheistic religion and neither is x-tianity.

Terah was chief priest for the Sumerian deity known as Ninurta (Akkadian = El Shaddai) whose principle city and main temple was at Ur. Terah takes Abram/Abraham and Serai/Sarah to Haran.

Wow, what a shocker! Haran is the principle city for the Hurrian deity Teshub which is the same as Ninurta in Sumerian. Colin in English is Claus in German is Kolenka in Russian is Mikalay in Yiddish. Figure it out yet?

Abram/Abraham is a priest-in-training because the priesthood is hereditary. He knows how to read and write unlike the 95% of the population who don't know how. For the 7-Day New Year's Festival (universal in Mesopotamia), Abram/Abraham climbs the steps of the ziggurat and read one tablet each evening from the 7 Tablets of Creation. Later, Hebrew scribes who are moronic ignoramuses and not connected to any god-thing because there is none crow-barred that into a 7 day creation which fundie x-tians cling to.

Abram/Abraham brought cuneiform tablets containing the Sumerian/Akkadian stories with him to Canaan. We know that because tablets did not have page numbers. They used "catch-lines." The last sentence on a table is repeated as the first sentence on the next tablet. The proof that someone copied those tablets to a scroll is in the text itself because the catch-lines are repeated.

Later editors/redactors of the text had no idea what a Sumerian was because they had been dead and gone for centuries and so they didn't know who the gods who created humans -- Enki, Ningishiddza, and Ninhursag -- were or that Enki is Lothan and Ningishiddza is Kothar in the Ugarit pantheon so they just changed it to elohim (plural) which is not Yahweh who was part of the Ugarit pantheon.

Post mytho-history, everything the Hebrews got they got --including the Hebrew language -- came from the Ugarits.

All the Psalms were written by the Ugarits. That includes the Psalm of David. It was originally written for the Ugarit hero Dani'l. The Hebrews copied it and changed Dani'l to David. The Ugarit hero Dani'l is probably the model for the Hebrew hero Daniel.

The Yahweh-thing doesn't exist. We know that because if it did exist, then the Hebrews should have been able to correctly translate the Pslams.

If I forget you Jerusalem, let my right hand forget. Wrong. The deceiving liars translating the King Joke Vision added the phrase "her cunning" to that line because the Jesus-thing doesn't exist, either.

A French Atheist digging in Ugarit with a team of French, German, and Israeli archaeologists found the original Ugarit text and now it's correctly translated as If I forget you Jerusalem, let my right hand wither.

Another Psalm was incorrectly translated for more than 2,000 years because there's no Yahweh-thing. Each line of that Psalm starts with a letter of the Ugarit [Hebrew] alphabet except two letters were missing. It wasn't until they found the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Ugaritic text the Hebrews copied that they figured it out.

Yet another Psalm was incorrectly translated for more than 2,000 years because the Yahweh-thing doesn't exist. It wasn't until they found the Ugartic text that they realized scribes had repeatedly incorrectly divided a phrase resulting in the erroneous translation "silver lips." The correct translation is "like silver."

No one seriously believes X-Moses wrote the Pentateuch except fundie x-tians still living in their cocoon.

Jeremiah and Hilkiah wrote Deuteronomy for political reasons and then heavily redacted the Tetrateuch to conform to Deuteronomy.

Jeremiah and Hilkiah an extreme hatred for all things-Mosaic. They didn't like the name of X-Moses because it incorporated the name of an Egyptian god so the edited it out and left X-Moses, sort of like having a hatred of all things-John and changing Johnson to just "Son." They goaded Josiah into destroying a Mosaic-relic that Yahweh supposedly commanded X-Moses to make. That's how extreme their hatred was.

Their purpose was threefold: centralize the religion in Jerusalem so they can profit handsomely; elevate the Aaronid Priesthood as the only legitimate priesthood; and legitimize the rule of the pretender Judah.

If you don't understand that, then you won't understand anything in the Hebrew texts.

The Aaronid Priests deceived the Mosaic Priests into coming to a meeting at Shiloh where they were all murdered except one who happened to be at Beth-El.

The surviving Mosaic priest was a spiteful bitter hate-filled old man, even more so because he got passed over and wasn't chosen to be the High Priest for the Kingdom of Israel. If you don't understand that, you won't see him venting his rage in Exodus and elsewhere and it is his rage, not Yahweh's.

Jeremiah and Hilkiah don't understand Sumerian/Akkadian birth-right customs stemming from Abram/Abraham and they jump through hoops trying to explain why Joseph got the birth-right and the first-born Reuben didn't.

The mothers of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi were concubines. Judah's mother was Leah, but Joseph's mother was Rachel and she was the preferred wife which is why he got the birth-right.

And then the idiots can't figure out why Ephraim got the birth-right and not first-born Manasseh.

Manasseh's mother was a concubine and Ephraim's a wife, or Manasseh's mother was a wife but Ephraim's mother was the preferred wife. That's why Ephraim got the birth-right.

Joseph gets half of Jacob's land and his brothers who have mothers split the rest and Reuben, Simeon, and Levi get nothing. They can either be embarrassed and toil away for peanuts on the land's of their younger brothers or stay in Egypt with Joseph.

Since there's only two of them, Ephraim and Manasseh split Joseph's land 50-50 and they got the best land which bordered Ugarit.

Then they all left (except Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, and probably Benjamin) and went back to Canaan and lived happily ever after.

There was no Exodus. In political science, the Exodus Trilogy is known as a National Unity Document. It's just political propaganda to justify why things are the way they are or the way they ought to be. Understand "document" is to be construed liberally. There need not be an actual document. An example would be us Romanians getting drunk and singing songs about Bessarabia (modern Moldova and part of Ukraine) which used to be part of Romania. It's quite common in irredentism. Modern Israel would be an example of irredentism. "This is our land because this propaganda document says so!"

Yahweh can never be trusted because its flaky and constantly changes its mind.

Yahweh to the Gentiles (who were previously destined for total annihilation): If I let you keep your foreskin and eat Pork & Beans will you love me?

That's pathetic.

[Hannibal Flavius]

Christians attack Christians more than anyone else. A group always on the attack.

[Hayle White]

Originally Posted by cb2008

I notice All religions come under attack, criticism and ridicule by Atheists in this forum. If they know little about one, such as Hinduism, they make stuff up and have at it. But one religion i have never seen attacked is Judaism.
I am glad that it seems to have escaped the Atheist attention. But i am curious as to why. What is it about Judaism that makes it sit well with Atheists? Moderator cut: Political portion of post deleted.

One reason could be the fear of appearing anti-Semitic. In today's society, there is a heightened sensitivity towards anything that could be construed as anti-Semitic, which sometimes leads to a reluctance to engage in discussions that involve Judaism. On the other hand, Christianity is a more loosely defined faith that allows for various interpretations, making it an easier target for criticism. I've never met anyone with problems with Hindus before this forum.

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by Hayle White

One reason could be the fear of appearing anti-Semitic. In today's society, there is a heightened sensitivity towards anything that could be construed as anti-Semitic, which sometimes leads to a reluctance to engage in discussions that involve Judaism. On the other hand, Christianity is a more loosely defined faith that allows for various interpretations, making it an easier target for criticism. I've never met anyone with problems with Hindus before this forum.

All true. An open discussion of Judaism is one thing which i would actually welcome in this forum outside of the forum limited to Judaism. Especially the spiritual aspect of it. Never happens, or i did not find any such thread.
So this whole atheism gig is dishonest if it only picks and chooses targets that are easy. Even total ignorance of facts, or systems of belief, does not stop them from making foolish arguments as long as they can rant.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by cb2008

All true. An open discussion of Judaism is one thing which i would actually welcome in this forum outside of the forum limited to Judaism. Especially the spiritual aspect of it. Never happens, or i did not find any such thread.
So this whole atheism gig is dishonest if it only picks and chooses targets that are easy. Even total ignorance of facts, or systems of belief, does not stop them from making foolish arguments as long as they can rant.

Attack, attack, attack.

[rosends]

I think that criticism of Judaism is perfectly valid but often, unsatisfying. What is there to criticize? If you (the generic "you" -- not meant to single any specific person out) don't accept our texts as authoritative then you criticize them. We say, "ok, whatever." If you think our rituals are archaic, you say so and we say "ok, they work for us. If they don't work for you, that's fine." And you don't have to be an atheist to criticize -- the biggest critics of Judaism are Jews.

If you want to take an individual or a community to task, and find a way to tie whatever they are or do to their religion, do you do that with other groups? If a guy shoots people in NYC and he is Christian, would you tie his actions to his religious identity? And if a community commits collective fraud, would you criticize the community or its religion?

What exactly would anyone want to target in Judaism? Are there questions that can be asked? Sure, but I find that a lot of criticism disappears when the underlying elements are explained, or shown to be beyond explanation and that rift of belief is acknowledged.

[Hayle White]

Originally Posted by rosends

I think that criticism of Judaism is perfectly valid but often, unsatisfying. What is there to criticize? If you (the generic "you" -- not meant to single any specific person out) don't accept our texts as authoritative then you criticize them. We say, "ok, whatever." If you think our rituals are archaic, you say so and we say "ok, they work for us. If they don't work for you, that's fine." And you don't have to be an atheist to criticize -- the biggest critics of Judaism are Jews.

If you want to take an individual or a community to task, and find a way to tie whatever they are or do to their religion, do you do that with other groups? If a guy shoots people in NYC and he is Christian, would you tie his actions to his religious identity? And if a community commits collective fraud, would you criticize the community or its religion?

What exactly would anyone want to target in Judaism? Are there questions that can be asked? Sure, but I find that a lot of criticism disappears when the underlying elements are explained, or shown to be beyond explanation and that rift of belief is acknowledged.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. It is important to acknowledge that Judaism encompasses multiple branches and interpretations. From Orthodox to Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and more, there is a diverse range of beliefs, practices, and teachings within Judaism. Each branch may have its own unique approaches to rituals, texts, and principles. Additionally, the Talmud is a complex and extensive text that covers a wide range of topics, including laws, ethics, and debates.

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by rosends

I think that criticism of Judaism is perfectly valid but often, unsatisfying. What is there to criticize? If you (the generic "you" -- not meant to single any specific person out) don't accept our texts as authoritative then you criticize them. We say, "ok, whatever." If you think our rituals are archaic, you say so and we say "ok, they work for us. If they don't work for you, that's fine." And you don't have to be an atheist to criticize -- the biggest critics of Judaism are Jews.

If you want to take an individual or a community to task, and find a way to tie whatever they are or do to their religion, do you do that with other groups? If a guy shoots people in NYC and he is Christian, would you tie his actions to his religious identity? And if a community commits collective fraud, would you criticize the community or its religion?

What exactly would anyone want to target in Judaism? Are there questions that can be asked? Sure, but I find that a lot of criticism disappears when the underlying elements are explained, or shown to be beyond explanation and that rift of belief is acknowledged.

Great post. I hope the point of my post was not misunderstood. I did not mean to say Judaism should be criticized, but that it is somehow beyond atheist scrutiny made me wonder why that was.

The bolded: That would indeed be the case for an average person wanting to learn about Judaism. Unfortunately that is not my experience with atheists in this forum regarding Hinduism. There is a gap that cannot be bridged. I don't think it is due to lack of understanding but rather the fear of understanding.

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by Hayle White

Thank you for sharing your perspective. It is important to acknowledge that Judaism encompasses multiple branches and interpretations. From Orthodox to Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and more, there is a diverse range of beliefs, practices, and teachings within Judaism. Each branch may have its own unique approaches to rituals, texts, and principles. Additionally, the Talmud is a complex and extensive text that covers a wide range of topics, including laws, ethics, and debates.

That is true with Hinduism as well. In fact I see a lot of similarity with aspects of Judaism and Hinduism. But that does not stop atheists from forming their own theology and then beating it to death. It is a weird spectacle.