Pointless

You've never read the torah and your only contact with interpretation has been a baal tshuvah.

Are you kidding me?

It would be easier for me to find a part on the Torah that jews have agreed on, we haven't even decided on the opening words of the scroll

Debate is the backbone of a good messageboard

It's interesting isn't it

I mean, the Torah presents itself as an explanation of the origin of man, is presented as fact and is, with varying degrees of literality, followed by people around the world.

And yet, for a book apparently written by someone with the ear of the 'creator' and presumably knower of everything therefore, it is quite remarkable how vague and imprecise it is - this applies to every bible I'm aware of btw.

Why should it be so vague? If a scientific paper was released presenting a theory of the universe that was in any way imprecise , it would be ridiculed (in fact, it wouldn't even get published).

I don't see what advantage there is to having written it in this manner, if armed with 'all the answers', unless, of course it's yet another 'test'.

Jerry springer has nothing on you brid very conclusive post

can't pick a fault with anything you said

lol yet another example of you commenting on something you know fuck all about.

There are several factors as to why Jews disagree on interpretation - an example which would be easy for a rabid athiest like yourself to understand would be the translation of the words.

In hebrew we don't write vowels, so to know what the word says you must know how its pronounced; you get the pronunciation from the context of the word... As hebrew is a very logical language this is easier than it sounds.

However over 3500 you can understand that there would be variations - a slight difference in vowels could change a word from wounded to pierced (as christian translators discovered).

A poem can be open to interpretation without being vague, the Tanakh is no different.

But the Bible isn't a scientific paper?!?!?

The Tanakh was written in a style that could be understood by man 3500 years ago - there isn't a religious/athiest scholar that would suggest otherwise...

If the g-d of Avraham spoke of quantum physics to a people who hadn't even grasped time it would be too vast a gap for them to bridge... instead jewish scholars believe the Torah was wrote in a style in which the meaning behind the words would grow as mans conscious grew.

A poem is not presenting itself as a factual depiction of events though - the bibles do, and there should be no room for the imprecise in this.

I don't understand why you apply different standards to the evidence required to for religious and scientificic arguments - you can't just say that the reason it doesn't have to be vague is because 'it's not a paper', in the same way that I don't find the argument that 'god works outside of normal rules of physics, so he doesn't have to tie in with anything experimental' as an explanation for the the many and varied observational flaws.

Also, you call me a 'rabid atheist' - I make no secret of my opinions, and you make no secret of yours. Why is it you are reduced to criticising my arguing style rather than my arguments? Who cares if I'm 'arrogant'? Why does it matter in the cosmic scheme of things if I'm 'rabid'? What matters is whether or not I'm right and to that end you have presented not a single credible argument.

Because the Torah isn't a scientific paper!!!

The Torah is designed for personal interpretation; my relationship with hashem is unique and shared by no other man - just as my relationship with my friends are unique.

If the Torah was a factual precise document with only one interpretation it would allow no room for individuality - which is at the heart of every faith.

the laws of nature only exist within this spacetime continuum - we have no indiciation as to whether they would remain the same outside of this universe... quite a retarded comment for a physicist

Because I am not attempting to force my views upon you, your fanatical rantings create an air of anti-religious aggression... I've only ever justified my religion I've never tried to disprove your views or patronise your beliefs.

You're fanatical.

one set of rules for you and an entirely different set for those religious fanatics....

Why does it matter if you're right? surely every individual has the right to determine their own beliefs?!?!?

(and for the record you haven't presented one credible argument; you know neither the origins of the universe or whether there is a higher force.... The difference is I haven't tried to shit on your beliefs as I respect your right to self-determination)

One tired and poor argument of the religious is that their theories, however poorly substantiated, don't harm people, hence any challenge to them is passed off as a 'a bit mean'.

As a scientist, I believe firmly in the dissemination of the factual, and the truthful, as best we are able to elucidate these. Even if this makes people less happy, I prefer the factual truth to 'blissful ignorance', in much the same way as if I was offered to spend the rest of my life in drug induced euphoria I should certainly decline.

Whilst working in a 3rd world country this summer, a young man came to the hospital - the blood supply to his leg had failed, and it needed to be amputated, to prevent fatal infection setting in. Instead, from his beliefs, he decided instead to travel to see a religious healer to pray for his leg. He subsequently died.

This is not a fundamentally evil man using religion to justify an evil act, he was misguided and ill informed. He died as a result of his religion; had he not been religious there is a good chance he would still be alive.

This is why science and fact is important; it allows us to predict and change things in a way that religion simply does not.

Every theory I have presented has a sound experimental and observational basis. No religious theory has this.

ok stalin.

who the fuck made you g-d, its not your place to dictate how man should think you arrogant cock.

Andy millions more people have died for secularism than from scientific ignorance... you're dealing with small pockets of undereducated demographics in the THIRD WORLD - this has nothing to do with whether man has the right to faith or not!

You talk of religion and science as if they cannot exist together? Modern science comes from religion.

lol which theory have you presented that has observed that there is no higher power?

I can't prove absolutely that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

On balance of probabilities, it seems unlikely though, and there's no evidence to suggest it does, therefore, I don't believe in it.

The difference is, of course, wars aren't fought and people don't die over the tooth fairy.

what probabilities?

a good master debate

The probability of the plausibility of some uncharacteised telepathic being being aware of a childs tooth being lost, being able to enter the house, being able to place 50p under the childs pillow, and escape undetected. Instinctively, I rate the probability of this occuring as very low, as I have no evidence of the success of telepathy, for a start.

I can't prove to you such a thing doesn't exist, but I still don't believe it exists, and whilst I assume you don't either, you are perfectly entitled to if you wish. Just don't expect me not to challenge you.

None of your arguments offer a good reason as to why your g-d is a plausible being and the tooth fairy is not.

I choose to believe you're an intelligent personl; however, I simply cannot understand the reasoning that leads you to follow Judaism over any other religion other than 'it's what my parents believed'. To a scientist, this is not a convincing reason.

Thats quite a primitive analogy of g-d.

A more complete interpretation would be the eternal nature of energy within this universe which nudges the conversation into a spiritual dimension, this energy brings life and substance to existence.

This is closer to my interpretation of the g-d of my ancestors and this was the jewish interpretation long before phsyics taught us of energy and other such invisible forces.

Science is only just beginning to confirm ancient hebrew beliefs, now I cant prove g-d exist - which is why it's a faith based religion.

But you speak of probabilities - yet provide none.

My parents don't believe in g-d, they're ex communists and vociferously opposed to organised religion.

I could understand your vociferous opposition to religion if you could provide conclusive evidence that it is "bullshit", but you have nothing to base your claims on - its speculative opinion.

As you say science is based on observation, until you observe soemthing that can disprove my beliefs it's bad science to dismiss it.

This doesn't mean you should subscribe to a faith, it simply means you shouldn't pass judgement on others.

I'm sorry for assuming your parents were followers of Judaism - it was wrong of me to assume this.

I can't quantify my not believing in the tooth fairy, as noone has taken it seriously enough to do any experiments. In the face of the near-impossibilities of the feats claimed to be accomplished, the lack of any documented evidence of successful telepathy though, one might reasonably assume that the odds of existence are close to 0%, though not precisely 0%, as you cannot disprove it. Thus, the probability of it not existing are close to 100%, and the logical conclusion is to assume the latter.

This, imo, applies to religion also.

I'm not sure I agree that it's bad science to question the existence of religion, by a similar token.

The backbone of science is hypothesing, testing and going with the most probable theory based on experimental and observational data.

You rightly point out that science records numerous improbabilities in this universe, and the origins of simple life. However, the problem with the religious alternative is that it is simply less conceivable than the scientific one.

I can't tell you the origin of the universe; what I can tell you is that we have observed increasing complexity in life forms with progression of time. If it is improbable that simple life developed, it might reasonably be assumed that it is more improbable that a complex being, one capable of generating worlds at a whim, might have developed spontaneously.

When Andrew Wakefield hypothesised the link between MMR and Autism, there was a huge debate. Subsequent studies disproved the original theory, and it is now accepted that there is no link. When Heisenberg proposed his Uncertainty theorem, there was a debate, and it was subsequently shown to probably be correct. Debate and questioning forms another pillar of science; what you appear to be telling me is that I shouldn't be questioning the reasoning of people for their beliefs, is this because they aren't scientific beliefs?

My argument against this is that as religions propose a sequence of events in the formation of life, about what occurs after life, that praying might directly influence life, that there is a being to which we are accountable; ie presented asfactual information then it is appropriate to question the evidence and thinking behind it.