[Yonah ben Amittai]

Descartes was a shmuck. There is no evidence to suggest that any neural process is a product of anything other than purely physical interactions.

*GRIN* Ha Ha! Got you! But the correct spelling is "schmuck". Close enough though, PP. Well, its not just Descartes. God, its been years since my philosophy courses.I'll be honest. I am not prepared to debate this topic without a thorough review of the literature, particularly since my last study of the subject was 18 years ago, and I suspect a lot more research has been done since then, both in the halls of science and those of philosophy and religion.

So, let us forego this topic until I have data with which to work, shall we?

Now, Rama Set, repeating yourself simply isn't nice.

No Vaux, I wish I was, then there would be an excuse.

I don't think you can separate the two. Philosophy and science DO interconnect.

Not really. Philosophy is all about "why?" and science is all about "how?" The simply matter that they don't interconnect is the reason that (despite what some think) you can easily hold a religious preference and a career in science.

The brain and the mind are NOT the same thing. Descartes, the great mathematician and philosopher would have disagreed with you as well.

Descartes wouldn't be able to tell me what a neuron is. I doubt his opinion is relevant to the subject.

This is evidenced by the fact that we can completely interrupt cognitive processes by damaging specific parts of the brain. There is no doubt that whatever consciousness is, it is a process of the brain.

It IS a process of the brain. That much is obvious. But exactly what PART of the brain?

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Now. Starting a new subtopic within the topic, does anybody actually have questions I can answer?I've done my best with the 6 on 1 Atheist vs. Theist fight. So, what's next?

[Lord Dave]

Which came first: the flood that wiped out all but a dozen humans and a boat load of animals or Moses getting the Torah?

[Rushy]

It IS a process of the brain. That much is obvious. But exactly what PART of the brain?

Well the easiest answer is that all parts of the brain have at least some impact on all neural processes. Some areas do deal more with certain processes than others (e.g. the hippocampus and memory) but in general damaging any part of the brain is a no-no. It becomes difficult to narrow parts of the brain down because the brain isn't organized into neat little compartments like your computer. The electrical, chemical, and physical connections of the billions of neurons make for a rather complex subject to study. The processes are so complex that we can't simulate neurons in a virtual environment. There is currently some progress in simulating the brain of a worm (which has something in the range of 50 neurons) and that is still having trouble. The progress never stops, though, and it is only a matter of time to when neurologists can completely simulate a neuron environment and accurately predict what drives various processes.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Which came first: the flood that wiped out all but a dozen (sic) [there were eight] humans and a boat load of animals or Moses getting the Torah?

Well, the Flood did in terms of time, of course. Moses himself could not receive the Torah until he was himself alive, and he was alive AFTER the Flood. But you ask an interesting question that the Rabbis dealt with in interesting ways. How exactly did Moses get the Torah? Some believe the standard facile answer. He wrote it as it occurred, except for the last eight verses, which he may have written foretelling his own death, or Joshua wrote those.

However, the Rabbis suggested how the Torah came into being itself. "According to a Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation."[3] source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

So in terms of MOSES getting the Torah, the Flood came first. But in terms of which came first, the Flood or the Torah, the Torah did.

It IS a process of the brain. That much is obvious. But exactly what PART of the brain?

Well the easiest answer is that all parts of the brain have at least some impact on all neural processes. Some areas do deal more with certain processes than others (e.g. the hippocampus and memory) but in general damaging any part of the brain is a no-no. It becomes difficult to narrow parts of the brain down because the brain isn't organized into neat little compartments like your computer. The electrical, chemical, and physical connections of the billions of neurons make for a rather complex subject to study. The processes are so complex that we can't simulate neurons in a virtual environment. There is currently some progress in simulating the brain of a worm (which has something in the range of 50 neurons) and that is still having trouble. The progress never stops, though, and it is only a matter of time to when neurologists can completely simulate a neuron environment and accurately predict what drives various processes.

And there you are. You have quite happily made my point. And your own.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

I must close for the night. Have a pleasant night, all of you. See you tomorrow, I hope.

[Lord Dave]

Which came first: the flood that wiped out all but a dozen (sic) [there were eight] humans and a boat load of animals or Moses getting the Torah?

Well, the Flood did in terms of time, of course. Moses himself could not receive the Torah until he was himself alive, and he was alive AFTER the Flood. But you ask an interesting question that the Rabbis dealt with in interesting ways. How exactly did Moses get the Torah? Some believe the standard facile answer. He wrote it as it occurred, except for the last eight verses, which he may have written foretelling his own death, or Joshua wrote those.

However, the Rabbis suggested how the Torah came into being itself. "According to a Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation."[3] source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

So in terms of MOSES getting the Torah, the Flood came first. But in terms of which came first, the Flood or the Torah, the Torah did.

If all 8 people repopulated the Earth, doesn't that mean that everyone is descended from them?  Including Jews and the Alemakites (sp?).  And Moses?
And you mentioned the Noahites laws.  Did they come about before the Torah too?

[Vindictus]

8 people cannot repopulate the Earth.

[Rama Set]

Now, Rama Set, repeating yourself simply isn't nice.

I re asked a question because you dodged it before, so I will ask it again:

How can you believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution which is merely an extension of the micro-evolutionary process?

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Which came first: the flood that wiped out all but a dozen (sic) [there were eight] humans and a boat load of animals or Moses getting the Torah?

Well, the Flood did in terms of time, of course. Moses himself could not receive the Torah until he was himself alive, and he was alive AFTER the Flood. But you ask an interesting question that the Rabbis dealt with in interesting ways. How exactly did Moses get the Torah? Some believe the standard facile answer. He wrote it as it occurred, except for the last eight verses, which he may have written foretelling his own death, or Joshua wrote those.

However, the Rabbis suggested how the Torah came into being itself. "According to a Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation."[3] source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

So in terms of MOSES getting the Torah, the Flood came first. But in terms of which came first, the Flood or the Torah, the Torah did.

If all 8 people repopulated the Earth, doesn't that mean that everyone is descended from them?  Including Jews and the Alemakites (sp?).  And Moses?
And you mentioned the Noahites laws.  Did they come about before the Torah too?

Assuming (1) that one interprets the Flood story literally, and (2), that the Flood was a worldwide phenomenon, then yes, all people would in some sense be descended from the eight people that exited the Ark of Noah after the Flood.

Of course, there IS a third option, although it wouldn't change the point you are trying to make here. Traditionally, Japheth is regarded as father of the European people, Shem as father of the Semitic peoples, and Ham as father of the Negro peoples of Africa.

So that raises the question; where did the Japanese come from? Or the Chinese, et, etc.?

This option that I have oft considered allows for the idea that there may have been more than one ark. Given that every culture fro the Aztec to the Zulu has a Flood story, I think you have enough witnesses to verify the truth of the Flood. But I think the possibility that God may have allowed more than one Ark has to at least be considered.

Of course, the fourth option is that the Flood was a purely local one also has to be considered, but that would leave us with no explanation as to why so many other cultures have a flood story. I shall allow you to consider the options yourself.

But yes, ultimately, the Amalekites and the Hebrews were a related people. No one disputes that, certainly not me. I mean, heck, the distance from Ur, the original city of Abraham, to Canaan, on the route he followed, is only 955 miles.

Now, Rama Set, repeating yourself simply isn't nice.

I re asked a question because you dodged it before, so I will ask it again:

How can you believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution which is merely an extension of the micro-evolutionary process?

It depends on how you are using the word "microevolution'. Allow me to elaborate. I do not believe that a cat can become a dog. But I do believe that a lower species of cat can become a higher, more intelligent species of cat. Because I don't classify myself as a creationist, but only as a traditional Jew, I realise that the story of Creation can be understood in numerous ways.

I certainly believe that God created the universe. I think that denial of that is just plain stupid. But no, I am not for these Fundamentalist ideas that go in for a literal reading of Genesis.

Now, if you want my own reading of Genesis, consider the following. The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars were not created until the Fourth Day. So, given that to be the case, the length of a day could not be necessarily calculated to 24 hour periods without the sun, now could it? The length of the first four days could have been any length at all! This allows for all kinds of things to happen in terms of the scientific, the rise and fall of dinosaurs, etc. if Earth were on a clock, Humans would occupy that clock at 11.59 pm of that clock after the 23.58 hrs had been spent by the rest of Earth's history. So, might the Garden of Eden story be true? It might. Or there might be other explanations of Genesis that would be equally valid. I am open to conversation on the matter.

By the way, if you want to call me an Old Earth Creationist, that is your business. It is my business to deny such a title. So, to each his own.

[Lord Dave]

1. How long between Noah's flood and the genocide command?  Roughly?
2. When did God give the Noah laws to people?  (The ones non-jews follow)

[Yonah ben Amittai]

1. How long between Noah's flood and the genocide command?  Roughly?
2. When did God give the Noah laws to people?  (The ones non-jews follow)

The first question, I don't know. That would take some interesting math which I have no inclination to do. I am sure you could either (1), look at a published Bible timeline, or (2), work out the math for yourself, to get the results for that.

2. The Noahide Laws were given right after the Flood, so far as I am given to understand.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

An interesting article regarding Amalek:

"In 2006 Conservative Rabbi Jack Reimer, Bill Clinton's rabbinic counsel during his presidency, created a stir when he associated Islamic fundamentalism with the biblical nation of Amalek.

"I am becoming convinced that Islamic Fundamentalism, or, as some people prefer to call it, 'Islamo-fascism,' is the most dangerous force that we have ever faced and that it is worthy of the name: Amalek.

We must recognize who Amalek is in our generation, and we must prepare to fight it in every way we can. And may God help us in this task."

Who is Amalek?
According to the book of Exodus, Amalek is the nation that attacked the weakest among the Israelites as they fled from Egypt. This transgression was not to go unpunished. The Torah has a harsh prescription for Amalek: annihilation.

"It shall be that when Hashem, your God, gives you rest from all your enemies all around, in the Land that Hashem, your God, gives you as an inheritance to possess it, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heaven. Do not forget it!" (Deuteronomy 25: 19; also see Exodus 17:14 and Numbers 24:20)

Blotting out the memory of Amalek was no mere psychological activity. The Israelites were expected to kill every Amalekite--man, woman, and child. But was this just a theoretical imperative or was it meant to be carried out?

The book of Samuel implies that it required actual fulfillment: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox, and sheep, camel and ass,"(Samuel I, 15:3). King Saul struck down Amalek as he was commanded but he then took mercy upon King Agag and upon some of the Amalekite animals. God and the prophet Samuel harshly criticized Saul for not fulfilling God's word.

The point, of course, is that an invocation of Amalek is serious business. Rabbi Reimer wasn't issuing a literal call to arms, but by associating "Islamo-Fascists" with Amalek, Rabbi Reimer was referencing the Jewish tradition's genocidal instincts. Jewish authorities have struggled with this commandment for centuries, but the issue is perhaps even more urgent now.

For the last 2,000 years the Jewish people have lacked political sovereignty. With the return to the land of Israel, however, this is no longer the case. Invoking Amalek during the centuries of military impotency was one thing. Today, when there is a Jewish state with an army--and armed citizenry--it is quite another.

A Complicated History
The exegetical history of the commandment to destroy Amalek is complicated. The Talmud argues that the attacks and exiles of Sancherib, the king of Assyria and destroyer of Samaria, "mixed up the nations" over 2,500 years ago and thus all identity of the biblical nations has been lost (Berakhot 28a). This implies that all commands of exterminating nations were dismissed and that it is not appropriate to label any contemporary peoples as descendants of Amalek.

However, the Sefer HaHinnuch, a 13th century Spanish work, claims that the commandment still exists, demanding that every individual Jew kill every individual Amalekite man, woman, and child (mitzvah 604). Maimonides, on the other hand, argues that the command applies not to every individual, but to the Jewish nation as a whole (Hilkhot Melakhim 6).

Yet Maimonides also stated that the Jewish nation could accept converts from any nation in the world, including Amalek (Hilkhot Issurei Bia 12:17).

Most significantly, Maimonides contends that the Jewish nation can never launch a war with any nation (uniquely including Amalek and the seven Canaanite nations together) without first offering "a call to peace,"(keri'a l'shalom). If in this call to peace, the seven Noahide laws are accepted and peace is made, then no war is required (Hilkhot Melachim 6:1).

In the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides explains further that the command to wipe out Amalek isn't based on hatred, but on removing Amalek-like behavior from the world (3:41). For Maimonides, then, the commandment is not necessarily fulfilled through killing; it can be fulfilled through moral influence and education.

Deuteronomy 20 distinguishes between the obligatory war of conquest against the seven nations of Canaan and other wars. However, according to Maimonides and Nahmanides, the obligation to offer a call for peace is applied to both. Nahmanides, in quoting a midrash, also claims that there is an obligation of a Jewish army, laying siege upon a town, to provide an open direction to escape for those of the enemy who do not wish to fight  (Sefer Hamitzvot 5).

Some legal authorities were more eager to remove the command entirely from being applicable in our era. For example, in the 19th century, Rabbi Abraham Sachatchover  argued: "If they repent from their ways and accept the Noahide commandments, and they no longer continue in the path of their forefathers, they are no longer held responsible for the sins of their forefathers." (Avnei Neizer Orat Hayiim 2:508)

The Sachatchover Rebbe, like Maimonides, suggests that Amalek is a way of being, not a genetic trait. Shouldn't it be justified, then, for us to label contemporary enemies of the Jewish people Amalek? It appears, however, according to these interpretations, that the intention of the enemy must be first and foremost to destroy the Jewish people.

In addition to the rational legalists, the mystical thinkers in the Jewish tradition have also provided useful reinterpretations. Professor Avi Sagi demonstrated the claim of many Hasidic sources that the battle against Amalek was only intended to be a spiritual war.

Invoking Amalek
Even if most people would not invoke the commandment to destroy Amalek today, there are certainly those, like Rabbi Riemer, who have ventured to do so. And there has been no dearth of similar, violent invocations in reference to the Palestinians, as well. For example, Benzi Lieberman, the chairman of the Council of Settlements said in no uncertain terms: "The Palestinians are Amalek! We will destroy them. We won't kill them all. But we will destroy their ability to think as a nation. We will destroy Palestinian nationalism."

The general consensus among today's Jewish community seems to be that our energies can and must be used to stop the perpetuation of genocidal activity occurring throughout the world, to become agents for peace, and to dismiss any contemporary comparisons to the biblical paradigm. But clearly there are difficult texts and teaching that remain in our tradition that must be remembered and reckoned with.

Source: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/War_and_Peace/Combat_and_Conflict/Types_of_War/Genocide.shtml?p=0

[Rushy]

Most significantly, Maimonides contends that the Jewish nation can never launch a war with any nation (uniquely including Amalek and the seven Canaanite nations together) without first offering "a call to peace,"(keri'a l'shalom). If in this call to peace, the seven Noahide laws are accepted and peace is made, then no war is required (Hilkhot Melachim 6:1).

That's a pretty big misnomer. This isn't asking for peace, it is asking for surrender.

[Rama Set]

I re asked a question because you dodged it before, so I will ask it again:

How can you believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution which is merely an extension of the micro-evolutionary process?

It depends on how you are using the word "microevolution'. Allow me to elaborate. I do not believe that a cat can become a dog. But I do believe that a lower species of cat can become a higher, more intelligent species of cat. Because I don't classify myself as a creationist, but only as a traditional Jew, I realise that the story of Creation can be understood in numerous ways.

Do you believe that the changes in micro evolution can accumulate over time?  Say, a cat's nose becomes longer, its legs and tail shorter, it takes on a taste for ants because of its ecology and they develop progressively longer tongues to eat ants from their ant hills?

I certainly believe that God created the universe. I think that denial of that is just plain stupid.

Why stupid?  Is anyone who disagrees with you automatically stupid?

But no, I am not for these Fundamentalist ideas that go in for a literal reading of Genesis.

That would make you a Young Earth Creationist.

Now, if you want my own reading of Genesis, consider the following. The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars were not created until the Fourth Day. So, given that to be the case, the length of a day could not be necessarily calculated to 24 hour periods without the sun, now could it? The length of the first four days could have been any length at all! This allows for all kinds of things to happen in terms of the scientific, the rise and fall of dinosaurs, etc. if Earth were on a clock, Humans would occupy that clock at 11.59 pm of that clock after the 23.58 hrs had been spent by the rest of Earth's history. So, might the Garden of Eden story be true? It might. Or there might be other explanations of Genesis that would be equally valid. I am open to conversation on the matter.

By the way, if you want to call me an Old Earth Creationist, that is your business. It is my business to deny such a title. So, to each his own.

I am not sure how or why you would deny it.  Have a read through the [urk=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism]wiki page[/url] and check out Day-Age Creationists.  It is almost exactly what you just expressed.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Most significantly, Maimonides contends that the Jewish nation can never launch a war with any nation (uniquely including Amalek and the seven Canaanite nations together) without first offering "a call to peace,"(keri'a l'shalom). If in this call to peace, the seven Noahide laws are accepted and peace is made, then no war is required (Hilkhot Melachim 6:1).

That's a pretty big misnomer. This isn't asking for peace, it is asking for surrender.

It is hardly asking for surrender to expect people to live by basic laws of civility. if you can't even manage to do that, then you don't deserve to exist, to be quite blunt.  Look up the Noahide Laws in Wikipedia. They don't ask for much.

I re asked a question because you dodged it before, so I will ask it again:

How can you believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution which is merely an extension of the micro-evolutionary process?

It depends on how you are using the word "microevolution'. Allow me to elaborate. I do not believe that a cat can become a dog. But I do believe that a lower species of cat can become a higher, more intelligent species of cat. Because I don't classify myself as a creationist, but only as a traditional Jew, I realise that the story of Creation can be understood in numerous ways.

Do you believe that the changes in micro evolution can accumulate over time?  Say, a cat's nose becomes longer, its legs and tail shorter, it takes on a taste for ants because of its ecology and they develop progressively longer tongues to eat ants from their ant hills?

No, I don't believe that cats can turn into anteaters, if that is your suggestion.

I certainly believe that God created the universe. I think that denial of that is just plain stupid.

Why stupid?  Is anyone who disagrees with you automatically stupid?

No. But anyone who thinks the Earth got here by random chance strikes me as a bit stupid, and anyone who thinks the Earth got here by NON-randomness, and yet without a creator, strikes me as incredibly stupid.

But no, I am not for these Fundamentalist ideas that go in for a literal reading of Genesis.

That would make you a Young Earth Creationist.

Now, if you want my own reading of Genesis, consider the following. The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars were not created until the Fourth Day. So, given that to be the case, the length of a day could not be necessarily calculated to 24 hour periods without the sun, now could it? The length of the first four days could have been any length at all! This allows for all kinds of things to happen in terms of the scientific, the rise and fall of dinosaurs, etc. if Earth were on a clock, Humans would occupy that clock at 11.59 pm of that clock after the 23.58 hrs had been spent by the rest of Earth's history. So, might the Garden of Eden story be true? It might. Or there might be other explanations of Genesis that would be equally valid. I am open to conversation on the matter.

By the way, if you want to call me an Old Earth Creationist, that is your business. It is my business to deny such a title. So, to each his own.

I am not sure how or why you would deny it.  Have a read through the [urk=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism]wiki page[/url] and check out Day-Age Creationists.  It is almost exactly what you just expressed.
[/quote]

I think we get a little storm-tossed in all our names for people. Call me whatever you want to call me. Do I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? No. Do I believe in Evolution, at least to a point? Absolutely. Do I believe that God guided the process? Yes. Does it ultimately matter? Not really.It doesn't change the overall tenor of my life much, except when I want to ask questions that will cross a Rabbi's eyes. Then it can be fun, sure. It certainly is interesting. But if you are truly going to lose sleep over it, I would say that is not a good thing.

[Vindictus]

People with no scientific knowledge making scientific assertions.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

People with no philosophical or religious knowledge making philosophical and religious assertions. Schmuck.

[Vindictus]

Except evolution is not a philosophical or religious theory.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

I am inclined to agree, but your ideas about God are. And every uninformed, dipshit thing you have said about Judaism is. You brown nose Richard Dawkins so well its not surprising that you're an anti-Semitic little Nazi of a man.