[Rama Set]

Again, your argument is well turned. But there IS a Covenant, and has been one for 4500 years. As long as there have been Jews, there has been a Covenant. Go back to any point in the entire history of the Jewish People. You will find a Covenant People. Until such time in the historical timeline as we don't exist (ie, before our existence), there was a People, the Jews, who embodied the Covenantal ideal. I am not going to convince you. And that is fine. I don't have to. This is what I believe. You can choose to disagree with it. But it is rational based on my understanding of history. As long as Jews have been Jews (and before that Israelites, and before that Hebrews), there has been a Covenant. That Covenant had to start somewhere. And Hebrews began to exist with Abraham. Archaeology will one day prove me right. Until then, I am not going to lose any beauty sleep about it.

You are welcome to believe that, but it is inherently irrational. Surely you can recognize that?  There is no good evidence for a covenant other than your culture claiming it is so. It is no different than any other group that claims to have a privileged relationship with the supernatural. Until such time as there is non-anecdotal evidence for a covenant, it should be viewed as large scale narcissism and treated as such.

[Pete Svarrior]

This is the moment when we all realise we're not engaged in conversation with a rational person.

I think this is something we were aware of for a long time now.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

RAMA SET, our culture has claimed it to be so for 4500 years, which is about how far back Abraham lived. I mean, between you, me, and the fence post, if you don't believe in God, which is COMPLETELY irrational (in fact, the most rational belief would be Agnosticism), then nothing will convince you. And if you don't believe in the God of the Jews, well, then I guess you can say we're full of it. But if you are a believer in the God of the Jews (ie, if you are Christian or Muslim), you have a very hard time even justifying your existence, frankly.

I mean, to take on Christianity as an example. 1.5 billion rational persons believe that a Jewish Rabbi is God and yet they are not Jews. WHAT? That makes no sense at all, but ok.

FAPP and PIZA, anyone who can categorically deny the existence of God is completely irrational. You have no more proof that God does NOT exist than I have that he does. In fact, I have more circumstantial proof that he does. To be fair, of course, I would acknowledge that the most rational, albeit the laziest, argument to hold is Agnosticism. But Atheism is just outright a sign of stupidity. I have readily admitted that on the whole Arab-Israeli matter, I am NOT rational. So, you have won no points there.

[Rama Set]

How are you determining a) How long Jews have been claiming a covenant and b) How long ago Abraham is purported to live?

For the record I am agnostic, but I consider the likelihood of the Abrahimic conception of god to be vanishingly small. The only conception I could buy in to is Deistic and if that is the case there is nothing in that conception that would change my life. It is just adding an idea before the Big Bang.

[fappenhosen]

I NEVER suggested that the Bible was a science book!

Yes you did:

And I would suggest, FAPP, that you have a personal problem. The Bible (The Jewish Bible) has continued to be proven correct on everything it has talked about. Archaeology has indicated so far that as far back as we can go, the Bible has been accurate.

I don't know how you can prove something accurate without looking at the predictions made and measuring them against reality. This is science. Your back-pedalling amuses me.

FAPP and PIZA, anyone who can categorically deny the existence of God is completely irrational.

Incorrect. A person that accepts the existence of some vaguely described phenomenon without any evidence to its existence is completely irrational.

You have no more proof that God does NOT exist than I have that he does.

I'm not making the claim that God does not exist. I'm making the claim that I have seen no evidence to suggest he does. A self contradictory book, complete with talking flora and fauna, does not count.

I have readily admitted that on the whole Arab-Israeli matter, I am NOT rational. So, you have won no points there.

Never get into a butt fucking contest with someone who likes getting butt fucked. Lesson learned.

[Lord Dave]

Actually, I grant I've insulted Muslims and Arabs. I have NOT insulted others on the planet. I have NOT implied anything about what other Jews think or do not think. I have insulted you, because I do think you are an idiot, yes. Other members in some cases, yes, in other cases no. Yes, anybody who dislikes Jews is by definition an anti-Semite and yes, a barbarian. what else would you call them? If I hated Black people (I don't) I would be called racist. What other word would there be for it? And yes, I do perceive my own culture as somewhat superior to others, but that is natural. Any person who DOESN"T see their own culture as superior to others is going to commit cultural suicide. That is a case of Felony Stupid.

So, for the record. I don't like Arabs, or Muslims generally. I do think Lord Dave is a fucktard. Anyone who dislikes Jews IS an anti-Semite, just as anyone who disliked Blacks would be a racist. And any rational human should prefer his own culture to that of another. To further clarify, I am an English Jew. I prefer the English and Jewish civilisations as the most civilised as of the world.

I know, I know, that is going to sound not Politically Correct. Well, tough shit. Wake up, my friends. Political Correctness is NOT one of my strong points.

You also said that without Jews, no one else would have made the scientific they did.  (Like the polio Vacccine)  That's insulting.  You've also said you disregard international law and what the UN does yet then go run to it when you defend the Jewish claim to the land now known as Israel.

Also, hating Jews for being a Jew is anti-Semite.  Hating Jews for their culture of arrogance and self entitlement is not.  It's like if you hated Muslims for wanting to tax other religions like their beliefs say.

[Pete Svarrior]

You have no more proof that God does NOT exist than I have that he does.

Indeed. If we did, we would be getting some sort of award for proving that informal logic as we know it is completely moot.

We do not need to categorically deny the existence of a god. We merely reject the notion, since it's unsubstantiated. Similarly, you cannot disprove my claim that I'm a millionaire, but it doesn't make you irrational to just take my word for it.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Last I checked, I never went to the UN to defend Israel. Israel created itself by winning its War for Independence against five Arab armies. If the UN had NOT recognised it, Israel would likely have told it to go fuck itself.

The Polio vaccine was invented by a Jew. Would a non-Jew have invented it? Probably, but it would have been more years, and a lot of deaths later.

FAPP, again, I was referring to the historical aspects of the book, not the so-called scientific, which the book never claimed to be about.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for the existence of God. Now, whether that God be the Abrahamic God, or some other, that gets us into a WHOLE different argument. I'm prepared to discuss that with you, but not in this thread. I'm not here to prove or disprove the existence of God, nor any type of God in particular.

QUOTE from Rama Set: "How are you determining a) How long Jews have been claiming a covenant and b) How long ago Abraham is purported to live?

For the record I am agnostic, but I consider the likelihood of the Abrahimic conception of god to be vanishingly small. The only conception I could buy in to is Deistic and if that is the case there is nothing in that conception that would change my life. It is just adding an idea before the Big Bang."

I am determining about how long Jews have claimed a Covenant simply from the historical fact that our People, as a People, have existed for 4500 years (more or less). The New Year as of 25 September will be 5775. Of course, the year indicates the supposed year of the world (Anno Mundi), ie, the year of Creation. Of course, that comes from a literal reading of Genesis which we don't accept any more than any other rational person today. I CAN'T prove Abraham existed. I think his existence will be proven AT SOME POINT, but it obviously can't be done now.

Any good history book will tell you about the history of the Hebrews. It starts about 4500 years ago. We are pretty much the culture with the oldest monotheistic religion on Earth. Akhenaten MAY have been earlier (I'm not sure) but his beliefs did not survive him.

So there you have it, friends. Carry on! A fine discussion! Absolutely fine! (SNIFFS AT MY CIGAR TO DETERMINE HOW GOOD IT IS).

And again, rejecting the notion of God's existence outright is illogical since you cannot prove the non-existence thereof. Perhaps we can both agree to a certain amount of illogic, since, as I indicated, the most logical, albeit intellectually laziest, argument would be Agnosticism. However, I still believe that the Atheist is more illogical than the Theist, because the Theist at least has circumstantial evidence backing him.

[Rama Set]

I asked you how you ascertained the length of time the Jews have been claiming a covenant, and you said from a history book. That is not so much a how as a where. How is it known that the historicity of this claim is substantial? 

The Anecdotal evidence for God is terrible evidence.

There is no circumstantial evidence for God anymore than there is circumstantial evidence that God does not exist. Imposing an interpretation on circumstances, such as the precise conditions for life, is not evidence for God.

[Tau]

Why is it relevant that the guy who discovered the Polio vaccine was a Jew?

And again, rejecting the notion of God's existence outright is illogical since you cannot prove the non-existence thereof. Perhaps we can both agree to a certain amount of illogic, since, as I indicated, the most logical, albeit intellectually laziest, argument would be Agnosticism. However, I still believe that the Atheist is more illogical than the Theist, because the Theist at least has circumstantial evidence backing him.

Why is Agnosticism intellectually lazy? I consider it merely scientific. Needing to rationalize your beliefs doesn't make them better, indeed quite the opposite. Agnosticism requires no sketchy, philosophical rationalization. This is a good thing.

What circumstantial evidence supports theism?

[Rama Set]

Agnosticism is not lazy at all because unlike a faith based acceptance or a blind rejection of the supernatural, it requires an investigation in to the heart of the matter.

[fappenhosen]

FAPP, again, I was referring to the historical aspects of the book, not the so-called scientific, which the book never claimed to be about.

Nope you said "everything it talked about". The Bible talks about a lot of stuff, much of it retarded. Maybe you'd like to back-pedal some more and recognise that the Bible hasn't been proven correct on everything it talks about.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

QUOTE: "I asked you how you ascertained the length of time the Jews have been claiming a covenant, and you said from a history book. That is not so much a how as a where. How is it known that the historicity of this claim is substantial?"

So, if you claim otherwise, then fine. I shall endeavour to find sources. Here is one: "Judaism claims a historical continuity spanning more than 3,000 years. Judaism has its roots as a structured religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age.[14] Of the major world religions, Judaism is considered one of the oldest monotheistic religions.[15][16]" (Wikipedia)

That was the easiest to find, of course. I can probably find more if I look harder. Now that says 3000 years. Now the Bible places Abraham's existence at about 2000 BCE. That would push it back about to 4000 years. The Rabbis have always told me about 4500 years.

But lets take the smallest number. 3000 years. Fine. So for at least 3000 years, Judaism has existed in some form (as ancient Hebrew Faith, Israelitic Faith, or Judaism). The core doctrine of this Faith is the Covenant. God made one with Abraham. If you reject Abraham, fine. Then Isaac. Then Jacob. You could even reject all three.

But eventually you get to Moshe (Moses). The fact is there are archaeological indicators that a people came out of Egypt, albeit not in the numbers the Bible uses, which may be taken as symbolic. There is proof that Hebrews entered and took possession of Canaan through both military and some non-military action during the time that the Exodus and following are supposed to have occurred according to the first six books of the Bible.

Even if you reject the Patriarchs, by the time Moses comes along, you have to accept that the Hebrews developed a covenantal relationship with what they perceived as their God. Even if you don't believe in God (and that is your prerogative of course), you have to acknowledge that they did (and do), and felt (and feel) themselves to be in a special relationship with said deity. Was Moshe real? Well, I certainly believe he was. Do I have proof of that? Not personally. Is there proof? I don't know. I am not an archaeologist. I am historian, but of Renaissance British history, not the ancient history of the Levant.

So, that's that. Regarding Agnosticism, it doesn't require an investigation into anything. It merely requires saying, "I can't prove either way definitively. Therefore I shall not worship." That is rather lazy to me.

FAPP, you are as stupid as you look. If you misunderstood my meaning, I was referring to archaeology. That subject can prove or disprove historical claims. Only rarely (and very rarely at that) can it be used to prove or disprove scientific claims. So, please, for the sake of all of us present, do cease to be a fucktard, ok?

[Pete Svarrior]

It merely requires saying, "I can't prove either way definitively. Therefore I shall not worship." That is rather lazy to me.

Please worship Big Papa Franklin, a guy I just made up. I didn't really establish much about him yet, but I know that he is either green or large, but definitely not both. He totally exists and will be the next big religion in a few hundred years; and if you doubt it, you're lazy.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

As indicated, philosophical laziness in refusing to investigate the meaning and cause of existence is, in my mind, unacceptable. As a Jew, I certainly believe that there are more answers out there, although I don't claim to know what they are. I believe that all moral persons must uphold belief in one God, ultimately.

I would encourage non-Jews to investigate the Noahides. That is the best choice, in my mind, if one is not a Jew. But that is up to the individual, and I hardly think that anyone should be rewarded or penalised for their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

[Particle Person]

and I hardly think that anyone should be rewarded or penalised for their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Wait a minute...

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Allow me to clarify. If Muslims were peaceful, and didn't like to blow shit up, I would deal them the hand of peace. I don't object to their religion, I object to their desire to make all of us follow it. So yes, I shall kill them, in pure self defence.

[Particle Person]

You shall personally kill them?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

If I am forced to pick up a weapon at some time in my life, and defend my family and loved ones, and my Faith and country, yes, I shall. I am not in the Army, US or IDF (and I am an American Jew; well, English, but I live in America, so chew on that). I don't want to kill anybody. I don't particularly like guns much, or the idea of blowing someone's head off (rather messy, that). But I shall. If the bastards come for me, and tell me I have to pay the jizya tax, I will blow their fucking brains out.

I am in no medical shape for military service. If I were, I would go to Israel now and join the IDF. But I'm 40 years old and have already had one heart attack. Trust me, if I could contribute to the defence of Israel I would. I would even go to Israel and become a settler in the West Bank. But my wife is a Lutheran. She doesn't even begin to understand this shit, let alone comprehend the idea of wanting to go into the kind of danger that would entail. What little she knows about this terrifies her already.

Why did I marry a Lutheran? Simply because I loved her. I attend a Synagogue that is a blend of Conservative and Reform. The Rabbi is transdenominational. I am probably the most Orthodox leaning in the shul. But that's the way things are. I married her in the Lutheran Church. We will have a Synagogue ceremony soon (which shows you the Rabbi is less than Orthodox).

I married because I loved her. It went beyond being a Jew. What was I supposed to do? Say no to the best thing that ever happened to me just because she's not a Jew? Even I'm not that stupid!

So there you are. Will I personally kill the bastards? Damn straight, if I have to. If they come for me, yes I will. And in the words of an ISIS defector: "First they will make a Caliphate of the Arab World. Then they will go after other countries."

[Vindictus]

I'm sure the Israelis appreciate you trolling an internet forum in their defence. Perhaps you should spread the truth to /pol/ and /r/conspiracy, they love Jews.