SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen

  • November 2022
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

Christian Anti-Semitism in Sermon Topic Library

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on December 5, 2007

Many years ago a small Jewish boy asked his father, “Why must we surrender our Jewish faith and start to attend Lutheran services here in Germany’


The father replied, “Son, we must abandon our faith so that people will accept us and support our business adventures!”


The young lad never got over his disappointment and bitterness. His faith in his father and in his religion were crushed. When the lad left Germany he went to England to study at the British Museum where he formed his philosophies for life. From those intensive investigations he wrote a book that changed the world called, “The Communist Manifesto.


From that book one-third of the world fell under the spell of Marxist-Lenist ideology. The name of that little boy was Karl Marx. He influenced billions into a stream that for 70 years ruined, imprisoned and confused many lives. Today, that system of thinking is crumbling, but only after people got a good look at its tragic consequences. The influence of this father’s hypocrisy multiplied in infamy. Without godly faith, all of us are subject to distortions in our perspectives. From NETBible Sermon Illustrations

Why a Jewish father? Why not a Christian father in China or on Cuba? Because this Story contains two elements that are considered typical for Jews, according to antisemitic doctrine: “Jews will do anything to save their miserable lives and Jews will sell their loyalties for money.”

It really doesn’t matter that the pointer is about distortions and hypocrisy, when the idea is arrived at through distortions and hypocrisy.


Posted in Karl Marx | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Fundamantalist Islamic Hypocrisy

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on September 2, 2007

Mohammad Controversy Images

Western media outlets are fearful of provoking extremist Islamic retaliation, thus they have largely avoided printing the Mohammed cartoons, though it must be remembered that the over-reaction is the problem, not the provocation. These cartoons are not racist – they satirise the Islamic religion and its prophet, not Muslim people.

Religious fundamentalism has been a cause of prejudice and violence for centuries. The violent reactions to these cartoons say more about extremist intolerance than about blasphemy – protesters in London held placards reading “EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO MOCK ISLAM”. It is the protesters who are the problem here, and the media should not give in to such intimidation.

Lars Vilks Roundabout Dog

You know, I am a religious man, and I don’t get the problem with religious satire. I never have. First of all there will always be people who for one reason or other find it amusing to mock religion and religious figures. No big deal. Would I find similar cartoons of Moses or Avraham offensive? No I wouldn’t.

The reactions around the world to the images above, among fundamentalist Islamists, are not only rather “over the top” they are only confirming peoples worst prejudices about Islam and Muslims as aggressive, intolerant, and quite imperialistic (as in “wanting to take over the world”).

They are also quite hypocritical, as the same fundamentalist Islamists have no qualms about publishing their own versions of mocking and satirizing images aimed at Jews, Israel, The US, Europe, the UK etc…

It’s a clear case of not being able to take what they dish out.

Further, demanding censorship (or else…) in democratic states like Denmark, Sweden and the UK, is nothing less than an attempt to control those states from the out-side through blatant blackmail.

You simply cannot demand that sovereign states cater to your religious sensitivities, especially not if you at the same time ignore the sensitivities of others.

It would have been a whole other matter if those images had been depicting Muslims or Arabs in a general manner – just as it is with Anti-Semitic images in the Arab World, which portray Jews in the same manner as in the Third Reich, but those images are of the Prophet Mohammad, and last time I looked the Prophet Mohammad was not the entire Muslim or Arab World population.

Posted in Double Standards, Freedom of Press, Satire | Leave a Comment »

“Is Darwin Kosher?”

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on August 11, 2007

“Is Darwin Kosher?” Discovery Institute Hosts Orthodox Jew who says “No!”

“According to Rosenblum, Neo-Darwinism, with its random mutations and lack of any goal, “cannot be reconciled” with the theological teachings of the Torah.

Would you expect a tree to have a goal? Or a salmon to be aware that it’s life is going to end at the very place it was spawned? Of course not! Just as little as I would expect my printer to be aware of the words it prints when printing the weekly parasha for me – does this lack of awareness disqualify the printer for its job? Does it make my understanding of how the printer works less valid? No. Why? Because the printer does the job it was designed to do.

In a way Science is like my printer – it can only do what it is designed for, and Science is not designed to answer theological questions or even cast light on those matters. The question that this “need” among theologians and scientists to “reconcile” evolution with theology, or in some cases prove that they are the very opposition of each other, raises another question: Why this almost obssessive urge from either side, position in this?

One very big reason is tradition – Science has traditionally been maltreated by the Church, and has therefore naturally adopted a skeptic and cautious attitude towards the Church.

Traditionally the Church has been obsessed with proving the truth of its claims and doctrines, one of them the existence of G-d, and since The Evolution Theory doesn’t require the existence of G-d to be accurate or even mentions G-d, it has been at odds with the Church from get go.

What does this have to do with Judaism? Well, in the view of many Evolution theorists Genesis is Genesis, regardless of who is reading it. But the truth is that Judaism has never bothered with such matters as proving the existence of G-d – that has ALWAYS been an axiom in Judaism – nor is Judaism really interested in the literal veracity of Written Torah, since Oral Torah is the basic Guiding light in Judaism. The Sages have always been reading Torah from a more or less loose point, through allusions, anagrams, allegories and general midrashing. Science, and a logical process has always been part of Jewish education, even back when our ancestors were mere farmers and hunters. So for Judaism the question of Science vs Religion is irrelevant.

Rosenblum was adamant that Orthodox Judaism in its reading of the Bible is not driven by a simple literal approach, but he maintained that Neo-Darwinian evolution stretches the theological truths of the Torah beyond their intended meaning.

Now, this is an interesting statement. Again this claim that “theological truths” have any bearing on Evolution or the other way around. Besides, anyone who has been just half awake for the last 10 years knows that it is actually the theologians that are trying to stretch Evolutionary Theory in a manner that was never intended.


Rosenblum clearly grasped the scientific issues. His article last year in the Jewish Observer challenged Darwin on the grounds of a lack of transitional fossils and the inability of natural selection to produce complex systems.

“Rosenblum grasps the scientific issues” to a degree where he is able to establish something that is not true – how brilliant! Sorry, I just couldn’t let that one be. “…on the grounds of a lack of transitional fossils”. On the matter of transitional fossils – perhaps the good Rosenblum need to read that?

Instead, Rosenblum, who himself is a graduate of Yale Law School and the University of Chicago, gave a lucid explanation of how Neo-Darwinism survives:

First step: Exclude all non-natural causes as a priori inadmissible. Second step: If Darwinian Evolution were true, it would explain observed taxonomic similarities between different living things. Third step: Since no alternative explanation exists to explain those phenomena, Darwinism must be true. … Fourth step: Since Darwinism is true, all explanations based on non-natural causes are vanquished. Note how that which was a priori excluded at the outset is now deemed to have been somehow disproved. (Jonathan Rosenblum, “The Myth of Scientific Objectivity,” Jewish Observer (May, 2006).)

That last quote is a nice and pretty little logical fallacy:

First statement is false in and of itself, since Evolution Theory does not have any claims whatsoever about non-natural causes – it’s purely agnostic in that realm, and on top of that it is irrelevant to the three following statements – it has no connection to the other parts of the chain. And since his fourth statement is dependent on the first for validity, that falls away too.

Now, how about Statements 2 and 3? Well, the problem is that Evolutionary Theory does explain the taxonomic similarities between different living things, and since Rosenblum stated “If so – then so…” he has disqualified his own reasoning and ends up with no need for alternative explanations, since only his second statement needs verification, and that fails. Simple logic.

The appearance of the idea of “non-natural causes” in this discussion is purely theological and is given power only because theologians have mistaken the aim of Science for the personal opinions of the scientists on theological matters. Rosenblum is no different.

Posted in Darwinism, Discovery Institute, Evolution, Evolution Theory, Genesis, Jonathan Rosenblum, Logical Fallacies, Neo-Darwinism, Nick Matzke, Orthodox Judaism, Theology, Torah | 3 Comments »

“You’re a Good man…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on August 3, 2007

for helping people who you didn’t even know” (from the TV series “Jericho”.)

The saying “Charity begins at home” has been hammered into us to such a degree that the thought of helping someone who we do not know is seen as a mark of a Good Person. There’s something wrong with this picture.

Oh, I agree that Tzedakkah (Righteousness and Justice) cannot be practiced if it has not been taught from an early age, in some manner. But the intention of such teaching should be that the person being taught brings the very idea of Tzedakkah with him or her to others, regardless of relation, as a matter of fact. There’s nothing “Good” in the idea of Tzedakkah (or the less righteous/just idea of Charity) it’s just what it is supposed to be. Righteousness and Justice.

My guess is that people who extend those two values only to their loved ones or their specific community still do it out of a sense of Obligation – which in essence is not less than towards the Stranger. Doing what is my duty is not Good. It’s Righteous. And Righteous is what G-d expects of us.

So being “good” to anyone is what G-d is demanding of us. Let’s not get carried away by the idea that it’s enough to do tzedakkah to our own, and that if we extend it to those we do not know we are “good” – because that is a delusion.

““Justice, justice shall thou pursue!” (Devarim/Deut 16:20 – Parasha Shoftim)” and ” Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the home-born; for I am the L-RD your G-d. (Vayikra/Lev 24:22)

So we cannot, and should not, treat people differently depending on their status in relation to us, because to do so is a violation of our obligation towards G-d and men – to not violate this has nothing to with being Good. It is just the way things should be.

Posted in Charity, Justice, Torah, Tzedakah | Leave a Comment »

The Hitler Analogy – when is it acceptable?

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 30, 2007

The current president’s policies seem to be an extension of his grandfather’s thinking. Bush’s latest string of Executive Orders are so disconcertingly undemocratic and un-American that even the Right-wing is growing leery. Last week, Bush signed an order that would enable him to seize the financial assets of anti-war activists. And in his most troubling move to date, on May 9, Bush signed an order that states that in the event of another terror attack on U.S. soil, the legislative and judicial branches of government would become subservient to the executive. This move is precisely how Hitler concretized his power following the Reichstag fire.

The Blog – JewSchool – raised an interesting question: “When is it okay to call someone a Nazi.?”

It is interesting because the comparison to Hitler and Nazism is most often used when a debater has no arguments left for their position. It is considered bad form to use the comparison, and in most Discussion Forums it is a sure discussion killer. See Godwin’s Law.

It has also been used as a hyperbolic propagandist argument against f.i Israeli politics in regards to the Palestinians, especially by debaters on the Far Left, who somehow think they gain points by using it as an insult.

The interesting part appears when one is able to draw direct political lines between events today and those in the 1930’s and 1940’s Germany. Like the Blogger manages to do in the above quote.

The Question raises another Question – how are we to learn from history, if references to historical events cannot be made? If Hitler, the Third Reich and the Holocaust take on sacrosanct proportions in the minds of people, don’t we then loose an instrument that can and should be used for education and raising awareness of similar events taking place in our own times? What about historical, sociological and philosophical analysis – how can that be conducted if the books on certain parts of history are hermetically closed due to sensitivities of some of the victims? Isn’t that just another denial? It seems like the the slogan “Never again!” has come to mean, not that it must never happen again, but that we must never think or speak about it again. For sure, we must not point out that history is about to repeat itself in some variation.

It has been argued that the events leading up to and resulting in the Third Reich in the 1930’s were so unique that no events can be compared to them, not before and not after.

But were they? Really? The misuse of power, the political machinations, the targeting of political undesirables, followed by elimination any possible dissent – are they unique to the Rise of the Third Reich?

What about the Soviet Union? Or China? Uganda, Mozambique, Iran, Turkey, Iraq?

How about the Serbian Rise in Former Yugoslavia?

I know that Europe woke up to the plight of the Muslims in Serbia after images eerily resembling those from Bergen Belsen and Auschwitz were aired on TV – but that was long into the massacre, and for many the realization of what was happening came too late.

Could those events have been predicted and intercepted if we had been allowed to believe that this kind of evil is repeatable, because it is NOT unique, because human evil is in fact very predictable? Would we not then also have been allowed to analyze and draw parallels between events in the 1930’s and 40’s and events unfurling in our own times?

I believe that not only do we need to let go of the “sanctification” of the Holocaust and the events that led up to it as something unique, but we need to go of the permanent victimization, not just of the Jewish People and all other that perished then, but of our collective innocence. It cannot be repaired, so we might as well accept that it is gone, and live with it, learn from its demise and grow up.

Posted in Hitler, Philosophy, Third Reich | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Introduction part 1

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 24, 2007

Reading Glasses

The Introduction to the Book is written by Eliezer Goldman.

I admit that I have difficulties getting all the finer points in Goldman’s Introduction to the Thinking of Leibowitz – I am not too familiar with the thinking of Kant on factual and normative. But I understand the meaning of the words, thanks to!

In philosophy, normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive) or explanatory when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Descriptive (or constative”) statements are falsifiable statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements, on the other hand, affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. It is only with David Hume in the 18th century that philosophers began to take cognizance of the logical difference between normative and descriptive statements and thinking, although Socrates had emphatically established it more than two thousand years before. There are several schools of thought regarding the status of normative statements and whether they can be rationally discussed or defended. Among these schools are the tradition of practical reason extending from Aristotle through Kant to Habermas, which asserts that they can, and the tradition of emotivism, which maintains that they are merely expressions of emotions and have no rational content. Normative statements and norms, as well as their meanings, are an integral part of human life. They are fundamental for prioritizing goals and organizing and planning thought, belief, emotion and action and are the basis of much ethical and political discourse.

You get that? I kind of do – normative is what we decide is the rule about something – regardless of whether it’s facts or not.

“Ultimately all normative obligations and value-imputations are dependent upon personal decision. A valuation may, of course, be justified in terms of already recognized values, but one’s ultimate values cannot be the subject of rational argument. Their validity for a person results from decision, not from recognition. Since Leibowitz regards religion as an exclusively normative domain and denies that Scripture was intended to be a body of information, this is as true of religious commitment as it is of all other basic life-values. Factual knowledge may be forced upon us by experience. There is nothing to compel one into acceptance of any ultimate value-commitments, including that of religious faith.” (introduction pp xiv-xv)

So religious faith is a choice. Well, I believed that already – though I wouldn’t have said it like that – I usually say it like this: “the existence of G-d cannot be proved nor disproved, so any belief based on the existence of G-d must be a matter of Faith.”

So what is religious faith according to Leibowitz? Leibowitz is Jewish (or was, as he died in 1994) so he is speaking about Judaism. To Leibowitz religious faith is the “Commitment to observance of Halakha as worshipful service of G-d”.

I like this – because it carries a thought I have had, often in discussion with more liberal Jews who complain about the rigidness of the Orthodox: “If it hadn’t been for the rigidness of the Orthodox there would have been no Judaism for you to claim!” Observance of the Mitzvot is the core of Judaism and what it means to be Jewish – in essence that is what makes one Jewish, and that observance is what has kept both the Jewish People and Judaism alive for more than 3000 years.

Posted in Aristotle, Faith, Halakha, Introduction, Kant, normative, Philosophy, Yeshayahu Leibowitz | 5 Comments »

search:sick puppies partition

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 22, 2007

I have had one of those funny searches’ days on my blog today and yesterday.

What are people looking for when they type in “sick puppies partition“? Puppies cut in half? How to partition puppies before eating them? Wondering if their hard drive is sick and need special treatment? Really – people make some funny searches.

The day before yesterday someone wanted to see “bear fighting a dragon drawings“…okaaaay…it is true that I sometimes feel like I am fighting a dragon with multiple heads when going against anti-semitism, but what makes people think they will find drawings specifically depicting a bear fighting a dragon? What runs through peoples’ minds when they type in searches like that?

Since you so vigorously searched the net for it, here you go – compliments of my Wife:

Bear fighting a Dragon

This one is intriguing: “religious fundamentalism UN resolution” – I get the religious fundamentalism and the UN resolution – but where did the combination of those two originate inside someone’s head?

It sure would be wonderful if there was a UN resolution against Religious Fundamentalism. Then I could just walk up to my fanatical Xtian neighbor and say: “there’s a UN Resolution against you!” every time she tries to pander her religion to me and demand that she comply with the resolution. We could solve the problem of religious infighting by bunching the Fundamentalist Islamists, the Fundamentalist Xtians, Literalist Jews, Quirky Hindus, Marxist Stupidists and Annoying Atheists together and send them on the next NASA flight to Mars, all in compliance with a UN Resolution.

Posted in Satire | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Obama is a Muslim! Obama is a Muslim!! Oy vey!

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 22, 2007

Associated Press has revealed that Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Democratic candidate for President of the United States, attend a Catholic school in Indonesia registered as a Muslim, further clouding the issue of where Obama was schooled in Indonesia and when. Obama, by his own admission in books that he has written, has said that he attended a Catholic school and a Muslim school while living in Indonesia with his atheist mother and Muslim stepfather. But now that Fox News reported that Obama may have been indoctrinated in Islamic teachings while attending the Muslim school in Indonesia…

Oh my G-d! Barack Obama is a Muslim! He’s running for President! The Qu’ran is being used to swear Congressmen into Office, Hindu Prayers are said to open the Senate!

Homosexuals can legally marry in Massachusetts, gay people sneak in and out of the White House…! Muslims are allowed to fly with American passenger jets, Palestinians have legal visas to visit the States! Help!

Why isn’t anyone doing anything?? Why, Why, Why? Shouldn’t here be laws against such things?

Posted in Satire | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

A Zionist Quote

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 22, 2007

There must not be one law for the Jew and another for the Arabs….In saying this, I do not assume that there are tendencies toward inequality or discrimination. It is merely a timely warning which is particularly necessary because we shall have a very large Arab minority. I am certain that the world will judge the Jewish State by what it will do with the Arabs, just as the Jewish people at large will be judged by what we do or fail to do in this state where we have been given such a wonderful opportunity after thousands of years of wandering and suffering.” (Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, Page 566 – written in December 1947 – [My Emphasis])

Oh, Israel, how you have fallen!Devarim 24:17: “Thou shalt not pervert the justice due to the stranger…”I cannot let go of this issue – because it is so grave.Where are the Prophets of today? Where are the men and women of G-d that will approach the King and spell out the Law to him? Who do we approach to make Jerusalem repent?

By all means don’t believe in Torah! Don’t believe there is a G-d! That is your choice, but don’t pervert Torah and don’t pervert what the Founders of the Modern State of Israel pledged themselves to. Don’t drag their good name in the dust and mud, just because you are overtaken by hatred and egoism and have forgotten that The Land is a gift to be shared with those living within Her.

This and several other Blog entries from me the past days are sure to confuse many of my detractors and opponents, because they so very strongly believe that I am a blind defender of Israel, who only wish to kill all Palestinians and develop “Greater Israel”.

They truly cannot be more wrong about that – but that they believe this is completely their own doing – nowhere have I said different than what I have been saying for the last three years (the time I have been discussing this in Blogs and in Care2).

Their own prejudices, antisemitism and blindness have crippled their understanding of what I have actually been saying. They have assumed that because I am Jewish I am also blindly accepting of anything the Government of Israel, the Settlers and zealous religious people have done or are doing.

What I have been doing – and will continue to do – is give a balanced and nuanced, fair hearing to both sides of the conflict. That they have fanatically and violently been giving voice to the Palestinians’ side has meant that I as a Co-Host of a large Human Rights Group, have been forced to, in the name of Justice, fight their biased, antisemitic, anti-zionist and violent propaganda with common sense, facts and reason. Anyone with a brain and a mind to use that brain can see that in anything I have written on the matter.

For some reason it has been rather quiet from that front (the Radical Far Left) lately, which has permitted me to clarify my position without having to “do battle” with fanatics at every turn.

Let those who have a mind to read, read and those who only wish to attack blindly without sense and reason remain blind and deaf to the truth.

Posted in Bigotry, Chilul Hashem, Justice | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Questions on Religion, Faith & Believe Systems

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 15, 2007

Questions on Religion, Faith & Believe Systems

It has come to my attention that there are a number of news topics on religion in this group causing discord among members. While it is all okay for you to post whatever you want while exercising your freedom of speech and expression with little or no censorship, I have a question for everyone, immaterial of your religious background, faith or believe systems, on this topic which in this present time and age, is still regarded sensitive to many.

These questions are intended for all of us to discuss in order to form an understanding and to create awareness about others, yourself, your faith, your thoughts, your actions etc., in the hopes that tolerance can be reestablished.

This “questionnaire” is full of Logical Fallacies – and I can’t help but feel that this guy is a “victim” of that which he wishes to fight – assumptions and boxed thinking that makes a perfect nursery for a fundamentalist mind.

1. “ When you were lucky enough to be born as a human into this world this time around, you had not adopted a believe system of any kind. You were just like any other human. Equal. But later, someone downloaded a believe system into your mental processes. Who did this to you?

Assuming someone actually did this – and I am not so sure that is true. This question has an agenda. One of them is to put forward reincarnation as a factual part of human condition. The second one is the idea that belief systems are self-evidently put into to us without any basis in ourselves.

My Reply to this question: Society. I was areligious until I was 16, but the religious conditioning started already in first grade, with mandatory Grace before meals. Incidentally the only belief system available also became the one that I later turned to for answers to rather intricate existential question. Something that is absolutely normal for any teenager.

2. Each one of us, who are in different parts of the world, for some reason, perhaps out of innocence, mental suggestions, method of upbringing, respect towards our parents or some human figure etc., adopted and accepted a believe system introduced to us by someone who went through the same mental process claiming that a particular believe system is the one and only truth based on a book, a scripture, a scroll etc. Those words and the way it was presented to you touched your emotions to the point you decided that this got to be it. Do you think that this is sufficient enough to determine the truth of a particular faith?

This question is based in the premise that the the preceding statement is correct – without this having been established through evidence or argument.

It is another assumption – patterned on a preconceived idea about what leads someone to accept a certain belief system.

My Reply to this part: Not really – giving credence to that belief system became a matter of emotional and spiritual survival in an environment that demanded compliance and threatened ostracism if not complied with. My need for community overshadowed any logical analysis I might have engaged in otherwise.

“Do you think that this is sufficient enough to determine the truth of a particular faith?”

This also assumes that “the truth of a particular faith” actually needs to be determined, which has not been established. The idea is presented as self-evident.

My reply to this question: No I don’t. It’s not a matter of Truth, in my mind. Truth in terms of religious belief is subjective – after all, it is a BELIEF. The truth of a faith is all about whether it works for someone on a personal level. To try and derive objective truth from a belief system is as futile as trying to wring water out of a stone with your bare hands. Faith is not constructed to be based on objective sources – that’s why it’s called faith.

3. Why do you think that God didn’t choose all of us or at least a representative(s) from each country or continent to authenticate the one and the same visions, revelations, truth etc?”

This question is assuming that I think something I don’t think, and is set up to put forward an idea that has not been argued nor proven, thus asking the respondent to accept the questioner’s hidden premise. In this case the idea that G-d didn’t choose all of us.

I do think that G-d has done just that – but because we are human and are conditioned by culture, each revelation is colored by who received it and who sent it on.

4. Do you think that the things that are written in religious books can be so easily invented for reasons to control a particular society?

Again a fallacious question that assumes I think in a certain way. Do you want to be taken seriously or are you just joking around? Who said religious literature is EASY to come up with? Who claimed that the invention – if indeed they were invented – was done in order to control anything, much less a society?

My Reply: No, I don’t, and I don’t think they were invented to control a particular society, I think they were born out of people’s need to understand human conditions.

5. Do you think that the things in religious books originated from old myths modified to suit a particular society?

My Reply: No, I don’t. I think the same array of questions hit each human at one time or other – and I think that myths are mirrors of human conditions and human experience and the answer to real questions – the answers shaped by human culture, but originated in human lives and reality at one time or other.

6. Do you know for sure that your current believe system is of the truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, why?

My Reply: No, I don’t. It’s true for me, but that’s it.

7. Based on the above questions, each and every religion followers, believe that their own religion or believe system is the right one while regarding the rest as false, lost, misinterpreted etc., Do you not think that you are also one of them sharing the illusion?

Here we go again – asking a question that originate in presumptions, preconceived notions and assumptions about what people are going to answer to those questions. It’s quite insulting actually, because it takes it’s basis in the idea that the questioner already knows the answer, and thus is not really interested in the answers. He also chooses to accuse religious people of being delusional, which only adds to the insult.

8. Why do you think that most religion or believe systems give men superiority and/or more freedom?

Do they? Isn’t that a rather broad statement?

Again assuming that he is right in his preconceived notions, he chooses to put forward his idea in the form of a question that forces the respondent to accept his idea, which has not been either argued for nor proven.

9. What do you think is the best way to exercise religious tolerance? Do you think it can be done?

Where did they idea of a need to exercise religious tolerance come from? The need for such has not been established, so the question is based in a false premise.

My Reply: Study the inner workings of one’s belief system and apply them. Not sure.

10. How does it make you feel if the fact that all religion in the world was only human theories made into religion in order to control society of a particular nation? Does this make you feel empty and lost or can you still live a good life and as a good person without a religion to dictate your life?

It honestly would make no difference to me – I believe what I believe, because it works for me, not because I believe in it’s Divine Origin.

You know, Nick, this “questionnaire” is so full of holes and logical fallacies that it’s amusing. Your assumptions and agenda is getting the better of you, and it’s rather sad that you choose to insult people this way.

Asking questions that starts with “why do you…[insert action/thought that has not been established as a fact or even entered in the discussion]” is the #1 logical fallacy – didn’t you learn that in school?

Posted in Logical Fallacies, Religion | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: