Re: Six year old boy: "When are we going to die?"
dsharavi
> > >enough of duhwayne's nonsense
> > >as you can see from the following he has a long history as a liar and
> > >an idiot
>
> On Jun 25, 2:57 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Interesting reading, Rabbi. Some editing would have been helpful,
> > though, to show that the scientist who reviewed Anderson's pompous
> > twaddle
>
On Jun 25, 3:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> One of the scientists to review the book is Jewish. He's an
> acquaintance of mine.
It's a given that some of Anderson's best friends......He doesn't know
them too well, though.
>Here's what he wrote:
How to Be Religious without Believing in God —and Why
Matt Young
Paper presented at the 49th Annual Star Island Conference, Is Nature
Enough?
The Thirst for Transcendence, The Institute on Religion in an Age of
Science, July
27 to August 3, 2002, p. 21.
http://www.iras.org/conferences/book2002_nomap.pdf
Matt Young is Adjunct Professor at the Colorado School of Mines,
retired
Physicist with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and
Fellow of
the Optical Society of America. He is the author of No Sense of
Obligation:
Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe.
Abstract
I once spent Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) at a scientific
conference in York,
England, the site where Jews were massacred in 1190 C. E. while the
King was away fighting a
religious war. My friend from Bell Labs spent the morning grilling me
as to why I was fasting
and why I observe many other Jewish rituals, since I have no belief in
God or for that matter
anything transcendental. Why then do I affiliate myself with
religious humanism rather than
secular humanism?
Here briefly are my answers to these questions. (1) People seem to
need religion and
ritual, and rationalism will probably never replace them. (2)
Religion is too important to be left
to the scriptural literalists. (3) The Jewish culture is very rich
and comprises much more than
religion. (4) We may transvalue the sancta of a religion or culture
to make them meaningful to
modern people. (5) We may be universalists, but we are also tribal
animals and more able to
communicate with people who share similar background and culture. I
hope to discuss your
answers and your reactions at the workshop.
Reference: “How to Find Meaning in Religion without Believing in God,”
Free Inquiry,
Summer, 2002, pp. 44-46; www.mines.edu/~mmyoung/FIarticle.htm.
Jewish Reconstructionism and Mordecai Kaplan’s worldview
2 “civilizations” - Western Jewish
Jewish: Evolving religious civilization – Continuity of Jewish
peoplehood
– Past has vote not veto
– Keep kosher, but
– Don’t stone adulterers
– Polytheistic - Henotheistic Monotheistic
Nontheistic (or atheistic) did not figure into Kaplan’s worldview
– But it does into mine!
The trinity according to Kaplan
Israel - Peoplehood - Both Zionism & Diaspora - No Chosen People
Sancta – Hebrew language, history, music, dress, kashrut
God - Power that makes for salvation - No intervention - No
intercessory prayer - No miracles - Praying to TWIMC?
Torah - Not revealed by God - No personal Messiah - Halachah [Jewish
law] not binding but indicative of way of life
Sancta – Objects, people, places, events that hold a special place or
are deemed holy to a people
– Maccabees, Eretz Yisrael, Torah scrolls, Maimonides, the Exodus,
Shabbat
Salvation – Destiny, fulfillment, ethical behavior – In this world not
next
– No hereafter
Transvaluation – Reevaluating old rituals in light of new values or
understanding
– Ritual as means for group survival, not law
– Freedom to drop if not meaningful to individual
– Invent new meanings
– Keeping kosher - eating healthfully, environmentally soundly
– Messianism - working for the greater good of humanity
Cherin’s retort
Go find some other group to belong to
– Marx brothers movies with fellow expatriate New Yorkers each
week
Young’s rejoinder
Rich heritage
– Literature, art, politics
– Helped shape my values, beliefs, outlook
– No reason to abandon in favor of another culture
– Chaim Weizmann’s grandmother [When Weizmann was asked
why he could not accept a Jewish homeland outside Israel, he asked,
roughly, “Why don’t you visit some old lady who lives nearer than
your
grandmother?”]
Cherin’s response
Why mouth prayers you don’t believe?
Young’s riposte
We are tribal and need to belong to a group
God meant figuratively, allegorically
– The Best in us is the God in us
– IRA EISENSTEIN (a disciple of Kaplan)
– Eisenstein has it backward
– MATT YOUNG (a disciple of Kaplan)
Religion too important to be left to orthodox
– Need to encourage liberal religion
>Matt Young (Colorado School of Mines, USA
That's Anderson's acquaintance Matt Young.
Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
> > > On Jun 25, 4:06 am, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > >enough of duhwayne's nonsense
> > > >as you can see from the following he has a long history as a liar and
> > > >an idiot
>
> > On Jun 25, 2:57 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Interesting reading, Rabbi. Some editing would have been helpful,
> > > though, to show that the scientist who reviewed Anderson's pompous
> > > twaddle
>
> On Jun 25, 3:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > One of the scientists to review the book is Jewish. He's an
> > acquaintance of mine.
>
> It's a given that some of Anderson's best friends......He doesn't know
> them too well, though.
>
> >Here's what he wrote:
>
> How to Be Religious without Believing in God —and Why
> Matt Young
Deborah, thanks for posting the stuff by Matt.
Are you aware that he gave my book a positive review? You seem to
agree that Matt's a swell guy (and he is) perhaps that should tell you
something.
Matt's a far more accomplished scientist that the paid Mormon
apologists you've been quoting. Those same "scientists" that you
think so much of, but that argue that DNA evidence regarding the
origins of the ancient Americans is a sham.
>
> Paper presented at the 49th Annual Star Island Conference, Is Nature
> Enough?
> The Thirst for Transcendence, The Institute on Religion in an Age of
> Science, July
> 27 to August 3, 2002, p. 21.http://www.iras.org/conferences/book2002_nomap.pdf
dsharavi
Anderson is indulging himself in his propensity for saddling others
with his own thoughts. I have no opinion on any of the alleged
"scientists" for whom Anderson falsely attributes to me a high regard.
If Anderson is correct, however, and they believe DNA analyses
regarding First Americans' origins are "a sham", they're not
scientists.
I have no opinion on Matt Young, other than what he says about himself
-- which Anderson seems not to have noticed -- and that is that he is
a Reconstructionist, a disciple of the late and noted American
Zionist, Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan, and subscribes to the sancta of Eretz
Yisrael.
Imagine that: a Zionist gave Anderson a positive review.
Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
Deborah, when you engage in name calling it gives the appearance that
you lack conviction in the rationality of your argument.
> I have no opinion on any of the alleged
> "scientists" for whom Anderson falsely attributes to me a high regard.
Then you should stop quoting them as if their opinions mean something
significant.
> If Anderson is correct, however, and they believe DNA analyses
> regarding First Americans' origins are "a sham", they're not
> scientists.
You can't be much of a scientist and then reject the foundation of
modern biology.
> I have no opinion on Matt Young,
But Matt Young -- a Jewish scientist, and a very accomplished one, at
that -- gave my book high marks.
dsha...@yahoo.com
>>>>>>>enough of duhwayne's nonsense
>>>>>>>as you can see from the following he has a long history as a liar and
>>>>>>>an idiot
>>>>>On Jun 25, 2:57 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>Interesting reading, Rabbi. Some editing would have been helpful,
>>>>>>though, to show that the scientist who reviewed Anderson's pompous
>>>>>>twaddle
>>>>On Jun 25, 3:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>One of the scientists to review the book is Jewish. He's an
>>>>>acquaintance of mine.
.
>>>On Jun 25, 3:42 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>It's a given that some of Anderson's best friends......He doesn't know
>>>>them too well, though.
>>>>>Here's what he wrote:
>>>>How to Be Religious without Believing in God —and Why
>>>>Matt Young
>>>Deborah, thanks for posting the stuff by Matt.
>>>Are you aware that he gave my book a positive review? You seem to
>>>agree that Matt's a swell guy (and he is) perhaps that should tell you
>>>something.
>>>Matt's a far more accomplished scientist that the paid Mormon
>>>apologists you've been quoting. Those same "scientists" that you
>>>think so much of, but that argue that DNA evidence regarding the
>>>origins of the ancient Americans is a sham.
>
>>with his own thoughts.
>
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:xx
>Deborah, when you engage in name calling it gives the appearance that
>you lack conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
Anderson's other stock sidedodges (see "snip" and "[-----] is
lying"),
which Anderson trots out whenever he can't handle a factual
observation
made by the previous poster. It's not name calling to note Anderson's
pronounced tendency to saddle others with his thoughts, and otherwise
distort what was said.
>>I have no opinion on any of the alleged
>>"scientists" for whom Anderson falsely attributes to me a high regard.
>
>Then you should stop quoting them as if their opinions mean something
>significant.
>
>>If Anderson is correct, however, and they believe DNA analyses
>>regarding First Americans' origins are "a sham", they're not
>>scientists.
>
>You can't be much of a scientist and then reject the foundation of
>modern biology.
Anderson is indulging himself here in his usual propensity for
illogic.
>
>>I have no opinion on Matt Young,
>
>But Matt Young -- a Jewish scientist, and a very accomplished one, at
>that -- gave my book high marks.
This is the sixth or seventh time Anderson has emphasized the positive
blurb he received on Amazon.com customers comments from a
Reconstructionist Zionist. Apparently it's significant to Anderson, if
utterly irrelevant to the subjects of these threads, which Anderson,
like the psychiatric patient Vera Perks before him, has hijacked and
turned into his personal ego puffery.
Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> >But Matt Young -- a Jewish scientist, and a very accomplished one, at
> >that -- gave my book high marks.
>
> This is the sixth or seventh time Anderson has emphasized the positive
> blurb
Why do you downplay Matt Young's positive review as a "blurb?" He's a
highly accomplished Jewish scientists. Far more accomplished as a
scientist than Robert Bennett.
Robert Bennett, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints (LDS or Mormon) was a prolific writer for the LDS Church.
Among his various “scholarly” attempts are this rather comical attempt
to defend the Book of Mormon’s depiction of ancient Americans that
domesticated horses. Read it here.
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
Another of Bennett’s attempts at scholarship is his defense of the
Book of Mormon’s depiction of ancient Americans that followed the
Mosaic Law. Read it here:
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=131
According to Bennett: “Even if horses had been abundantly used and had
been a vital element in the culture of Book of Mormon people (a claim
never made by Book of Mormon writers),”
This illustrates a trait of LDS apologists (not just Bennett) – they
seem to know the Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud, and will actually
lie about what it says. Note that Bennett claims there’s nothing in
the Book of Mormon that says horses were used “abundantly.” Yet the
Book of Mormon clearly says the ancient Americans had “many horses.”
Enos 1: 21 “And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the
land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of
herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats,
and wild goats, and also many horses.”
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1/21#21
Bennett goes on to lie by saying that the Book of Mormon never says
that horses are not described in the Book of Mormon as “vital,” yet
the Book of Mormon clearly says that the ancient Americans considered
the horse to be useful, along with a host of other animals that were,
in fact, never known to ancient Americans.:
1 Nephi 18: 25 “And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of
promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in
the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and
the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild
animals, which were for the use of men.”
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/18/25#25
Here’s an article of Bennett’s where he tries to defend the Book of
Mormon’s depiction of ancient Americans growing Old World crops:
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126
Bennett’s choice of argument is that there was some sort of
“translation” error and that the words “wheat” and “barley” were just
labels applied to native plants. And with that argument Bennett
illustrates (again) his unabashed dishonesty because the Book of
Mormon describes the ancient Americans bringing Old World plants to
the Americas, planting them, and having them thrive:
“And it came to pass that we had gathered together all manner of
seeds of every kind, both of grain of every kind, and also of the
seeds of fruit of every kind. 1 Nephi 18:6 “ And it came to pass that
on the morrow, after we had prepared all things, much fruits and meat
from the wilderness, and honey in abundance, and provisions according
to that which the Lord had commanded us, we did go down into the ship,
with all our loading and our seeds, and whatsoever thing we had
brought with us, every one according to his age; wherefore, we did all
go down into the ship, with our wives and our children. … And it came
to pass that I, Nephi, did guide the ship, that we sailed again
towards the promised land. And it came to pass that after we had
sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land;
and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did
call it the promised land. And it came to pass that we did begin to
till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our
seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem.
And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were
blessed in abundance. And it came to pass that we did find upon the
land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were
beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the
ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of
wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all
manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper. [1 Nephi 8,
18]
Any competent scientists familiar with the plants and animals of
ancient America would realize that virtually everything in those Book
of Mormon verses is a false representation of conditions in ancient
America. Even Bennett seems to understand that the description in the
Book of Mormon cannot possibly be true, because his argument pretends
that the Book of Mormon doesn’t actually mean to say what it says; a
blatant misrepresentation since the Book of Mormon’s *description* is
one of Old World plants being transplanted in the Americas.
Oh, and that barely that Bennett talks about? Another of his
misrepresentations. It’s not of Old World origin. It’s a distinct
New World variety.
In short, Bennett isn’t a “scientist.” He’s an apologist that has a
long track record of writing intellectually dubious junk for the LDS
Church to prop up the Book of Mormon. He has a record of lying about
what the Book of Mormon says, as well as lying about what LDS critics
say.
And he’s Deborah’s “scientist” of choice.
dsha...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <snip>
"Snip" is one of Anderson's childish methods of coping
with facts he's can't face, and usually signals that he's going
to distort, lie about, or ignore what the previous poster stated.
> > >But Matt Young -- a Jewish scientist, and a very accomplished one, at
> > >that -- gave my book high marks.
>
> On Jun 26, 7:25 am, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This is the sixth or seventh time Anderson has emphasized the positive
> > blurb
>
> Why do you downplay Matt Young's positive review as a "blurb?" He's a
> highly accomplished Jewish scientists. Far more accomplished as a
> scientist than Robert Bennett.
This is Anderson's eighth or ninth whinge about the Zionist Matt Young
and Anderson's book, followed by another of Anderson's repetitious
whinges about another scientist who criticised his book.
> Robert Bennett, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
> day Saints
[snip Anderson's OT whinge about his critics]
Anderson is lucky he never went to architecture school. Given his
whinging reaction to his critics, he would have drowned in a puddle of
his own tears halfway through the first semester.
Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jun 26, 10:22 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> "Snip" is one of Anderson's childish methods of coping
> with facts he's can't face, and usually signals that he's going
> to distort, lie about, or ignore what the previous poster stated.
>
> > > >But Matt Young -- a Jewish scientist, and a very accomplished one, at
> > > >that -- gave my book high marks.
>
> > On Jun 26, 7:25 am, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > This is the sixth or seventh time Anderson has emphasized the positive
> > > blurb
>
> > Why do you downplay Matt Young's positive review as a "blurb?" He's a
> > highly accomplished Jewish scientists. Far more accomplished as a
> > scientist than Robert Bennett.
>
> This is Anderson's eighth or ninth whinge about the Zionist Matt Young
> and Anderson's book,
Correlating with Deborah's misrepresentation that the book was
dismissed by scientists.
Matt Young is a highly respected Jewish scientist that gave my book
high marks. Robert Bennett was a LDS apologists who's job was to
dismiss anything critical of the LDS Church.
And Bennett was the one Deborah choose as her "scientific" expert.
Let's look at Bennett's writings.
Robert Bennett, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=131
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1/21#21
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/18/25#25
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126
dsharavi
>On Jun 26, 2:47 pm, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>"Snip" is one of Anderson's childish methods of coping
>>with facts he's can't face, and usually signals that he's going
>>to distort, lie about, or ignore what the previous poster stated.
>>>>>ButMattYoung -- a Jewish scientist, and a very accomplished one, at
>>>>>that -- gave my book high marks.
>>>On Jun 26, 7:25 am, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>This is the sixth or seventh time Anderson has emphasized the positive
>>>>blurb
>>>Why do you downplayMattYoung's positivereviewas a "blurb?" He's a
>>>highly accomplished Jewish scientists. Far more accomplished as a
>>>scientist than Robert Bennett.
>>This is Anderson's eighth or ninth whinge about the ZionistMattYoung
>>and Anderson's book,
>
On Jun 26, 2:52 pm, Duwaynea Anderson
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>Correlating with Deborah's misrepresentation that the book was
>dismissed by scientists.
Anderson is lying again - or else he's demonstrating, again, his
propensity for sloppy reading, coupled with his inability to
comprehend what was actually written.
>
>MattYoung is a highly respected Jewish scientist that gave my book
>high marks. Robert Bennett was a LDS apologists who's job was to
>dismiss anything critical of the LDS Church.
[snip Anderson's OT whinge about his critics]
Anderson is lucky he never went to architecture school. Given his
whinging reaction to his critics, he would have drowned in a puddle of
his own tears halfway through the first semester.
This is the tenth or eleventh time Anderson has made reference to Matt
Young's comments on Amazon.com. What did this Zionist scientist
actually write? Let's see........
Oops. It seems Anderson has indulged himself in his sloppy reading
habit again. He missed these parts of his "acquaintance" Matt Young's
comments:
"I met Duwayne Anderson many years ago, at a conference on
fiber optics. I was therefore intrigued recently when I heard from him
again and received a copy of his book."
"I have no interest in the Mormon church, but I read the
early chapters and the "Final Thoughts" with keen interest."
"I skipped many pages"
" I interpreted ["Final Thoughts"] as a plea to abandon the
literalist interpretation of the Mormon scriptures"
Looks like his interpretation of abandoning "literalist
interpretation" - of anything - was a bit off the mark.
And that's it for me and Anderson's almighty cry-baby whinging about
people who criticise his opinions.
Deborah