According to Nir Lahav, science makes many discoveries and advances at a dizzying pace, but leaves the spiritual search and the search for meaning to religion, mysticism and the New Age. We must not leave issues so important and essential to the human being in the hands of illusion sellers and storytellers
Humans are sophisticated monkeys who know they exist and are looking for meaning in a world that seems casual and indifferent. Is there no meaning? Is it really all that is left for us to give up and pursue momentary pleasures that do not provide lasting happiness? Science makes many discoveries and advances at a dizzying pace, but leaves the spiritual search and the search for meaning to religion, mysticism and the New Age. We must not leave issues so important and essential to the human being in the hands of sellers of illusions and tellers of stories for whom the truth is not considered a supreme value. It is possible to reach meaning and develop a secular spirituality based on science and philosophy. A spirituality that emphasizes a personal journey, the power within us and the hidden infinity that surrounds us without giving up the pursuit of truth and the insights that the scientific method reveals to us.
in the previous post Secular spirituality - is there meaning in a world without God? I tried to suggest that there is meaning in a world without God and that there is meaning in secular spirituality. Spirituality without the need for mysticism, without the need to assume a creation with a first intention, without the need for an absolute purpose that we have and for everything in nature and without the need to personify the infinite. You don't need an infinite intelligent being to feel meaningful. It is very nice to decide that there is a parent who created everything, that everything was created with love and that there is a purpose and purpose in everything and in every case that happens in your life. The question is, is this really the case? As I tried to show in the previous post, religions are human inventions and ideas about different gods, God, intention and purpose in nature are also just psychological inventions that came to calm us down and give us quick magic solutions without making an effort to search for a real solution.
Beautiful messages from the Breslevs, but in the end it all comes down to the simple comfort, Father loves you! And of course God is the king and the good and protective parent who gives you meaning and a quick solution.
What is secular spirituality? According to Wikipedia "Spirituality is a way of life that savors the mental and inner dimension of existence." Do you understand? me neither.
The intention is probably our internal/human need to understand what all this is worth? What is the point of our lives, what is the importance of the world and ours? In my opinion, this need for meaning comes from our inner feeling that we should be important. After all, those who do not feel that they should be important, will not try to find importance for themselves. That's why this search for meaning comes from our inner feeling that it should be important to us. Since we don't find our importance when we look around us and when we realize that we are "stuck" in a fragile body that is marching to its death, we encounter a problem, a problem that I called the body and soul paradox, the feeling of the emptiness and finitude of our body and the world compared to the feeling of the power that is in us.
For example, pay attention to the opening segment of the excellent film "Ant Work" in which Woody Allen describes an ant named Z who, although she knows her role and her place in the world, is still not satisfied because she feels that she and the world should have importance. As Z says "the whole system makes me feel so insignificant!". This is an excellent example of the feeling of power we have in us, a feeling from which comes the feeling that we should be important and it is not enough just to live and know our place and role in the world.
And really, what is our importance? What is all this worth? Just grow up, earn money, find a partner, raise children and die? Children who in turn will do the same again and grow up as children, who will also grow up as children and so on.. What's the point? Isn't there anything better than this long insignificant necklace? We have too much power to accept this casual evolutionary assignment without resistance. We are more than soup, another screw in the system, there must be more meaning for us and the world! (See, for example, enough for labor slavery!).
If so, spirituality is a way of life that tries to find meaning for a person, or in other words tries to realize the feeling of calculation that we have and thus solve the paradox of our body and mind. It is possible to realize our sense of importance by inventing a God who created us and the world out of love and intention, but it is better to realize our sense of importance in a real and not illusory way. There is a choice here in the value of truth. If something is true it should be accepted even if it is more difficult than inventing stories that help us psychologically. The truth is better than illusions that come to make us feel better. This is not an obvious choice, but a choice that the truth is a higher value than other values and therefore there is no point in feeling happy if the happiness is based on something fake. There is also an assumption here that it is possible to reach true happiness, a happiness that is based on reality as it is without practical stories.
The best method we have found so far to find out the truth is the scientific method, and therefore science is the basis of knowing what is real and what is not. If, for example, it is discovered in repeated controlled experiments that there are no emotions or that homeopathy does not work, these are good confirmations that show beyond a reasonable doubt what the truth is (see interesting examples on the Sharp Thinking website, where he collected scientific studies on many different New Age topics and their results). At this very moment, you who are reading the article on the computer screen and you who are reading it on your cell phone are repeatedly confirming the scientific method itself. The computer, the Internet and the cell phone are the result of the scientific method that confirmed certain theories about the laws of nature and from which these technologies were invented. The fact that these technologies work over and over again is a tremendous confirmation of the scientific method as the best method we have found for researching the truth.
From this scientific-rational approach it is indeed impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of God (and we will dedicate a special post on God to that), but it is possible to understand and establish how the different religions developed and how the idea of God was created and developed. From the archaeological and historical research it seems that there is no basis for any religion and that God is simply another human idea (the Torah, for example, was probably written between the year 700 and the year 800, the "Bhavagad Gita" sacred to Hinduism was written between the year 400 and the year 200 and so on). It also seems that there is no real basis for the New Age and other mystical claims and therefore there is a need for a new confrontation with our desire for importance and meaning. Subjects that until today only religion or mysticism dealt with.
Secular spirituality is a way of life that will lead to meaning and will rely on the knowledge we have gained with the help of the best tool we have found to date to distinguish between what is true and what is false - science. To reach meaning you need to tell a story. We like to tell stories, even about scientific facts, think about the theory of evolution for example and how we immediately cast a story and asked what these results mean about the importance of the human race. What does the fact that we evolved from monkeys mean? How does this fact affect our meaning, our morality, our relationship to other animals? We always try to pour content and meaning into the dry science results and we do this by creating stories and interpretations of the dry facts. The stories are important to the human race, you can't give them up, but you need to base them on real knowledge and update them according to the new knowledge we gain. Secular spirituality is an interpretation that is constantly updated according to the discoveries of science and its role is to provide a framework story that will give us meaning and resolve the body and soul paradox that exists in us.
Religions tried to give meaning and comfort by a fixed story that determined what the absolute truth is that is always true. A truth that always placed the person and the intention at the center of reality and thus led to meaning and comfort. When this so-called absolute truth was cracked and turned out to be incorrect, the meaning fell with it. Now it's time to move on to a story that will emphasize not some absolute truth but rather our quest for uncovering the hidden truth. Secular spirituality is a story based on science and philosophy that is constantly updated and emphasizes the search. A story that will offer a meaningful way of life for a person without giving up our pursuit to find something greater than ourselves, something infinite that can be aspired to and with the help of which we can realize the feeling of importance that we have in us. We can summarize three problems of secular spirituality
Need to give them a solution:
- The need for comfort from life's difficulties
- The need for a meaning that answers questions such as "Why is everything worth it when in the end I will die?", "What is the importance of me and the world?"
- An answer to the question of how life should be lived, or what values should guide us in our lives as individuals and as a society
So we saw that there is a need to build a new story, a secular spirituality that will be a story that is constantly updated, based on the scientific method that will try to respond to the feeling of importance that humans have by creating personal meaning and connecting to an infinite thing. But how can this be done? Is there even something infinite that is not related to God and not related to mysticism or New Age?
So what does this secular spirituality mean and how does it solve these problems?
About this soon in the follow-up post "What is secular spirituality?"
168 תגובות
Question: God can be omnipotent
Answer: No.
Explanation: God's paradox
Question: God can be omnipotent
Answer: No.
Explanation: God's paradox
Search Google
Am I anti-Semitic? Sorry Jews 😀
I happen to be a resident of Ashdod and I can tell you that there is no connection between these children and spirituality.
This mikif is a problematic mikif that gathers into it problematic children who dropped out of various settings and all this within the framework of religion.
But there is nothing to do with religion and morals here, we are talking about the majority of my youth, for whom religion may be their last refuge...
Rouhani is a kind of capital
An example of the spiritual treatment given by students in Ashdod to a student who refused to be spiritual enough to kiss a piece of metal that contained a piece of the skin of a murdered animal
Mouth Hole:
So here you got an answer to the question about blocking my name.
It turns out that there are anti-Michael fanatics who do not see fit to confront any claim and all they think will be useful for the discussion is to discredit me.
As a reminder: the discussion did not deal with the question about the main problems in the economy at all, but with the question about spirituality.
And if you still want to engage in the economy, then it's worth considering To the data And not just waving passwords.
mouthhole
My response to your last message is delayed for some reason. There are minor typos there, which I probably won't be able to fix because of the delay, but you can understand my words despite the typos.
mouthhole
It's a shame to waste time arguing with fanatics.
M-Y-K-A-L is an anti-religious fanatic (not only against ultra-Orthodox, but against religious people in general). Many fanatics hide their fanaticism behind seemingly rational reasoning. It is a form of cheating, not only cheating towards others but self-deception (the fanatic deceives himself by seemingly rational reasoning). M-Y-K-A-L is this kind of fanatic. Arguing with him is like trying to convince a religious person that there is no God, a waste of time.
I don't want to get into a debate about what Zilka said, or to say, I only read a little about what he said and it's not enough for me to have a balanced opinion on his words. What I think, regardless of what he said, is that the main economic problems in Israel are not the ultra-Orthodox, but the terrible centralization of the economy and the price of land in the metropolitan areas (the fault of the government and the fault of the centralization of the economy). These two problems destroy the economy for all citizens of the country (including the ultra-Orthodox).
The two problems I mentioned (the centralization of the economy and the high cost of housing in metropolitan areas) are problems that do not allow the ultra-Orthodox to get out of the shackles in which they are bound to their community: the ultra-Orthodox community serves as a financial sponsor for the ultra-Orthodox, without this sponsorship the ultra-Orthodox would become homeless even if they had a general education. As long as the economy dictates the ultra-orthodox to be financially dependent on the community's sponsorship, they will not leave it (for the most part); As mentioned, a general education will not free them from their shackles to the community because it will leave them destitute (despite the education).
Mouth Hole:
The fact that there is no mainstream position in economics in general does not mean that the issue we are discussing does not have a mainstream position and the fact is that there is.
Mich (maybe it's time for your name to be off limits? 🙂 ),
Zelicha said that.. it doesn't matter. I have no power. I'm pretty sure you understood Zelika's words because he knows how to explain himself. Apparently I didn't explain myself.. all this is really not important to me. I no longer remember exactly what we talked about. Every day I come home from work and notice that I have to go back through the comments to remember what and who..
What interests me indirectly from this debate. It is the slowness with which we are willing to change our minds. I'm sure it's not for reasons of ego (kind of I said so I'm right..) but something else. When it is not mathematical and it was impossible to prove it with numbers, then I feel that a discussion can last so long when each side moves maybe a hundredth of a millimeter from its previous position after hundreds of words spilled on the page.
I will illustrate from our argument.
I mentioned that Zalika is in a minority position, but there is not a single mainstream position in the economy. You ignored everything written after the word 'but' and referred to what was written before.
While I saw great importance in not having a mainstream position. There are several opinions with many disagreements between them all, so I don't feel like quoting one Practical experience In this area there is a problem. Especially since I heard other professionals who agree with him (the one you don't believe - that's a problem I can't solve).
In short - just this simple insight took me so much time and words to write down and you will probably have a certain answer that will require a response from me and so on until finally we will apparently progress very, very little in our knowledge and opinion.
What I'm trying to say is that apparently the Hebrew language (and apparently all spoken languages) has a certain lack of excellence and a lot of room for improvement... it's worth investigating in my opinion. Just saying 🙂
Mouth Hole:
Which conclusion do you disagree with?
Yaron Zelicha talks about the ultra-Orthodox. Do you not agree that his words are not at all relevant to the ultra-Orthodox and that any job dodger who would have managed to create a political lobby that would free him from work could have made the same baseless claims?
I know you didn't say that the goal of capitalists is to lose money. I was talking about the fact that Yaron Zelicha's words, which you cited as a counter-example to the claim of parasitism by the ultra-Orthodox, raise a claim against the capitalists when there is no point in coming to them with claims.
I have not heard even one economist who agrees with Zalika and I will not accept your argument on the matter until you present one.
This of course does not change the fact that you also agree that this is an esoteric and unacceptable opinion.
Anyone who is not an expert on the subject should not choose to support esoteric positions because he is not equipped with the necessary knowledge to compare the different opinions and all the information he can base himself on is the weight (in terms of the number of professional supporters) of each position.
You have nevertheless chosen to support an esoteric position.
Regarding spirituality:
I don't know which definition was written earlier.
I don't think any definition was written beforehand.
Certain behaviors were also noted which in Ehud's opinion are the result of excessive spirituality and I also showed that these traits are actually less common among the ultra-Orthodox.
It is important to note that we all know that from a genetic point of view there is no significant difference between the populations and therefore the whole discussion is about its cultural influence. They are data and in this regard it turns out that there are indeed differences and they tend to reverse the claim that the ultra-Orthodox are more spiritual according to the same behavioral criteria.
For example: the people, genetically speaking, are equally altruistic but the culture of the religious leads them to ignore more income and rely more on money that others have earned.
The religious are genetically inclined to respect others in the same way as the secular, but their culture leads them to massively write Peshkvili hatred.
The religious are genetically capable of learning the right things, but their culture leads them to learn the wrong things.
The religious are able, genetically, to respect the right of every person to live his life as he pleases as long as he does not harm others, but their culture leads them to behaviors of religious coercion.
mich,
1. I agree with the assumption (fact), but disagree with the poor thing.
2. Apparently I did not explain myself well enough, because I did not assume anywhere that the goal of capitalists is to lose, on the contrary...
It does not matter..
"If you feel that you are not in control of the material, do not argue about it. You can bring the opinion of experts and say "here - the experts think differently"
I feel that I am not in control of the material, I said so, and I answered your question only because I was interested in whether you could find an argument that would change my mind (from new information that I hadn't thought of), but it didn't happen.
I know that Zelicha is not the only one who thinks so. I have already heard several economists who have the same opinion (I don't remember their names..). It is true that there are also many who oppose him. Economics is not mathematics. There are many opinions and there is not one opinion that is mainstream.. There are two Nobel laureates with two different opinions on economics...
Regarding spirituality-
I agree with you about the definition, I meant spiritual according to the definition written earlier, that's why I put the word in quotation marks..
I intervened in the conversation only to point out that ultra-Orthodox are also individual human beings and in my opinion the percentage of altruism there is equal to the percentage of altruism in secular society. And anyone who claims otherwise - the duty of waiting is on him. And Nissim understood this and tried to "prove" the claim by giving examples - which is not proof. Examples mostly create a certain emotion but are in no way proof since I can also give a million proofs of the egoism of secularists (which of course means nothing.)…
No one said that Rabbi Yosef didn't do anything good.
Once he even stroked a child.
I really appreciate the fact that it allowed the widows of the Yom Kippur War to get married: if it weren't for the religion whose regime tried to impose on us, the problem wouldn't exist at all.
sympathetic:
One more thing about reading and quantifying subjective things:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/science/.premium-1.2134134
a quote:
"Due to the complexity of the connections between the different parts of the brain, investigating a certain emotion based on activity in a specific area of the brain is problematic. However, Post explains that this is an area of the brain that is unusual in this respect, as specific parts of it show regular activity in response to things we like. In some cases, the activity of the area is so consistent that a person's preferences in music, food and even appearance can be deciphered based on analysis of scans in this area."
Rabbi Yosef made possible the absorption of Ethiopian Jews in Israel, by the fact that he recognized the Peshmura as Jews.
He also allowed Yom Kippur war widows, whose husbands were absent, to remarry.
He is very, very light on many halacha rulings.
He contributed more to peace than Yossi Sherid.
Don't misunderstand. I am not considered a "Orthodox lover", and I think Rabbi Yosef said unforgivable things. He also contributed a lot to racism in Israel.
But it is not true to say that the man did nothing good.
Mouth Hole:
I will not dwell with you on the details because they are not important even if you are wrong about some of them.
Just two things:
1. It seems to me that you agree with me that it is the ultra-Orthodox who decide not to go to work and not that the capitalists decide not to hire them, and therefore the whole story of Yaron Zelicha is meaningless.
2. One of your arguments is equivalent to the statement that the capitalists do not create more jobs because it is not profitable for them. come on! If this is true then why does anyone even come to them with claims? What reason do they have to want to lose? Do you know many people who invest their money only to lose it?
In general, the claim that someone who does understand should answer me is not a serious claim. If you feel that you are not in control of the material do not argue about it. You can bring the opinion of experts and say "here - the experts think differently" but you don't do this: you found one expert who thinks the opposite of all the others and decided to adopt his position.
It doesn't make any sense.
Another thing - regarding spirituality:
I remind you that I said that in my opinion there is no concept of "spirituality" that can be agreed upon and I claimed that all the claims that Ehud makes on this subject are without foundation.
Since I do not see any value in the term "spirituality" I did not claim that anyone is more spiritual. All in all, I showed (and I did show that!) that Ehud's criteria (which I do not accept as a definition of spirituality) are actually less met by the religious.
Nissim, I would appreciate it if you could give examples of a good thing that he did a lot, for each one of these I swear I will give you an example of a good thing that Yossi Sharid did. In the end the facts will prevail and you will see that your previous reaction was a mistake. And I don't agree with you about the army, but it doesn't interest me, so I won't argue.
Machel,
I'm not an economist, nor did I sit in the Knesset, and I know all the knowledge necessary to determine a date.
I agree with you that there should be an answer to answer, but it is desirable that there be people who build on it, and if I do not manage to answer some of your claims, it does not prove that you are right, but that I do not have enough knowledge!
In any case, I will try to answer you just from my logic:
*"1. No capitalist opposes the work of ultra-Orthodox. The fact that the ultra-Orthodox do not work is their decision alone and not the capitalists' decision." He didn't claim that - he claimed that they don't need more workers in general, regardless of whether they are ultra-Orthodox or not. It's just a good thing they're not working now because there aren't enough jobs. (Don't believe me? He claimed this some 7 years ago and now there are a lot of articles about people with a degree without a job here are some http://www.ynet.co.il/home/0,7340,L-194,00.html)
*2 - I agree with this, but I think the contribution to the economy will be marginal...
3- Capitalists do not want competitors, it is not worth it to them, and they hardly need any more workers. (More employees does not necessarily mean an increase in the tip.. Once there is only Hot Wis, they don't need more employees since they can still ask for crazy prices and don't need more employees to increase the tip, but if there was real competition and there were many companies that weren't a cartel, the situation would be different.)
I don't think that Yaron Zelicha is trying to lick, he simply claims that she likes to blame the other...
And yes, I read the article, I'm still not convinced. Even the claim that they contribute to heaven is not satisfactory since they do not have to contribute (and taxes do have to otherwise there are sanctions). Agree to disagree I guess.
and one last thing,
I don't care if the ultra-orthodox contribute more or not. All I am saying is that it cannot be said without empirical evidence that they are less "spiritual" than secularists... In my opinion, the percentage of spiritualists will be quite equal to the percentage of secular spiritualists, since the ultra-orthodox culture, with all its flaws, does not make spirituality difficult.
Miracles:
I do not agree with you and I have already brought some of the pearls he produced in a previous response.
MouthHole:
As per invitation appeared in today's newspaper This article
This was not the purpose of the article, but among other things it clearly shows the connection between taxes and donations.
Here is a quote from the article:
"Herman also points out that the latest report reveals a distinct increase in the public's interest in the socio-economic field. For example, 58% of the respondents said that they feel that there is a strong tension in Israel between the rich and the poor, and 63.5% even answered that they would agree to pay more taxes to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. "This issue has risen in the scale of importance in a very clear way. The tension between rich and poor is in second place today and this is expressed in the willingness to pay more taxes. "
Michael
This rabbi also did good things. In the aggregate - much more than Yossi Sherid.
Yossi Sherid about the spiritual father of our spirituals:
"Generation's greatest "
Oh the generation
We didn't join the praying circles, and we didn't join the psalm groups, because we didn't
We wanted to put God to the test: what would happen if the doctors couldn't
He has yet to heal, and only God and Channel 2 will remain by the bed, mercifully, a clown.
"The greatest of the generation", and woe to the generation that is its greatest. And those who attribute greatness and Torah to him
In one place, it is doubtful if he read a page from his books: how to throw an egg that was born on Yom Tov,
And other egg puzzles, world-changing questions and answers.
After death - until one hundred and twenty at least - we will have difficulty saying saints. he is not
He was holy in our eyes in his life, and there is no reason for him to be sanctified on his deathbed. we are not
Relegating to old age and illness, because we never adopted it into our lives.
We will not be happy when our opponent falls to the ground, but we will not forgive either.
This is the "spiritual leader" who has an evil spirit, who attacked anyone who was not aware of his meaning,
In anyone who is not Shas Asli.
Now that family members and close friends are dancing about the inheritance, we will review the line of the curse:
Gentiles and Arabs, Negroes and women, teachers and homosexuals, reformers and secular and religious
not according to its employees; We will review and remember the bitter politicians and despised judges,
And the soldiers who kept the Sabbath and did not keep it, were therefore killed for their fault. There is no public
In the land of many who did not know the pleasure of his sent tongue, and his face was not whitened by many.
This is the man who founded the most corrupt party in Israel, many of its representatives are in prisons.
He raised the top of her head in a Borslino hat, her height in a Versace suit, and
He left his subjects in their wake.
Sons he raised and exalted, and they sinned against us. The crown consecrated the means.
This is the man who established a separatist education system that impoverishes the mind
her students and enriches Francia. This is the man who developed a kosher business
Yields, which suck the breast of consumers and fill the family coffers.
Spon always sat in his house of measure, and did not sit among his people. the reality of life
Here he recognized through the perfumed handkerchief of the courtiers, and the servants did not serve
but themselves. And the pilgrims - presidents, prime ministers and ministers - did not come
To hear Torah opinion, but to flatter and make a fool of yourself by slapping goodies as an act of Torah prank.
The Shabbat evening sermons in the Jerusalem Synagogue were also to the tune
out of wit The words of the sages were not heard there with ease, but with irritation and sarcasm,
As if religion is only folklore, folktales and smears in the language of the market; and as if
The rabbi himself is a stand-up comedian.
Straw and straw gave the flock food from its pasture, they never beat the grass,
And we did not lead them to rest; He never raised them in the holy place but took them down.
And the children of the Yashani businessmen - close to Pincha and the mahlaks - he handed over, with sectarian pride,
in the hands of Lithuanian fanaticism.
The Baba is a doll of invention: you blow it up, dress it up, tie it up
crowns as decoration, pulling strings and putting things in her mouth;
First she is told what to say, and then it is appropriate to hear her wisdom.
Maren said, who would dare to convert here, producing marbles for a penny.
Over the years it became clear that there is no way to run Bubba-Baba as a lion
For his needs, Vali can still learn how to dub from the belly with sealed lips.
A man condemned to the whole country, and also a little malicious: he wished us strange deaths.
Shulamit Aloni promised a party at her death, the Jews would have light and joy.
And I was blessed at the end by Mr. Vanmahar, May my name perish as "Amalek" and my memory as "Haman".
Whereas we, on the other hand, wish him a good return despite his "very difficult but stable" situation.
And if he ever dwells in dust like any other mortal, then we wish him to rest in peace on his bed;
And we will rest too.
Yossi Sarid
"Haaretz" 4/10/2013
Regarding the survey in De Marker - I argued that someone who bases his words on statistical information is misleading, but that anyone who makes a claim of this type without basing himself on statistical information (which I thought did not exist and turns out to have) is misleading.
By the way - literally, this survey does not deal with the question we talked about because the question of who contributes more was not covered in the survey at all. The question of which group has more donors was discussed, but the question of how much they donate was not asked.
Beyond that - it is important to know how they arrived at the data because if they simply asked people then the survey may have only discovered who lies more.
MouthHole
You have to understand something: whoever is not ready for real military service, for reasons of "spirituality", then he is as spiritual as a lump of excrement.
That's my opinion.
Mouth Hole:
Please deal with the claims I made against Zelicha's words and not with ex cathedra arguments.
Can you point to any statement from all of these that is not true?
I am not pretending to anything - I am simply presenting arguments that, if you do not find a flaw in them, prove that he is wrong and misleading.
By the way - I have not heard another economist who agrees with him and I have heard many who disagree with him. Can you give an example of such an economist?
I think that the same linguist with whom you spoke about donations (if he digs into the question) will equally say that the "donations" given out of fear of God are not donations either.
It is important how you present the question and it seems that the way you presented things is biased because I assume you did not make him compare a donation given out of respect for the law of the state and a donation given out of respect for the laws of the imaginary friend.
Machel On the matter of taxes as donations, we will agree to disagree, just saying that I asked the linguist whether taxes fall under the definition of donations and he told me no...
In this regard, you don't think that ultra-Orthodox people contribute more. I didn't think so either.. the marker mentioned something like that.. Are you claiming that it is misleading? It's okay, you have the right to keep your feelings.
Viron Zelicha is not the only economist who claims this. And he is also a professor with a great deal of practical knowledge about Israel's economy...
I don't know why you claim to state that it is misleading? Is your knowledge of economics superior to his?
Michael. On the matter of taxes as donations, we will agree to disagree, just saying that I asked the linguist whether taxes fall under the definition of donations and he told me no...
In this regard, you don't think that ultra-Orthodox people contribute more. I didn't think so either.. the marker mentioned something like that.. Are you claiming that it is misleading? It's okay, you have the right to keep your feelings.
Viron Zelicha is not the only economist who claims this. And he is also a professor with a great deal of practical knowledge about Israel's economy...
I don't know why you claim to state that it is misleading? Is your knowledge of economics superior to his?
MouthHole
Of course, just because I think it doesn't make it right.
What makes it true is the fact that it is true.
There is no difference between the fear of God and the fear of the law for the purpose of this matter.
By the way - factually - also on the topic of donations, I just think that the seculars surpass the ultra-Orthodox, but I don't think anyone has any statistical information on the matter, so in my opinion - whoever declares that the ultra-Orthodox donate more - is probably lying because he doesn't really know it, but just says it because it suits him.
Regarding Yaron Zelicha's words:
I have seen many lectures by Yaron Zelicha and he is wrong and misleading in almost every possible aspect:
1. No capitalist opposes the work of ultra-Orthodox. The fact that the ultra-Orthodox don't work is their decision alone and not the capitalists'.
2. Even if he were right in his claim that the capitalists limit the number of jobs (and he is not right about it, but let's assume for a moment that they are) - ultra-Orthodox can go to work. If the number of jobs does not increase, then some will be accepted and some will not, and at the same time - some of the seculars will be expelled from the workforce. So it is true that the number of employees will not change, but nevertheless the state of the economy will improve because the level of employees everywhere will improve (because the workplaces will prefer the best from a larger selection)
3. As mentioned, he is wrong in his claim that the capitalists are limiting the supply of jobs. He is wrong about this in two respects: one is that the capitalists gain nothing from limiting the supply of jobs and therefore it simply does not make sense for them to do so. The second is that it is not only the capitalists who create jobs. Many start-up companies were founded by people who could not find a vacancy in an existing workplace, and the more people there are who are interested in working, the more people who are able to create jobs will be found in them.
And one more thing: the ultra-Orthodox also understand that this is nonsense and therefore - they never protested against that scarecrow of the capitalists when they protested, they also protested when laws came up that were meant to oblige them to go to work.
I don't know why Yaron Zelicha tries to lick the ultra-Orthodox, but no other economist agrees with him on this issue.
Machel,
Just because you think of you doesn't make it right. In this Mecca it is a mistake.
Think who would pay taxes if it was permission? (I'm sure there were some, but there were some from the ultra-Orthodox community as well)
I, of course, would be happy for the ultra-Orthodox not to work blackmail and pay taxes. I strongly disagree with this course of action.
In any case, the accountant general of the Knesset and also a professor of economics do not think that they are Israel's main problem on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20mXNRglfk8
MouthHole
In my eyes, taxes are indeed a contribution and the fact is that a huge part of the ultra-orthodox public refrains from making this contribution.
It is very easy to avoid paying taxes and even receive funds from the state and then donate part of this plunder.
After all, even the contributions (minor and most of which come from money donated to them) of the ultra-Orthodox can be presented as "non-contributions" because they are simply fulfilling the religious mitzvot and fearing the punishment of their imaginary friend.
I recommend that you read the link I provided in the previous comment to understand the scale of the robbery that the ultra-Orthodox commit in the state treasury.
Machel,
Again examples are not proof. And I'm sure your logic is smart enough to understand that once you're forced to pay, then it's not a donation (that's why social security is not considered a donation). What I said just now is a fact and I'm not going to argue about "yes but..." because it really doesn't matter.. There are very many Haredim who do contribute and there are a lot of secular people who don't contribute (and don't pay social security either...). All this proves nothing.
Miracles,
I'm sorry if I didn't understand you.
"There is no truth in the claim that the religious population is more "spiritual" than the secular population" - I don't know that, I also think so, but I don't know that. How do you know that (and don't give me specific examples.. at most give me statistics)? I'm almost convinced that it's just a feeling for you too (if now you're looking for proof, then it doesn't count...)
Michael,
Again examples are not proof. And I'm sure your logic is smart enough to understand that once you're forced to pay, then it's not a donation (that's why social security is not considered a donation). What I said just now is a fact and I'm not going to argue about "yes but..." because it really doesn't matter.. There are very many Haredim who do contribute and there are a lot of secular people who don't contribute (and don't pay social security either...). All this proves nothing.
Miracles,
I'm sorry if I didn't understand you.
"There is no truth in the claim that the religious population is more "spiritual" than the secular population" - I don't know that, I also think so, but I don't know that. How do you know that (and don't give me specific examples.. at most give me statistics)? I'm almost convinced that it's just a feeling for you too (if now you're looking for proof, then it doesn't count...)
point
The purpose of the site is to show the truth, even if it is unpleasant for certain groups.
Pluralism, the love of difference, giving respect to beliefs different from your own, all of these are celebrated on this site...
Even if you look at the totality of the donations, the seculars contribute much, much, much more because they pay taxes.
The ultra-orthodox don't like to see it as a contribution, but it is what it is.
By far the largest charity in the country is the National Insurance.
to complete the picture
MouthHole
You fail to follow …..all your examples do not contradict what I am saying.
I will explain again - there is no truth in the claim that the religious population is more "spiritual" than the secular population. that's it.
Hahahahaha "therefore and therefore" = here and there. I'm sorry I'm dyslexic
"I can also give counterexamples to your examples" = I can also give some of your examples counterexamples 😀
Nissim, you make the same mistake again and give examples.
For every example you give, I can give 10 that show the opposite (for example, the amount that the ultra-Orthodox donate is much greater than the amount that seculars donate (in money) and also in participating in associations) http://www.themarker.com/career/1.1908880)..
I will also give real examples against your examples - for example "the prices of shtreimels and prayer equipment" can be very cheap and even in some places they distribute it for free to the poor.
Of course I don't want to argue about this matter, there are examples for that and that. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't generalize the gender of the individual to the general.. The fact that there are some examples that support your claim does not mean that your claim is right (it may be and it may not - just please keep the rules of logic 🙂 )
sympathetic:
I assume you watched the video and you know very well that what I said regarding free will does not belong at all to your story about the advertising exercises.
I'm talking about pure material/physical control over a person's will.
It's just a subjective thing.
The person who is influenced by the advertisement can also act differently and only a small percentage of people will choose the car that this particular seller wanted to sell - among other things (but by no means only) because many other sellers put pictures of beautiful women on their merchandise.
Regarding mind reading using electrodes - the day it will happen is getting further away from moment to moment....toward the past!
We are already able to read minds using electrodes!
The lie detectors are only the tip of the iceberg of the progress achieved in this matter and the Libet experiment was already carried out in 1970 (and was only the forerunner of the direction Professor Sompolinski spoke about in the above video).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
You can also find the following articles on the science website:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/mind-reading-3008131/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ibm-five-on-five-221211/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/robot-read-thoughts-2005115/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/mind-readers-2204103/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/protecting_our_privacy-3101102/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/let-the-robot-play-for-you-1002071/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-brain-in-action-150406/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/computer-by-thinking-301004/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/nasa-no-voice-240304/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/robosapiense-230503/
http://madanews.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%97/%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%90-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%AA-fmri/
It is true that these are only beginnings, but this is a process that already exists and is maturing from moment to moment.
The mind is material and no excuse will help in this matter.
Even if there are effects of quantum theory in the brain it does not make them anything even close to spirituality. It simply introduces an element of randomness into the thoughts (which the "spirit" or anything in general has no control over).
The examples I gave are not demagogic but a factual description of reality.
You may not know, but in the "democratic" state of Israel, marriage laws are subject to Halacha, therefore a secular Jew who was widowed without children, in order to be able to remarry, will have to have sexual relations (yibom) with her brother-in-law (her husband's brother) and immediately after that get divorced.
The only way to escape the hiboom is through the humiliating and ugly ritual known as "halitza", but even this option is not open to every woman.
According to the Halacha, a deaf person cannot perform a Halitza ceremony, so she is required to perform hibom, that is, to sleep with her husband's brother even if he is already married to another woman.
This is how it was ruled in the Shulchan Aruch: "The deaf and the foolish and the small, wear clothes and not shirts. And if the Hivm wanted to drive away the plowed land with another who would plow it, then it is a drive away" (Aven Ha'azar Siman Keev, Section XNUMX).
Such a case was discussed at the Regional Rabbinical Court in Ashdod before the judges: the rabbis, Y. Goldschmidt, M. Lopez, M. Y. Miletsky:
A lawsuit was filed before us by Mrs. A against her husband's brother B. He will rescue her. The above-mentioned claimant was widowed by her husband on: 1966, XNUMX Cheshon, XNUMX (XNUMX) without leaving behind viable seed (children).
After the ruling that Harshet Titivam - the hibom (having sex with the husband's brother) was held on the XNUMXth of Adar A, and the divorce took place in the city of Rehovot the next day on the XNUMXth of Adar A. (Rabbinic rulings, part XNUMX, page expired).
After all, it is rape according to a rabbinic permit, the deaf person must have sex with his sister-in-law in order to be able to remarry the love of her heart. And the Rabbinic "adultery" permission for the already married husband's brother towards his wife.
I reiterate:
Up to this moment you have not described anything positive "spiritual" that religion brings with it - absolutely nothing!
Only statements about the way of negation (statements that, as you could see in the links I provided in previous comments - links to a factual description that for some reason you chose to call "quotes" - even the opposite of reality!).
Religion does not teach modesty (this is the only claim so far that has been made about the method of payment and it is not true)!
It takes the exact opposite of humility to come and claim without any basis that there is no evolution and the sun revolves around the earth and all kinds of other nonsense.
When you read and see the words of the representatives of religions about science (whether they discredit and dwarf them or whether they appropriate them to religion) you can be amazed by the amount of audacity, pretension and arrogance they demonstrate.
Even here on the site you come across these quacks constantly.
Science actually teaches modesty and even honesty.
The modesty stems from the fact that there is an uncompromising judge who determines the fate of theories for clan or grace. When it contradicts the observations, neither the beauty nor the importance of the person who supports it will help the theory (this is in contrast to the religious "ex-cathedra" culture, which - beyond the internal application they also try to pull in the direction of normal people when they try to prove that there is a God by taking it out of the context of Things Einstein said about God and cubes).
The education for honesty stems from the fact that the results of a falsified experiment are bound to be revealed, and the falsifier's gain is always his loss.
This does not mean that there are no fakers among the scientists, but these are punished and therefore they are rather the exception.
I am not a follower of the consumer culture, but the consumer culture is not what prevents the ultra-Orthodox from serving in the army or learning a profession that contributes to society, and it is also not related to the fact that religious factors teach our children creationism instead of evolution.
It also has nothing to do with the terrorists committing suicide in the name of Islam and Iran's determination to obtain an atomic bomb.
Enough with these dummy passwords!
MouthHole
You are absolutely right. What I am claiming is that I do not see what is being claimed here - that there is spirituality among the religious and there is no hope for the secular. From what I see around me, the situation is the opposite. Just for an example - look at the prices of the four sexes: look at how much money is spent on holidays, gifts, clothing and food. There is a wealth of impressions here on each other. Take a look at the prices of Shreimels and prayer supplies.
Understand - I am not here to say that religion is not spiritual. But, as soon as someone made such a claim, then he should look at his surroundings and see that it is not like that.
Just because you don't know miracles doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and just because it exists doesn't mean the rule is like that. I say this only in connection with your logic - it was impossible to generalize from the individual to the general and it was impossible to generalize limited information to the general...
sympathetic
I do not see in the Jewish world what you describe. To say that religious communities live modestly is simply not true. I just don't see it. I do see religious communities living in poverty, but it is not for reasons of modesty.
And on the other hand - I know modest secular communities (not all, of course). Certain kibbutzim for example.
I know that there are very modest religious communities, for example, I have been working with Indians for years and there are such communities among them (well, not all of them). And I know where I live a very modest Christian community.
Speaking of which, specifically Jewish religious communities are far from modesty. There are good things in Judaism, modesty is not one of them.
מ
Take your time, I'm not sure I'll be able to respond in the next few days either.
A complete recovery for your father again.
I read the responses in the hospital from the mobile phone and get annoyed because it is impossible to respond reasonably from the mobile phone.
I hope I will be able to answer later.
מ
In the context of the discussion about religion, the examples of religion you bring are demagogic as much as I could
Give examples that scientific research is ridiculous and absurd since it discusses questions such as:
Research on the relationship between use of curses and pain.
On the abilities of pigeons to distinguish between good and less good drawings of children.
Access to alcohol promotes consumption in teenagers but not in rats.
Do full or empty beer bottles tend to break more easily and are there any?
They have the power to break a human skull.
The essence of the fluff that accumulates in Kurkaban.
All the scientific studies published in scientific literature, do they characterize science?
In my opinion no and in exactly the same way that the quotes you bring do not characterize the religion.
As you probably understood I mentioned ballet, classical music and football as areas of knowledge because they talk
To the secular public and therefore you could sympathize with them. In contrast to religious knowledge that you seem to lack
Importance has a lot of meaning and content for the religious public. So the knowledge in itself is not important (or
not important) but depends on its effect on humans. Why see some jumping dancers
In tight clothes on stage is more important than calculating the times of entering the holidays accurately (question
which led to astronomical studies)?
In addition, I return to my basic claim, look at the different publics and not at the passwords. sleep
A modest public, who does not pursue greed, believes that money is not the be-all and end-all, and in contrast, a greedy public
Consider that money is the face of everything. The pursuit of greed leads to a violent society, with high crime,
Great polarity in income, disdain for in-depth knowledge. In addition, one company considers knowledge (albeit of a kind
certain) on the momentary pleasures, on the other hand, a society that consumes momentary pleasures and consumer products that
Satisfying her needs entails injustice in different parts of the world.
Religion at its core teaches modesty that there is something greater than our ambitions and desires. There is something
More important than us. Secularism, on the other hand, teaches that the owner of the hundred is the owner of the opinion and that if
You have money, you can intervene and change things as you wish. In the world of consumption the rich is God.
It would indeed be good if the secular society was indeed based on science when science teaches
us that the person is not at the center. The earth is not at the center of the solar system, the solar system
It is not unique, our galaxy is not the only one, etc... that is, we humans are not
special Unfortunately, secular society is not based on this scientific concept as you are
Trying to present it. Secular society is based on the here and now, with the individual at the center
And his desires here and now are what matters. Such perceptions lead to violence, exploitation, contempt
In knowledge, phenomena that we witness all the time around us. The real problem is not religion
that you think it is the enemy of science but the culture of consumption which is the basis of modern secularism.
מ
It is clear that the desire can be created, after all it is trivial and that is what advertisements are based on.
For example: a person will not say that he chose a car because of the beautiful woman standing next to the model in the picture
But still the picture will drag his decision that he will see as his own. to create desire
You don't need a "laser beam".
Regarding the quantification of subjective feelings, you must understand that the claim that they can be measured
And quantify them so that we can understand the feeling that goes through a person's mind when he looks
In a beautiful picture or listening to a song not only what are the thoughts running through his head. If everything is quantifiable no
The day when we can read minds using electrodes is far away, I personally don't think so. Additionally
A view like yours leads to Kurzweil's Singularity view that there is nothing in humans to distinguish them from machines
Calculation and therefore the day will not be far when machines will have consciousness and machines will even be smarter than us. me, personally
I believe that the concept that everything will be quantifiable is naive and even dangerous for humanity, but let's go. in a note
By the way, physics also shows that there are even classical systems that cannot be calculated let alone systems
quantum. If, for example, our free will is based on quantum theory (which I personally do not believe in)
As, for example, Yakir Aharonov or Roger Penrose believes, then it will not be possible to quantify subjective feelings, but only
Statistically.
By the way, what is more subjective than desire?
Well, it turns out thatDesire can not only be measured but also created
sympathetic:
In my opinion, one should strive to know how to quantify everything and in my estimation - many of the things you present as unmeasurable in general will actually be measurable in the future.
I suppose that two hundred years ago you would have said that it is impossible to measure a "lie" and now it is measured with relative success.
The brain is a physical organ and there is no reason for there to be anything immeasurable in it in principle. I do not believe in miracles and have never seen evidence of their existence.
The examples of knowledge are not ridiculous. You have to remember the topic of the discussion.
In the meantime, you mentioned knowledge about love, ballet, classical music and football as examples of what you generalize in the field of spirituality and consider it a miracle - these are things that characterize the secular.
With the knowledge of the temperature of the feces at which an infidel should be discussed, nothing good can be done except to bring her as an example that clarifies how bad the religion is.
Science gives correct answers and illusions that religion instills in a person regarding morality (such as the need to kill gays and Sabbath breakers) are only harmful. If religion does something in the field of morality, it is only suppression of dealing with the subject! A person receives commandments (many of which are horrifying) and learns that he must act on them and suppress his authentic feelings.
Science gives us real knowledge. He does not command us how to act in social situations.
Religion is exactly the opposite: it gives us false knowledge and commands us to act socially, most of which are harmful to everyone involved in society.
The ways of behaving in society are a matter of agreements and religion "saves" (suppressing is a more appropriate word) also the need to reach agreements because it commands the killing of different people without getting their consent or anyone's consent at all.
: )
Z.A.
🙁
Israel
If by the word boss you meant fire... then we understand each other.
מ
Indeed there are things that cannot be quantified and therefore they are called subjective, our world is mostly subjective, our feelings and our personal feelings cannot be quantified. Some things that cannot be quantified make up the field called spirituality. Although our feelings are subjective and cannot be quantified, we are able to talk about them and it is not impudence but a kind of miracle. We are not machines that have more or less the same structure, we are much more creatures
Conscious complex.
Knowledge in itself does not come with a label of helpful or not. The question is what do you want to do with the knowledge. Knowledge of thermodynamics can be helpful
or harm. Sayings like "Knowledge of thermodynamics is helpful and knowledge of the stool temperature at which one should discuss is harmful!" they
Of course the extremes are ridiculous, but is, for example, knowledge of thermodynamics better than knowledge of ballet, classical music or football.
The amount of money invested in football proves that the knowledge of it brings pleasure to many people. If certain knowledge is important to many
People even if they are religious the knowledge becomes useful. Religion is able to handle many aspects of human life that science
is not built to deal with them and thus, among other things, a picture of its success. This is a naive concept that religion in the dark days of humanity
tried to describe the world and today when we are smarter we know that science does it better. Religion is not only
The basis of morality, and human knowledge is also the understanding that life has a greater meaning beyond the momentary animal pleasures.
sympathetic:
You get away with some things and get others wrong.
The fact that we do not currently know something does not mean that we never knew it, and if the scientists of the past had taken this approach, we would not know anything until today.
When a certain value cannot be measured (and even a rough measurement), then a comparison based on it is empty of content and only points to the arrogance of the comparator.
Attributing the word "spirituality" to such a comparison is nothing more than an attempt to give a respectable name to this audacity.
Falling in love really doesn't belong between us - it belongs to secular life more than married life.
The fields of knowledge are different and I won't let you get away!
Knowledge of thermodynamics is helpful and knowledge of the temperature of the feces at which to discuss a harmful infidel!
Knowledge of chemistry is helpful and knowledge of the "need" to stone gays and Shabbat violators is harmful!
Knowledge of physics is helpful and knowledge of the permission to kill a heathen is harmful!
Knowledge of biology is helpful and "knowledge" that the rabbit ruminates is harmful!
Knowledge of geography is helpful and "knowledge" that the Euphrates and Tigris come from a common source is harmful!
Knowledge of anatomy is helpful and "knowledge" that the cow's trachea splits into three parts and one of them leads to a harmful liver!
Knowledge of evolution is useful and knowledge about mice that are created from soil or lice that are created from human sweat or a rat that is created from the mating of a snake with a harmful turtle!
And the list goes on!
Of course there is also another priest and a fruit priest in the Oshim that the "spirituality" consisting of a warm spirit produces and what is written HERE These are just examples
Therefore - as far as I can see - what you call "religious spirituality" brings only harm and no sane person wants such spirituality.
In my opinion it is not spiritual either but it only illustrates my point that it is impossible to reach an agreement on the term "spirituality" and in fact it is a term without any value.
You state that being after money is problematic and I say that this is not true at all and that it does not characterize the secular society any more than the ultra-Orthodox.
All the daylight robbery that the ultra-Orthodox commit in the taxes paid by the seculars proves this.
And below A selection from the pearls produced by the mouth of the greatest spiritual man of the generation – our spiritual!
sympathetic.
The boss and I have been apart for a long time.
He is one, I am zero, together we are ten.
מ
First of all I wish your father a speedy recovery. I see the need to apologize in advance because also
I'm not sure I can respond soon.
First, regarding spirituality, I see it as the opposite of materialism, there is a lot of charlatanism
Around things that cannot be measured, but I believe that there are many things in our lives
which cannot be measured or quantified. Human emotions and feelings cannot be quantified
And an attempt to do so is a problem. In my opinion, science is an excellent tool for handling simple systems
He breaks down the whole into its components, models the components and examines the relationships between them
In our lives there are things about which these actions cannot be performed. We don't decide who we fall in love with
by scientific considerations. As a rule, human life is too complex for science to have anything to say
on them. Therefore, I believe that spirituality is not an empty concept.
In my opinion, spirituality does not need to distinguish between different fields of knowledge. Who determined that the knowledge of
The principles of thermodynamics are more important than medical information or understanding the human soul. spirituality
Being the opposite of physicality does not determine what the important knowledge is, it can be done in a way
external to the concept of spirituality. The importance of knowledge depends of course on the use that can be made of it
And use depends on the type of company. For example, extending human life is not always the best thing
The quality and content of life is also important. Spirituality, in my opinion, is not busy accumulating
Things like accumulating knowledge but with a different perception of reality, but that is already a separate topic.
Another comment: I also "think that the mind and everything that happens in it (including the desire to act in one way or another) are physical things"
This does not mean that it follows from this "and therefore there can be no agreed upon meaning for the word "spirituality" at all."
I would say that spirituality differs in its approach from science, but this does not prevent it from talking about the emotional life of
People who cannot be scientifically described except in a simplistic way. Description of the currents in the brain when we
Enjoying a song or the shape of a flower is not at all equivalent to the experience itself.
Due to the secular society's tendency to quantify everything, I find many flaws in it, I follow
Money as a means to gain respect, influence. Evaluating the other person according to his appearance or the price of his clothes
and his property. The attitude that you cannot manage what cannot be quantified and its introduction into education are phenomena
dangerous. Regarding the religious, I say before you direct criticism at the Tol Cora religious society
from your eyes
Israel
You are getting into trouble with forces greater than you, be careful...
How come I'm not surprised?
What did I ask for in all? A little evidence for the existence of the Almighty?
Maybe some small sign or miracle you received with a committee in Rabin Square.
Or maybe some surprising solution to Goldbach's conjecture on his Facebook page.
Or even the proof of Fermat's last theorem (not the encyclopedia-length Willis, the original, which is written on the palm of the hand).
Or Bitar will take a double.
Or fire..
Well, that's too much. There are things that even the Almighty cannot.
Israel
The way of science is not "constantly doubting everything" but "experiment and wonder (or error)".
And what you ask for... you will not get! 🙂
"The absence of religion does not give people any impetus." - reminds me for some reason of the story about the Oked and the Oked. In any case, this sentence also points to the fact that if religion and its moral laws had not been invented, we as humans would probably continue to live in caves and would continue to enjoy drinking the blood of other animals. Therefore, to attribute only negative things to religion is a mistake.
Another mistake is to write a sentence like "secular spirituality based on science and philosophy."
sympathetic:
Sorry for the late response. As I have mentioned many times, being secular (and one that is valued in the secular society) most of my time is devoted to physically caring for my sick father.
I didn't just ask for a definition.
In my eyes the term "spirituality” as people tend to use it (and yes - most of them do it by way of negation because their whole intention in this "definition" is to discredit others) is just as empty of content as the statements of Rouhani.
I don't want to answer your definition of the way of negation.
In my eyes what a person can do to a spiritual (whatever it is) these are the things he does that in your eyes are good.
So you let me understand that respect for others makes a person spiritual. I agreed to flow with you and I showed you that in this matter the religious are much worse than the secular.
You also let me understand that the evaluation of knowledge characterizes your definition of spirituality and now you also added and stated that it doesn't matter what kind of knowledge and the meaning of this is that in your eyes the knowledge of the laws of "a bull goading a cow" or the knowledge of "why it is permissible to kill a gentile" or "at what temperature of excrement should the heretic be judged" Consider the knowledge of the principles of thermodynamics.
So here - for example - our definitions of knowledge are polarly different and in my opinion - if "spirituality" (whatever it is) is supposed to be a good thing, then of all the topics I mentioned above - only the assessment of knowledge in thermodynamics is positive while the assessment of other knowledge is really negative.
I also think that the more things that can be quantified the better off society is. Yes! I really think so and correspondingly I think that avoiding quantification is just another way that people take to be free to judge others non-objectively, that is, immorally!
A society where money is the main thing does not exist and there is nothing to discuss about it.
People may be looking for respect, appreciation, a comfortable life and control, and money is a means to achieve all of these, but it is not the only means - false representations of Aalek "spirituality" are also means intended for the same purpose.
But I don't have the strength to go through everything.
You too, like me (or at least this is what I understood from you in the past) think that the mind and everything that happens in it (including the desire to act in one way or another) are physical things and therefore there can be no agreed upon meaning for the word "spirituality".
On the other hand - precisely on the definition of morality there is a chance to reach an agreement and in this area - what you define as "spirituality" leads the religious to behavior that causes farts.
I am not claiming that all seculars are good or all religious are bad. I'm just claiming that religion gives people a push in the bad direction while the absence of religion doesn't give people any push.
R.H. Rafai.M
If these are the laws of morality - why does God demand from time to time to go through these laws?
Is God always moral?
Does God (and only God) determine what is moral and what is not?
Are you claiming that there is no morality in societies that have never been exposed to religion?
Ghosts and the forum.
The way of science is: constant questioning of everything.
The way of faith is: such see and sanctify.
And what I am asking for is: one and only evidence for the existence of God.
Thanks.
Miracles
The first laws that the Jewish religion advocated were the moral laws written in the Ten Commandments (5-10).
And you have no idea what the nature of man would be on a moral level if religion had not been invented.
Only in retrospect can you claim that without religion man is more moral, but you are wrong about that too. Because one had to learn from experience and reach a situation where the person understands that not all religious laws are moral.
מ
First, I did not define spirituality in the way of negation, which was then also possible to say
that the phrase "a stone is not spiritual" (or a zombie) defines spirituality. I defined spirituality on
Her opposite hand (makes it seem like you didn't read my words carefully). in the definition of
A concept by its opposite has much more information than a definition
on the path of negation.
Instead of debating the meaning of the definition of spirituality, I presented it to you
Several questions you are invited to answer, I will repeat them again because
In my opinion, they are questions that are easy to answer and give the impression that you are evading
To answer them:
Do you agree that a society where money is the main thing is not a spiritual society?
Do you agree that a society where positions are determined by status symbols?
Is not a spiritual company?
Do you agree that a company that believes that everything can be quantified, is not a company
Spiritual?
Do you agree that a company in which external appearance is highly important is not
Spiritual company?
Do you agree that a society where there are huge gaps between rich and poor is not
Spiritual company?
Do you agree that a society that does not value study and knowledge is not a society
Spiritual?
Do you agree that a society that pursues carnal pleasures, sex, food
etc... is not a spiritual society?
In fact, I am not doing justice to your words about some of my questions you started to answer
"The fact that a person worries about money in order to support himself does not contradict why
which I see as spirituality. There are many people who do not try to make money because
They are just idlers. Animals are not trying to make money at all."
I am not claiming on the way of opposition that a spiritual person will not be interested in money, but that the persecution
After the money will not be the main thing in his mind. A spiritual person will seek money as much as possible
To exist and nothing more. This is not the ethos of contemporary secular society. incidentally
Indian spiritual people collect alms and food for a living, are they just idle?
I think not. Do you agree that a company in which the pursuit of money
Is the main occupation not a spiritual company?
.
I see spirituality as the opposite of materialism and therefore I agree with you that it is a spiritual society
Encourage the acquisition of knowledge but not any kind of knowledge. Any spiritual society can
to choose for herself what kind of knowledge she wants to encourage and still remain spiritual.
The idea is that society encourages things that are not physical. Regarding mutual respect
I do not see it as a necessary part of the definition of spirituality as a rule for a spiritual person
will pursue less honor and publicity and strive for as few status symbols as possible. the honor
And prestige in the secular world plays a much more important role than in religious ones
In my opinion, if anything, respect in the religious society is acquired by studying more
In the secular society it is bought with money or status.
As a rule, our approaches are different. You look at the announcements of leaders and try
According to them judge the society, I try to judge a society according to the behavior
of its members and not the behavior of its leaders.
For example: several years after the peace with Egypt I traveled there. On the trip I got it
To meet very nice people, who were happy to meet me even though they knew I was
Jewish and Israeli. At the same time, the government did not express itself in a warm way towards me
Israel and if I were to conclude who the Egyptian people are according to the statements of the government
I was very wrong about the Egyptian people.
ארי
You're right. The problem begins when a concept like morality is appropriated to religion. It is not true to claim that there is no morality without religion. This is a very important point, and it is a point that I think weakens the religious argument.
Mackal, could it be better to see the people and less the dry texts and less to generalize in a sweeping way? (I also find Ehud's generalizations about the secular this way) There is something about ghosts, many people find in religion the things that contribute to the quality of their lives and this is their legitimate right.
Israel
It has nothing to do with belief in God (nor money). The discussion is about values and morals in the religious versus the secular society. You are a Jew who does not believe in God, so why don't you become a Christian?
Machel
Have you started making excuses again to make it convenient for you to keep avoiding? It was quite expected
Ghosts:
You didn't understand and you didn't understand and I understood that you wouldn't understand either.
Continue to have golden dreams and when you wake up you should start reading what was written to you because so far you haven't done so
R.H. Rafa.M
If it weren't for religion, life would be much more moral:
- God is not a moral figure and does not teach morality
- The Ten Commandments are not moral laws.
I have a question for you. Is being moral all that God asks for? Or is everything God asks moral?
I will be happy to respond
Money Ya Effendi, to Yahud they pay the most lazily. This is why please live in Kfar Spa.
The point is that religion is not only a matter of values and morals. First and foremost there is this matter of belief in God - and it should very well be the right God.
Bismillah and Hamdallah, Rabbis.
Israel
You are a muslim. Lives in Kfar Saba. The best schools are Jewish. Will you send your child to study there?
And why are you even a Muslim who lives in Kfar Saba, tell me? You will probably move to the castle... and why did you even come to Kfar Saba??
ghosts
Who said he would change? I'm talking even before he acquired class consciousness. You are in Minnesota, the only good schools that teach values are Christian or Muslim. Will you send the child there?
I believe that many Jews would prefer to leave or educate the child at home, even though those schools teach chastity and other virtues.
The point is that it is not only the values in religion. There is something else, because of which a Jew would prefer to die for the sanctification of God and not convert to Christianity.
Miracles - despite the naivety in it, a great movie, isn't it? Great show of all the beauty and comfort in simple and innocent faith in God.
When you got married(?) did you, like many secular people, have a civil marriage? Maybe a financial agreement and that's it? Maybe not that either?
Or maybe like me, when the moment of the real test came, you insisted that you consecrate your wife in great presence?
If the answer is that you did marry lawfully, and this is what you wish for your children, you may be able to begin to understand the other side as well.
To the brave commenter Nissim:
"point
Your information is simply distorted. The Germans are like everyone else - "because human beings are all the same",
And the Americans are anti-Heaven - "On their part, let the Jews burn to hell""
1: If you think that the Germans are not like everyone else (not like one person) then it is your opinion that is distorted.
2: The US knew and was silent. Until she got a head start from the Japanese. The Jews did not interest them at all.
Machel
I understood you. you dodge The whole section where you refuse to define spirituality is meant to make it convenient for you to disagree with the fact that if it weren't for religion neither you nor anyone else would have been at all clear that man would turn from a wild animal into such a civilized and moral animal. Even if there are dogs that show morality (as we understand what morality is) it still does not mean that dogs are moral because both they and humans still kill and kill here and there. The commandment you shall not kill is intended to prevent such cases, and in order to enforce this law well, it was probably necessary to act with a heavy hand.
Israel
Did you understand what you wrote?
"OK. But would you mind if your son grows up as a Muslim, as long as he is moral, spiritual, modest, etc.?"
If my son is Jewish, then why should he become a Muslim? Why shouldn't he remain a Jew as long as he is moral, spiritual, humble, etc.? You are completely misunderstood.
Israel
It was now in Israel in YES, a film I haven't seen in many, many years. And exactly you mention him 🙂
point
Your information is simply distorted. The Germans are like everyone else - "because human beings are all the same",
And the Americans are anti-Heaven - "on their part, let the Jews burn to hell". Incredible……
Not on NBC, CBS or CNN
Maybe on the Israeli channel.
Miracles it doesn't matter what I would think in the USA because the USA did not join the war and the British did not fight the Germans because of the gas chambers. For their part, let the Jews burn to hell.
Israel
There is now "Fiddler on the Roof" on TV... Do you see this by chance????
Ghost.
OK. But would you mind if your son grows up as a Muslim, as long as he is moral, spiritual, modest, etc.?
Tovia the milkman agreed that one of his Sabbaths would marry a poor tailor and the other an exiled revolutionary, but he would not agree to one thing under any circumstances: that his wife would marry a Gentile. There is no ON THE OTHER HAND here. He tore a tear in his clothes and banished her from the family, and this despite the fact that today's gentile was moral, educated, handsome and enlightened.
The reasoning is not in the best interests of the daughter. Such flexing will simply break it.
So if you have no problem studying at a university with Gentiles, reading Gentile literature about Gentile heroes and adopting Gentile culture - why stone Greeks who believe in Apollo?
point
What does that have to do with what I said? Again with your agenda? 🙂
point …. If you had been in the USA during the Holocaust, I have a fear that you would have chosen the wrong side... "Surely the government is lying, why are they exaggerating? It's just a scam by the big arms manufacturers."
You are just great 🙂
Ghosts:
I'm sorry you didn't understand me.
I said that the sun also shines in the winter also because it is relevant to the question in which my words were said just like your statement that science is not the domain of the secular and also because the fact that science is not the domain of the secular alone does not show that religion promotes science (on the other hand the examples I gave do show that it is hostile to science) (all this - Just as the existence of winter days when the sun shines will not lead you to the conclusion that winter encourages the sun to rise).
How do you know that all these things you bring up as examples of the promotion of morality by religion are really moral?
How is it that even I (who really can't stand religion) know this?
Because the origin of these laws is not in religion!
If you read the link I gave you would understand that.
As I said and you still haven't understood: religion is not just the ten commandments. It also has a mitzvah to kill gays and Shabbat violators and other terrible and clearly immoral things.
Religion teaches man to observe its mitzvot because they are mitzvot and not because they are moral (since a moral person is not at all capable of following all its horrifying mitzvot).
I have no intention of currently defining what spirituality is in my eyes, since this whole discussion started with Ehud's definition (which has not yet been given) of spirituality.
Nissim did not compare you to anyone.
I claim that there are many of those who are crazy about the Holocaust, if they had been born as Germans during the Holocaust, they would have been soldiers for anything. why? Because humans are all the same. And the excuse of: "All in all, I followed instructions" is common. And anyone who justifies a certain act of his with such a claim could easily have been an SS officer during the Holocaust.
So they should not be surprised by the Holocaust. What was there was interest, brainwashing, hatred, and mass murder.
And all this is the result of a lack of thought. That is, the thinking person, no matter where he was born, he would reach the same conclusion.
Machel
In fact, if you define religion as a law, then the Ten Commandments are definitely a religion.
Israel
It is not clear what you are asking.
If a Jew claims the supremacy of religion over secularism in the framework of morality, for example, then why should he become a Muslim or a Christian?
"And the sun also shines in winter. What does it belong to?” It really doesn't belong and it's not clear why you wrote it. Niha you say
"That a framework that consistently and continuously produces fruits in the kind I have described does not deserve the title "a framework that promotes spirituality" in my view.
1: Define what 'spirituality' is.
2: In your opinion, the moral laws "Thou shalt not lie" and "Honor thy father and mother" are "fruits of the flesh"? After all, they were promoted by the religion even before such and other interpretations were added to the (Jewish) religion.
For those who claim the moral and spiritual superiority of religion, respect for learning, equality between people, contentment with little and more. All true, by the way.
So will you have a problem becoming a Muslim? Christians? There, too, they respect moral spirituality, etc.
If so, remember that a true believing Jew would rather die for the sanctification of Hashem and not pray to a foreign god.
Ghosts:
And the sun shines even in winter.
What does it belong to?
I argued that a framework that consistently and constantly produces fruits in the kind I described does not deserve the title "a framework that promotes spirituality" in my view.
And true. There are people who change the teachings of the rabbis and learn.
One of these people is Ephraim Sompolinsky and the religious framework fears science precisely because of its fear that many will reach the same conclusions he reached.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
Nissim, our scholar, you are wrong.
These are not laws that separate people. And they were "given" to the Jewish people and do not "apply only to Jews". (Actually, these are moral laws - 5 to 10 - that most people will agree on regardless of the Ten Commandments. Agreement that stems from education. But the education itself to these moral laws probably stems from an understanding of what is "good" and what is "bad" that man has learned through experience which he accumulated during his development. And the promotion of these laws in human society started from religion, before man knew what morality was and usually behaved according to his instincts)
ארי
Tell that to Putin.
Machel
"Religion is not the ten commandments" but the sciences are not the property of the secular either.
Ghosts:
Religion is not the ten commandments and we see the results of the whole in the links I provided.
The problem is ghosts that a few verses before or after it says that gays should be stoned, so apparently respect for others does not include gays for example
R.H. Refai.M
Let's start with the fact that they only apply to Jews. Therefore, they are laws that separate people. Not a good start to a better world.
Machel
Why are the Ten Commandments (and we ignore the first commandment on purpose), in your opinion, not something that is promoted by religion and with the intention of informing and teaching respect to others?
What's up with you?
I said that I think what I should do in life is take care of the next generation. This means - don't pollute, don't waste, don't damage resources unnecessarily, educate for respect, generate knowledge, educate for curiosity and lower the bar.
Point - where is there hatred in what I said?
Are you comparing me to Hitler? I really wonder why I got hurt.
This debate is not being conducted at the same level as I would like to intervene in it, but I will still point to what I see asA worthy response to many of the questions raised here by the defenders of religion.
sympathetic:
I'm coming back again.
I don't know what you call spirituality.
After you define to me what spirituality is, I will answer the questions you asked.
Personally, I would expect from spirituality, among other things, to encourage knowledge and respect for others - exactly the things you mentioned without justification (as I proved in the examples you called quotes) as things promoted by religion.
I would expect a few more things from her but none of this is yet a definition.
If, for example, your definition includes the requirement to encourage mutual respect or the encouragement of knowledge, I can honestly say that religions do not meet the definition.
The fact that a person worries about money to support himself does not contradict what I see as spirituality.
There are many people who do not try to earn money because they are just idle. Animals are not trying to make money at all.
On the other hand - demanding others to serve you - in all material fields actually contradicts spirituality in my view.
In short - it is clear that our approaches to the subject are fundamentally different and therefore I need you to define what you mean by the word "spirituality".
And another thing:
A definition on the way of negation is not appropriate in this matter.
I require a definition of the billing method.
Otherwise, by definition, every zombie will be seen as a ghost.
Miracles, let's start with what you decided is permissible to do to achieve the goal.
For example, you decided that it is permissible to hate entire communities because they believe in something that you do not believe.
You also decided that it is permissible to slander entire publics just to convince others who don't see the whole picture like you do, that you are right.
Reminds me of something.
And another interesting question, suppose you were born during Hitler's time, and raised and educated in a typical Nazi German home. With all the massive brainwashing against the Jews and all the troubles of the Germans it is because of the Jews. So the question is up to what SS officer rank would you go?
Nissim, what's up with your exclamation points?
Point raised a very important point, and you are "yelling at him", and not only are you yelling at him, you also failed to contradict his claim (apparently that's why you started yelling)
You wrote that "I think a person should aspire that those who come after him will have a better world" and a point has shown you that you are wrong, because here is an example of a person (Hitler) who aspired to exactly what you think a person should aspire to, and he was seen in your eyes as a bad person. Therefore your comment is without content...
Ehud, I don't see a fundamental difference between different types of generalizations, in the end they are generalizations of entire populations that are made up of details.
Regarding the founding ethos of the secular society versus the religious society, you write 'but don't think that you are better or more advanced than a society where the ethos is learning', so you missed something, I can think that I am much more advanced as a secular person than a person in a society where the Koran is memorized (I find it A meaningless ritual), still that person has spiritual meaning because he assumes a creation with a first intention, with an absolute purpose, which I do not have. I mean, in the bottom line, I am less happy, and the subject of the article is finding this meaning in another way and that it can be found in another way. You're mixing all of this with a value criticism you have of girl billboards, ok maybe girl billboard fans are pretty happy people I didn't check. And maybe even sometimes also religious and we are not talking about them, that they will continue to be happy.
point
What is the connection???? I didn't say that everything is allowed to achieve a goal!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you think before you wrote this??
Miracles,
Hitler also wanted the German people to be better, he never stopped talking about it
Where is the difference?
Asaf
You're right. I think we don't exist for a certain purpose - we exist for certain reasons.
On the other hand - I think that a person should strive that those who come after him will have a better world. This is the meaning I find in life.
מ
Instead of defining spirituality directly, I will define it by its opposite.
Do you agree that a society where money is the main thing is not a spiritual society?
Do you agree that a society where positions are determined by status symbols?
Is not a spiritual company?
Do you agree that a company that believes that everything can be quantified, is not a company
Spiritual?
Do you agree that a company in which external appearance is highly important is not
Spiritual company?
Do you agree that a society where there are huge gaps between rich and poor is not
Spiritual company?
Do you agree that a society that does not value study and knowledge is not a society
Spiritual?
Do you agree that a society that pursues carnal pleasures, sex, food
etc... is not a spiritual society?
In the end I changed one question, who is more spiritual the secular society or society
religious? In several questions, but you are welcome to answer the initial question
After we agree on the answers to the other questions.
Miracles
You write
"That's your opinion. And you are allowed to own it.
No, mathematics is not the basis of science."
You remind me in your statement of a ridiculous character in a television comedy who said something like
"That's what's beautiful about science, everyone can have their own opinion." So it's not my opinion that mathematics
It is at the base of science, it is a fact. Science builds quantitative models of the world and once there is a model
Quantitative math comes into play. How do you make an observation or an experiment in science measure quantities,
In other words, things are turned into numbers and to evaluate the meaning of the numbers, mathematics is needed.
You write,
"The percentage of mathematics that is used scientifically is really negligible, as far as I know."
So the situation is exactly the opposite. All science is based on mathematics, as we were
Can you base claims about the world without probability and statistics? the models
The scientific ones are quantitative models for you to understand.
Why does all this belong to the topic of the article, well the article tries to establish a secular spirituality
On the basis of science, whereas science states that truth is only what can be quantified or measured,
There are no unmeasurable truths. In my opinion, spirituality is the understanding that there is death
that it is not a measurement and in particular it is not a scientific measure.
Miracles
You write
"That's your opinion. And you are allowed to own it.
No, mathematics is not the basis of science."
You remind me in your statement of a ridiculous character in a television comedy who said something like
"That's what's beautiful about science, everyone can have their own opinion." So it's not my opinion that mathematics
It is at the base of science, it is a fact. Science builds quantitative models of the world and once there is a model
Quantitative math comes into play. How do you make an observation or an experiment in science measure quantities,
In other words, things are turned into numbers and to evaluate the meaning of the numbers, mathematics is needed.
You write,
"The percentage of mathematics that is used scientifically is really negligible, as far as I know."
So the situation is exactly the opposite. All science is based on mathematics, as we were
Can you base claims about the world without probability and statistics? the models
The scientific ones are quantitative models for you to understand.
Why does all this belong to the topic of the article, well the article tries to establish a secular spirituality
On the basis of science, whereas science states that truth is only what can be quantified or measured,
There are no unmeasurable truths. In my opinion, spirituality is the understanding that there is truth
that it is not a measurement and in particular it is not a scientific truth.
The article presupposes the existence of meaning just as religion presupposes the existence of God. Is there a scientific basis for the existence of meaning?
ארי
I do not like generalizations when it comes to moral judgment of people. Here is the discussion
It requires generalizations because we are talking about comparing the secular to the religious society in terms of
their spirituality (this is not a moral judgment). In any case when considering the ethos
The foundation of the various societies, the founding ethos of the religious society is study
And the founding ethos of secular society (in the country) is buying. Take advertising for example
that surrounds us from every direction in the press, on television, on billboards, what the advertising tells us
About our company? Buy, buy, buy. Why a photograph of a beautiful woman next to a car?
Make us want to buy the car. Because we evaluate the performance of the car or the
Its low fuel consumption? Advertising is a mirror, which demonstrates to us that the society is secular
Based on status symbols. Just one example of many. So if the secular society
, she is more carnal and will allow me to be more animal, I have no problem with that. If you act like an animal
Makes you happy, go for it, but don't think you're better or more advanced than a company where you are
The ethos is a study.
One more thing about The morality and mutual respect that religion brings
Ehud, I answered you but my response is waiting for some reason..
Avi Blizovsky
"The media has long been alarmed,"
Big Brother, Survival and other reality shows; Broadcasts in the Arabic language for the Arab sector on Fridays at noon on channels 10, 22, and the state channel XNUMX. Is this also "media anxiety"?
sympathetic:
Define spirituality and I will answer you
sympathetic
And that's your opinion. And you are allowed to own it.
No, mathematics is not the basis of science. The percentage of mathematics in scientific use is really negligible, as far as I know.
The basis of science is observation, theory and experiment (not necessarily in that order). You must agree with me that without English (work with me here…) there is no science, right? So English is the basis of science?
And does all this belong to the topic of the article?
Here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/secular-spirituality-240513/comment-page-23/#comments
“Eric
In my opinion, people should be treated as individuals, not large groups and announcements
theirs. The religious are a different collection of people as well as the Arabs or the secular.
The inclusion of the public is the danger"
ארי
Where did I write that I hate generalizations????
Not only.. First of all: you have a problem, the fact that you wrote this:
"In which society is there a greater pursuit of material,
For example: chasing money, good food, consumer goods, in religious or secular society"
You included the 'secular' as 'pursuers of greed without respect for each other', a bit excessive to generalize in this way, isn't it? 'Mr Hates Generalizations'?
Miracles
You pretend to understand science, but unfortunately that's not how you write
". Make observations and experiments. What we find - we think it's true."
Experiments aim to test the correctness of theories. Science establishes a theory and then tests
it in the experiment and not what we find is the truth.
Then you write "thematics is certainly not true.
Mathematics is nothing…. It is at most a collection of subjects".
Well, for your information, mathematics is the basis of science. Science models the
Nature through mathematics, that is, makes the world quantitative. after
That we have a mathematical model of the world, ie a quantitative model is possible
examine it quantitatively, that is, in an experiment. Without quantitative modeling science
He collects stories.
ארי
I don't have a problem if chasing money and temporary pleasures brings happiness, I don't
Judge for good or bad, I simply claim that the secular society is less
spiritual
Miracles
Where do you see more gaps between rich and poor, where do you see more charity
And community spirit, in secular or religious society? On the other hand, the article deals with spirituality.
Which society values spirituality more, the religious or secular society.
What determines a person's position in secular society (hint: money and power) What determines the
A person's position in the religious society (a hint of learning), which society is more spiritual. If anything
Speaking of spirituality, what is the pinnacle of the secularist's aspirations? Education, charity, being good
More or maybe earn a lot of money and buy luxuries. The capitalist society we live in
Chaim perceives man as a consumer and the more he consumes, the more he is worth. The religious society
posits an alternative.
מ
Thanks for the links. Don't have time to answer a simple question?
Which society is more spiritual, the one where money is the main thing, the pleasures
The physical (food, sex,...), the one where status is determined by money?
Or a society where there are almost no gaps between rich and poor, the clothing
Is it uniform and the people in it are engaged in studying and appreciate learning?
A simple question which company would you call more spiritual, a company
Secular or religious?
really? The media has long been alarmed, pay attention to the best singers what they are singing about. And that's the ones who don't sing Yossi Gisfan's lyrics.
Rafaim, regarding the Leviathan: I don't think that an orthodox religious of today, one who believes in the Torah in the Old Testament, would see it as an injustice if I defined him as a 'believer in the words of the Sages'. There are no unfair 'sweeping generalizations' of character traits. And in the Talmud tractate of Baba Batra they wrote: 'R. Yochanan the Almighty will make a feast for the righteous from the flesh of a Leviathan', and this is not a metaphor or anything, there is even a debate as to whether this Leviathan should be kosher or not... by the way I did not mention the The wild ox and the canned wine.. Anivi: My point was that there is nothing wrong with 'inferior' pleasures, Ehud wrote 'in which society there is a greater pursuit of material things, for example: the pursuit of money, good food, consumer goods,' and what I was trying to say is that if it brings Happiness (I'm not sure of the truth at all, but that's another matter..) There is nothing wrong with it (as long as there is no harm to others) and religious people who believe that God will give them a great reward in the next world, all in all they are 'postponing satisfaction' to the world beyond.. there they will have some happiness Big, whether it's through a whale dinner and canned wine or a more 'superior' way, it doesn't matter it's the same bottom line.
Regarding the 70 virgins: I am not familiar with the Islamic writings, I may be wrong, but if the rumor is true and there is indeed such a mention in the Torah, or in writing in Islam, there are no generalizations here, whoever defines himself as a Muslim is one who believes in what is said in his scriptures.
Miracles and Mikey, this just shows what your level of enlightenment is.
Generalizations, slanders, prejudices, disqualification of entire communities.
Hate has taken over you. And this is due to the intense brainwashing that exists in the media in Israel.
sympathetic
My definition is not a tautology at all.. Science does not determine what the truth is. Make observations and experiments. What we find - we think it is true. And vice versa - what we don't observe is probably not true (Big Foot for example). This is not a precise definition, and I have already said that I do not think that it is possible to give a precise definition, for almost anything, certainly for something loaded like "truth".
Mathematics is certainly not true. Mathematics is nothing…. is a maximum collection of subjects. These issues are not things that exist in the world. It is possible to describe the world, at least part of it, with the help of tools that come from mathematics - the equations of the theory of relativity for example. You can say that the equations are correct - but we don't know if they are a true description of the world.
But - at the moment this is the situation, and we think it is the truth...
sympathetic
From my many years of experience, the religious society is actually more materialistic than the secular one. Clothing in religious society is very important. I once saw the prices of streimels …..shocking :). A good match is a religious concept, not a secular one. For the religious, food is a ritual - a secular one is satisfied with a cheeseburger. who do you know – much more important for the religious.
There are also secular people who are very materialistic, that's true. But sports, music, trips, painting, expanding education - all of these belong much more to the secular world.
sympathetic:
You probably prefer voicing trending and baseless statements to voicing "quotes" (an interesting term for documented facts) that disprove your statements.
I don't have time right now, but since you asked, here are more "quotes" - this time from around the world:
http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/Religion-Atheism-and-Crime
http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/atheist-dont-commit-as-much-crime-as-the-religious-do
http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion
http://atheism.livejournal.com/2194071.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kriguuKVJyw
ארי
"So religious people believe that they will eat with God in a festive feast in the world beyond the flesh of the biblical leviathan. Or they will have 70 virgins." - Indeed. Sweeping generalizations are not a good thing. And it's a shame you don't listen to yourself.
ghosts
Or simply your opinion differs from theirs. Sweeping generalizations is not a good thing but someone here has generalized the secularists as disrespectful greedy people.
point
They simply prefer the brainwashing done outside the home. It's probably because they didn't like the brainwashing in the house.
(and of course this has nothing to do with science)
Those who investigate the truth do everything to avoid being brainwashed and try not to give in to pressures from home and outside. These are people with common sense and true skeptics. (and it's a shame that you hardly ever meet them)
Ehud, I really don't understand what you see as bad in 'chasing' consumer goods and good food if it brings happiness. So religious people believe that they will eat with God in a festive feast in the world beyond the flesh of the biblical Leviathan. Or they will have 70 virgins. The same lady in a new glory.
Miracles,
You have a very common sense, you write "Science is the search for truth" and then you define
the truth as "I think the truth is, more or less, the scientific consensus". indeed with
Such a tautological claim cannot be argued. The only problem is that you defined the truth
is your private setting.
Let's go a little further beyond your settings….
Are the maths true in your opinion? Is only what he can prove true?
Is what was tested in the experiment true? Is experiment your criterion for truth?
In short, how is the truth tested in your opinion?
מ
I see that you are busy bringing links of all kinds, but let's address the topic of the article.
Isn't matter in some way opposed to spirit? In which society is there a greater pursuit of material,
For example: pursuit of money, good food, consumer goods, in the religious or secular society? In what company?
You are characterized more by the substance, how much money you have, how you dress, what car you have
A traveler, in a religious or secular society? Secular society is awash in the most base lusts of
Man, sex, food, power. In comparison, wouldn't you say that the religious society is more spiritual?
Michael
Big 🙂 but shocking……
This is what the Torah looks like after the commentaries
sympathetic
Science is a method of studying the world. It is based on observations, hypotheses and experiments to test the hypotheses.
True - science is not a "type" of truth. According to what I wrote in the previous line, science is the search for truth. A scientist wants to know how the world works, so he performs the process I mentioned. The truth is certainly not found in some book - especially when we know for sure that there are "untruths" in the book.
I will not define "truth". You are welcome to open a dictionary yourself. I am not evasive - the problem is that "truth" is an extremely complex concept, and without defining the context, we will only get into trouble. In general, definitions are a concept that is very much distanced from in philosophy. In our context, I think the truth is, more or less, the scientific consensus.
sympathetic:
The incitement among the ultra-Orthodox is orders of magnitude greater than what you will find in any secular society.
Their resistance to learning useful and correct things is also among the highest in the world.
I do not know the evangelical Christians closely or all the other societies where religiosity dominates except Egypt but I estimate that the situation in them is similar.
Presenting precisely the issues you presented as benefits that religion gives to society is nothing more than ridiculous.
point
You can deny the Torah as much as you want. I'm just quoting what is written there. And what is written there is nauseating.
2000 years of "interpretations" will not change what is written....
Miracles,
You write "Science is not a form of truth. The concept of "truth" has no meaning at all outside of science."
It seems that you think you know what "science" is and what "truth" is. I would love to hear from you
defines them.
Without defining spirituality we would agree that materiality and matter are opposed to spirituality.
God in the secular society was replaced by matter, therefore the secular society is a persecutor
money and wealth.
When we come to describe a spiritual world beyond the material we must ask who is man
And what is his place in the world? The secular attempts were communism, man is a producer, worker,
Nazism, man is part of a nation and now capitalism, man is a consumer. That's why we are
One sees the pursuit of money and superficiality in modern secular society, to be impressed
What characterizes our society is enough to look at television. On the other hand, in the religious society there is none
The brainwashing of television does not have the unbridled pursuit of greed. There is in the company
This is an assessment of knowledge. Its importance can be debated but this is not a culture in which a person is measured
According to how he looks, what he wears or what car he drives. in the secular society
Today there is an unrestrained pursuit of obtaining material and money.
Miracles
The problem with the article is not its correctness but its superficiality as he would say
The famous physicist Pauli the article is even
it is not even wrong
But I'll let Eddie explain to you since he does it better than me
מ
Thanks for the links but they are definitely not relevant to the discussion. This is a discussion
General about the characteristics of a religious society compared to a secular society. I could have
Inundate you with links of despicable acts in secular society, diversion against
Foreigners, acts of rape and judges' statements about them, a president who is a convicted rapist,
Persecution of Arabs etc...
This is not the point of the discussion.
מ
Thanks for the links but they are definitely not relevant to the discussion. This is a discussion
General about the characteristics of a religious society compared to a secular society. I could have
Inundate you with links of despicable acts in secular society, diversion against
Foreigners, acts of rape and judges' statements about them, a president who is a convicted rapist,
Persecution of Arabs etc...
This is not the point of the discussion.
Nissim You seem to have no real concept of Judaism. And all you know comes down to a few images you have in your head from Channel 2 broadcasts.
It was the Nazis who started with this brainwashing method and now all the media networks in the world continue on the same line. Here in Israel, the ultra-Orthodox and the settlers are slandered. And in the world media it is directed towards the Muslims.
It's all brainwashing and you definitely seem to have fallen into the trap.
Eddie
What is wrong with the article?
sympathetic
I don't know what religious community you are talking about, but I see other things. We have all seen violent demonstrations by ultra-Orthodox, and I would venture to say that they curse and harass much more than secular ones. In religious communities, one of the most common expressions is "what will they say". Yes, you are right that religious people value those who know Torah. You have to understand that in my secular eyes it's like being an expert on Moby Dick….
Capital from arranging others? Hmmm... do you know how many Haredim there are in the diamond field??? Scientists make a fortune???
Truth in art? If the book has something about the world that is true, then it is also a scientific truth.
And in the matter of knowledge, you probably meant phenomena Like this one
or maybe this?
Just the tip of the iceberg
http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=58608
http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=58068
http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=57657
http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=56777
http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=55977
http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=52732
http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=51945
http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=50203
http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=49819
http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=48266
sympathetic:
I assume thatThat's what you meant.
or maybe זה
Right?
There are scientists who have skills for philosophical thinking, but this is not our case.
In my opinion, this article is another example that too often people involved in science are unskilled in the philosophical field.
The list of arbitrary assumptions in the article about 'religion' as it is, the divine concept, and even about 'science' (as a discipline that necessarily strives for 'truth', for example) etc. is long. All of these irreparably detract from the value of the discourse that the article seeks to maintain. But the more fundamental problem is the one-dimensionality, or rather - the lack of precision or the arbitrariness - in which the relevant basic concepts are defined (or in fact not defined) such as 'spirituality' or 'truth' or 'science'. From here to jumping to baseless assertions and conclusions - short.
Philosophical discussion on a scientific website is definitely required, but it should be done with adequate philosophical standards.
Miracles
In general, when you believe there is a God, the ego is smaller. Less religious are heard
Cursing each other or belittling their friends. In general, the religious society has an appreciation for learning and not
purchase. Society values people who study Torah and are wise in Torah, not people who have made a fortune
from arranging others. Again I say in general because you can find counterexamples to the administration.
Regarding truth, do you believe that there is truth in art in literature, in my opinion yes they tell us
about the world but it is not a scientific fact.
This is what they say, "nice tray" in English. I won't even bother contradicting the nonsense in the article and in the comments, I'll just let reality work and slap you in the face.
"The Jewish religion values knowledge (learning)"
What knowledge? Are these important and fateful questions? Questions like: Is it permissible for a person to urinate from the roof of a synagogue to hold his penis?
Here is a quote from Jewish publicist and poet from the Enlightenment period Yehuda Liv Levin
"..then I hated the Talmud and it was all to me like Sisyphus's stone lick flesh and soul free"
I once read a sharper quote from one of the more famous intellectuals of that time but I have forgotten his name.
"The Jewish religion values knowledge (learning). Compared to religion, we see a secular society
Pursuing greed and prestige,"
Ehud, the pursuit of greed and lack of respect is not necessarily related to education, you can be an educated super duper, and a hell of a human being.
And watch what is happening with the extremists in Beit Shemesh to understand how much religion can disrupt the minds of entire communities. Religion sometimes has a tendency to conflict with humanistic and liberal values.
There is only one truth. She is one and only. There is no other truth. There are no two truths that contradict each other.
There are many lies. There are different types of lies.
Science tries to find out the truth.
sympathetic
The religion really does not teach "respect between man and his fellow man". On the contrary, it teaches hatred of difference, impatience and many other negative things.
Science clearly talks about emotions. Emotions have a biological basis. We know about substances that affect the emotions. We know about diseases and disorders that affect the emotions.
Science is not a form of truth. The concept of "truth" has no meaning at all outside of science.
We (seculars) have something to learn from religion. Definitely. But it does not include "truth" or "morality".
And the Jewish religion really does not value knowledge, but rather knowledge about religion....religion and knowledge are opposites. I don't understand how you can think otherwise.
Nir,
You wrote: "Religions tried to give meaning and comfort by a fixed story that determined what the absolute truth is that is always true. A truth that always placed the person and the intention at the center of reality and thus led to meaning and comfort. When this so-called absolute truth was cracked and turned out to be incorrect, the meaning also fell with it."
With your permission, I will be blunt about your basic premise: the "supposedly absolute" truth has only cracked in those in whom it was cracked in the first place, not to say crumbled or non-existent. In the hearts of those in whom it beat (and it was not a momentary whim of the ego) it never cracked, never proved to be wrong, never will crack and nothing can shake it. There is no comfort-truth for man and no purpose and no purpose without this truth, and all our scientific achievements will not be able to fill the void in its absence. Any attempt to find a replacement for it that would supposedly be the diamond of our "advanced stage", the "Age of Enlightenment", science - any such replacement is like honey drawn on paper: lick as much as we want, sweet will not come out of it.
And yet it is possible to admit and say that institutionalized Orthodoxy really invites ridicule upon itself. The institutionalized orthodoxy arouses a sharp antagonism in anyone who was not born a part of it and is also developed enough to conduct himself in the world. So the criticism that appears here in Nablus and Arab against the political mechanisms of that orthodoxy is understandable. But the crusade against the people of faith who seek the truth and the spirit is deprived of all logic.
Religion has existed for thousands of years and we have so much to learn from it, community life, respect between people
For his friend, the Jewish religion values knowledge (learning). Compared to religion, we see a secular society
Pursuing greed and prestige, without a community life and without respect between man and his fellow man that its leaders or
The idols are celebrities.
The attempt to base spirituality on science is ridiculous, science is based on intellect while human life is
They are also physical. The spiritual person needs a community, spiritual guidance and a foundational book or cultural canon
A spirituality that would try to base itself on science is lacking, while they all exist in the religious world. the world
The human spiritual is also emotional, science does not discuss our emotions at all.
Beyond all that, the attempt that science tries to discover the truth is naive, science is a certain type
of truth, there are different types of truth. Science cannot tell us who to marry or how to raise
Our children, the existence of technology does not confirm the correctness of science or its pursuit of truth
This is a ridiculous claim.
point
And again - I really do not agree with you.
There is a fairly high correlation between secularism and science. The enemy of religion is knowledge. Science - exactly the opposite.
And about the big brother …… it's the religious who believe in a big brother, did you forget ????
Miracles, I didn't come to open the matter of religion and morality...
I just wanted to imply that the writer has no idea where he's even getting into.
First of all, he starts with the link between secularism and science, when in truth there is no connection between secularism and science. There is more of a connection between secularism and Big Brother than between secularism and science.
Assaf, if you have already entered the subject of language, then you will know that "Shua" is definitely more Hebrew than "Kadai" (which is of Aramaic origin).
True, I don't think the writer knows this, but in the book of Esther it appears "and the king is not worth comforting" or "and all this is nothing to me"
Yossi and a point
I understand from you that there is no such concept of morality without religion. To say the least, I somewhat disagree with you.
In the Jewish religion, I don't see a moral problem with murder. Cain killed Abel, but what happened to him? He received an immunity statuette - this man must not be harmed!!! He raised a family and founded a city… not exactly a punishment…..
In the Ten Commandments it says you shall not murder... somewhere in the middle for some reason. That is, it is a law, and not the most important law. And if it is forbidden by law, then it does not belong to morality...
Allowed to continue more... The binding of Isaac... the wars of the Israelites... the daughter of Jephthah... and so on.
Of course they will shout at me now that I am misinterpreting what is written... but no one can convince me that the interpretations are more correct than what is written in plain Hebrew.
I think there is morality with religion...and I'm not sure there is religion with morality....
The "post" - (no clue in Hebrew?) nice (no more)
But why in street language?
…..”Why is all this worth”?….. worth (=), maybe the meaning is worthwhile?,
When you write equal, you have to compare it to something, not a street slang,
There is a difference and it should be written correctly,
It is appropriate that the commenters also try to do so in Hebrew free of foreign language...
"alternative" maybe an alternative?
Even for "a pile of bullshit" you can find a concept in Hebrew
So why sing in Laez?
Michael, Chaim
Perhaps you are struggling or arguing with the product of evolution on behalf of which you are acting.
If there was a person who invented religion and belief in a higher power (as in stones, bones, sky, leaders, gods and other movements) he would deserve a Nobel Prize. This is the most imaginative and most unrealistic work. And yet she conquered the world or the greater part of it.
And yet we must research and try to understand the connection between the lives of our living ancestors (social life, family, leadership, etc.) and what we inherited from them and is inherent in us. Perhaps the cause of a person's belief in being led is genetic/hereditary, And the fight against those believers/religious, is similar to the war of a large part of them in the gay population.
Michael, Chaim
Perhaps you are struggling or arguing with the product of evolution on behalf of which you are acting.
If there was a person who invented religion and belief in a higher power (as in stones, bones, sky, leaders, gods and other movements) he would deserve a Nobel Prize. This is the most imaginative and most unrealistic work. And yet she conquered the world or the greater part of it.
And yet we must research and try to understand the connection between the lives of our living ancestors (social life, family, leadership, etc.) and what we inherited from them and is inherent in us. Perhaps the cause of a person's belief in being led is genetic/hereditary, And the fight against those believers/religious, is similar to the war of a large part of them in the gay population.
In my opinion, there is a secular philosophy and there is a secular moral theory. I refer to the book The Great Philosophers by Brian Magee which is a collection of conversations with different professors of philosophy about the 15 greatest philosophers in Western culture. One of them by the way is Spinoza. There is no need, in my opinion alone, to link belief in God to belief in the correctness of the scientific way, and to a common denominator of values between atheists and modern monotheists. From this stupid debate, in my opinion, only the dark ones who aspire to statics that bring poverty, ignorance and suffering benefit. She brings more quality things, but I give up a lecture on the subject.
If we make a table of what I as a modern monotheist believe, and how I perceive the concept of God and what a profound atheist believes, we will discover in my opinion that we meet in almost everything, even in the spiritual sense. So when smart people like Dawkins insist on tying atheism to the Enlightenment, they are right. But it's like in The Lord of the Rings, the people of Middle Earth will fight among themselves and Lord of the Rings will win. The Lord of the Rings is much stronger than all the enlightened factions. We are a drop in the ocean.
Here is a short list of what I think are common points.
1. The correctness of evolution.
2. The Big Bang and what preceded it, and everything that will be revealed to be true by physics and other sciences.
3. The human ability to produce a new consciousness, according to physical and mathematical principles. There is a mathematical basis for consciousness that over time can explain ever-increasing parts of consciousness. I deal with pattern recognition in my studies, and to my astonishment, software imitates not only the five senses. On the contrary: I believe that we are close to movies like Matrix and Terminator.
4. The agreement that major parts of the major religions bring poverty, ignorance, unthinking, ant culture. that there is a medieval danger in this.
5. That there is something spiritual created while creating consciousness by means that can be explained completely mechanically.
6. I understand that the existence of God, whose meaning I do not understand, is completely unnecessary in explaining the phenomena.
And there are things in which we will be divided regardless of belief in God. I have no problem disagreeing with Avi Blizovsky, for example, and evaluating his life's work on the science website:
1. The belief that life began on Earth as opposed to spores arriving from fading stars like Mars
which might have been worthy of life 3 billion years ago.
2. There is spirituality and philosophy and moral theory even in the absence of a creator. It is much more difficult to justify taking responsibility for morality in the absence of a creator.
3. That there is benefit in engaging in philosophy and moral theory, regardless of belief in God. A necessary condition for the survival of humanity. Evidence of the development of consciousness in intelligent beings at a sufficient level that they will begin to think about other beings and the environment and not only about themselves.
philoshit, Hidan is the leading content site in Israel in the field of science and technology.
If you don't want science, no one forces you to read.
If you feel that people are trying to impose a mental dictatorship on you, you should see a doctor.
Complaining that the website publishes articles on science is like complaining that people eat in a restaurant or pray in a synagogue.
I'm sorry for being blunt, but I haven't read such a pile of bullshit in a long time. Enough of the intellectual dictatorship that they are trying to impose on us, and it doesn't matter from which side - the scientific, the spiritual, the religious. Gone are the days when thinkers thought there was one explanation for everything. There are many things in the world that do not, and should not, have anything to do with science; and better this way.
The bug is that in some browsers you must write a website and an e-mail address - otherwise WordPress does not approve the response.
post Scriptum. For years the interior light in our refrigerator has not worked and the company claims that they don't have a replacement lamp housing instead of the one that broke down, so I don't even have this interior light....
Jonathan Geffen once wrote that he knows an inner light only inside the frigidaire.
The search for meaning is another feature of the brain that has developed through evolution. Those who understand evolution understand that there is no meaning and this, in my opinion, is the most "spiritual" insight that can be reached.
Besides, you have a bug that requires me to specify "website" to send a comment or I didn't understand something.
And again, I repeat things I have said before, thus saving a lot of time for readers and writers who do not know what secular spirituality is.
Secular spirituality is summed up in this thing called "Big Brother", or maybe "The Voice" or all the other things that have high ratings. This is secular spirituality. All other quibbles are attempts to appropriate science for secularism. Which has nothing to do with reality.
Interesting article. There is no need in my opinion for another religion. There is a need for an alternative definition of a common denominator between monotheists who believe in the correctness of evolution and the big bang and the time that preceded it, and any innovation that science will reach and atheists who believe in those correctnesses but not in God. In my opinion, the distance between these two extremes is much shorter than the distance between the first and the creationist religious, etc. Each side needs to give up mocking the other side, because two are many and the third religious creation wins. Here, in my opinion, the opinions will be divided between those who believe in a being called God in the broadest sense, i.e. according to Spinoza - nature, or according to Descartes, the religious God, or according to Kant what is left for inference by the power of pure reason. And those who are atheists but agree to the need for morality for the benefit of all humanity. There is a place for dealing with philosophers on a scientific website since they are subject to principles similar to the principles of science, and the book The Great Philosophers by Brian Magee is a good starting point: deep enough and short enough and close enough to the academic study of consciousness.
There is a good representation of philosophers at the Hebrew University and you can check there who is ready to prepare an article.
"We are not allowed" who is this to us? Is there a list of names? How do you join the group and what are the admission conditions?
The writer presents himself as an expert in truth research. So Yoel please say how according to his method will it be possible to determine if Hitler did an act that is not true, not real?
Because the way I see things, if you decide that everything that exists is just science, then there is no real reason to ban murder (I'm not talking about social reasons).
Haim P:
It might be that the Herzb will interest you.http://www.1vsdat.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&layout=user&id=156&task=user&Itemid=189
Cheers for wise things.
First I will mention that I grew up in a religious family, I studied in a high school yeshiva, I repeated the question, I studied at the Technion. I am a man who lives and knows both worlds.
You pointed to the problem that I defined at the time in one sentence "God is dead and no heir can be found for him". The meaning is: when we understood that there is no God, there was no one left to "watch over" our morals, to provide any meaning to our lives. We are left alone to carry out this work. But we are not mature enough. We need a guiding hand. Parents are not always worthy or sufficient for this matter. For this, both a good education system and a good social system are needed.
Another thing: the group thing. Religions, despite their folly, survive. Why? Teamwork! The religious gather in synagogues, mosques, churches. There they get another dose of drugs, and also a dose of strengthening teamwork. Seculars do not have such a system! They need such a system.
Such an initiative is not an issue for governments, so the initiative must come from among the secular. It should start with simple lectures that will be given free to the general public (by people like you!!). Lectures on various fields of science, on philosophy of science, on evolution and its meaning as a "threat" to the various religions.
where? wherever possible. Community centers and halls that the local municipality can provide. State schools and more. The lectures can be held on Friday evening, on Saturday in the late morning, at nightfall and more. If possible, serve free coffee (I'm sure they will find donors for this) and light refreshments.
If we start with that it will gain momentum. Slowly but surely. Talented lecturers are everywhere. Others who are not qualified - will retire and continue to support from the outside. One can start with partisan means, without organization, and then unite into an organized body.
dear,
Are you writing to burst through a door that isn't open?
In my opinion, on the Ether Island they are of the second type.
I find myself calling, you and the previous and the next, and there is no savior for my soul in you.
Not even in me now there is a savior for you.
If I find - I will announce publicly.
If you find it, let me know as well.
By then.
We will continue to be disappointed :)