Rather than asserting that its a false generalization, prove it! I already provided evidence for my claim by quoting from your talk back. Now you are claiming that my argument is invalid, so the burden of proof is on you!

founded on non religion democratic values, it is the house of jews who can fine society which they won't be arrased cause they r jews, and can fair chance in life and got nothing to do with Arabs, they returnd home so to speak cause their history and past is connected to the place kinda for many years, againe the zionism got nothing against arabs but along the grim reality came the atitude toward arabs cause in the 30's the main arab leader was the allay of Hitler, so lost of trust was something that started way back even before WW1.

You think making an unfounded assertion should be accepted as true until someone proves otherwise? Ok, I can play that game. You're a moron. Now, try proving otherwise. ROFL. Take a logic course, Mohammed. You have no clue.

I don't find where Ramachandaran of Stanford has provided any proof of your apparent exaggerations whatsoever, clinical or otherwise; nor have I been able to find any claim by him to the contrary in support of your assertions. Scientists themselves are almost always researching a more narrow area of interest, which they carefully define, but that is often wrested out of context and exaggerated by the media and public. Until science proves an alternative origin of the universe ex nihilo, a Prime Cause Singularity is the most logical explanation for the existence of the universe--shared by many (probably most) physicists and cosmologists. Please don't continue to tire us with decades-old aargh-uments that no scientist today supports. No scientist rejecting a Prime Cause offers any proof of an alternative. Thus, they have left the realm of science into imagineering, arguing from an impossibly ignorant position. Your assertions are unfounded premises that no scientist accepts as true. If you believe this statement isn't so please list scientists who accept your "axioms" (and not watered down variants that don't really support your axioms). You must demonstrate the truth of assertions; i.e., prove them rather than nakedly asserting them as "your" axioms before they have any validity upon which to build further arguments. Unlike you and Mohammed, I'm happy to acknowledge fallacies and correct them… but I'm not gullible enough to accept baseless opinions as if they were facts. Demonstrate your assertions and I'll be happy to deal with them. Sagi, you need to cite what you claim Seneca stated about "useful" to permit an evaluation of the context, etc. as well as address the scholarly criticisms that call into question so much of the descriptions fallaciously attributed to Seneca. Don't expect the world to simply accept your assertion because you stated it. Interestingly, much of the mass killings of wars in Europe and the Orient have been caused by cold-blooded, clinically calculated, black-hearted secular atheists pursuing power… AND using religion to control the masses of their citizenry. THAT's why THEY assess religion as an opiate of the masses. Scientists don't make that attribution, "seculars" do… and secular lemmings buy into it. It then becomes clear that the solution is [a] to identify the core of the problem as the cold-blooded, calculating, power-hungry secular-atheists trying to take advantage of religion and [b] expose these intrigues of secular-atheists and immunize the populace against their calamitous adventures through educating the religious public in logic and science as reflections of the Prime Cause Singularity Author of physical order (laws of physics) in the universe: logic and science. The same goes for your baseless assertions to Mohammed: he must demonstrate a fallacious argument before asserting it without foundation. Your opinion, or Mohammed's, does not logically demonstrate anything other than they are your opinions. In law there is a joke: "When the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; when both the facts and the law are against you, pound on the table." This is a case of Sagi and Mohammed clearly not comprehending the science or logic they pretend to cite and, intransigently, rather than examine their flawed beliefs they inflate scientific research, pervert logic and pound on the table. The case against a Prime Cause Singularity, it turns out, remains unproven: i.e., bogus. Paqid Yirmeyahu Paqid 16, The Netzarim, Ra'anana, Israel Israeli Torah-reverer (& Orthodox Jew) Advocate for Logic as Halakhic Authority Welcoming All Torah-reverers (Jews & non-Jews) www.netzarim.co.il

Justification for killing fellow Jews to stop religious from defending their religious freedom. The core truth of liberal seculars is peeking through the fraying fabric of their superficial rants. Paqid Yirmeyahu Paqid 16, The Netzarim, Ra'anana, Israel Israeli Torah-reverer (& Orthodox Jew) Advocate for Logic as Halakhic Authority Welcoming All Torah-reverers (Jews & non-Jews) www.netzarim.co.il

Thank you for your comment. Personally i have a lot of respect to Paqid and i love reading his comments, i disagree with most of them though. In my opinion non of us is immune from "cognitive biases" including myself, yourself and Paqid. For example you said "On the other hand we all are aware of deeply religious folks who can practice hedonism almost as a "second religion". " This is a generalization from your side as well! Cognitive biases takes many forms, one of them is "clustering illusion" which is the tendency to attribute patterns and underlying causes to random events when there are none, thats why we all tend to generalize. In my opinion, the religious can be more vulnerable to a certain form of bias than non believers, which is "confirmation bias". That means the tendency to look for information that confirms our existing preconceptions, making it more likely to ignore or neglect data that disconfirms our beliefs. I was not trying to "point out to Paqid's fallacious arguments" as you suggested. What i was trying to say is that its quite normal to use some forms of generalizing when we argue such as using the terms "religious people" and "seculars". Of course, when we use these terms we know that there will always be exceptions and not everyone is included, but at the same time we should acknowledge that the members of each group share a lot in common(hence we categorize them). To sum up, i agree with what you told Paqid in your comment #23 that he misinterpreted the context and the intentions of the author. Finally, i dont think we should rely solely on informal logic to evaluate arguments/articles as we are humans here, not robots!

You said "Ok, I can play that game. You're a moron. Now, try proving otherwise. ROFL" You have just made two logical fallacies in your small witty talkback: 1- You misrepresented my argument by providing distorted version of my position(straw man). I claimed that you generalized and i provided clear examples from your own argument to support my claim, while saying that i am a moron without mentioning why or without providing clear examples of my madness is a fallacious argument! 2- You attacked me personally "ad hominem" by saying i dont have a clue In addition, i dont understand why you have to be over defensive when you answer others??!! For example adding LOL or ROFL to your talkback is a bit childish and does not represent your knowledge nor your age! Finally, in my opinion wise people are the ones who can control their ego, not being controled by it. Confident people are the ones who have no problem with making mistakes and learning from them.

It would be simple for the Palis to torch their own mosque and blame it on the settlers who by the way are NOT illegal. CSI works with evidence. Where is the physical evidence they did it? Most of the acts you attribute to the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are never proven. Where is your outrage at the STABBING of a Jewishwoman by a Pali? Do you consider that a hate crime?Where is your outrage at the destruction of the Tomb of Joseph by the Palis and the murder of the soldier by them? He was lying there bleeding to death and they did not allow medical assistance. Hate crimes are reprehensible with or without injury and death. Hate crimes accompanied by injury and death are much much worse. As for the olive trees-there is some evidence that is self-inflicted by the Palis too. Don't believe every Pali hoax you read about.

and vice versa and blow their fellow Muslims to bits in the process? Now THERE is a hate crime if I ever saw one.

Informal "logic" as distinct from formal logic is nothing more than intuitive philosophizing. I advocate logic, not intuitive philosophizing. There is only one logic and that is formal, mathematical, discrete logic that you can learn in the computer science or mathematics departments of any reputable university. "Informal logic" is a philosophical sham, which I have always rejected, exposed and condemned. Get a grip and move up to logic (i.e., formal, mathematical logic). It is a shame that logic isn't taught from childhood as part of the "3 R's." Discussing logic in natural language doesn't inherently contradict logic. However, it is more challenging to adhere to logical rules when using natural language and mistakes become more likely, which is why we prefer to abstract problems to mathematical language whose solution can be verified by a computer. When I did this to prove a point a few years ago in the Orion Dead Sea Scrolls scholarly forum, however, some of the archeologists were up in arms that I wasn't properly respectful of their arts Ph.D's. That may still be in their archives. It's my favorite example of why "informal logic" is such a sham. One Master's student in the arts, conspicuously dependent on "informal logic," argued that my logic arguments were irrelevant because (and I paraphrase from memory), "according to logic, the sun is yellow, therefore it's made of butter." So much for "informal logic" (and arts majors on logic and science). Generalizations, like assertions, are not factual premises upon which one can predicate a proof. That does NOT imply that any given generalization or assertion is wrong any more than it implies any given generalization or assertion is right. This is where you made your error: you GENERALIZED that ALL of my observations you listed were an error. Yet, you offer no evidence whatsoever of any specific error. Most (a generalization? Or observation?) recognize that space is limited in these postings and there is no possibility to present a fully-documented proof of every point raised. Nevertheless, the writer has the burden of proof, when challenged, to demonstrate his or her statements. I'm happy to do that but it requires an explicit and specific criticism, not a GENERALIZATION that is itself logically fallacious. If you disagree with any or all of those statements you listed, fine… but state your objection explicitly and specifically so I--and readers--can assess the merit of your criticisms and I have something besides a vague GENERALIZATION to address. If you wish to demonstrate that any statement you listed was in error then do so. Otherwise, you're just pounding on the table. Paqid Yirmeyahu Paqid 16, The Netzarim, Ra'anana, Israel Israeli Torah-reverer (& Orthodox Jew) Advocate for Logic as Halakhic Authority Welcoming All Torah-reverers (Jews & non-Jews) www.netzarim.co.il

You said "you GENERALIZED that ALL of my observations you listed were an error". I respectfully disagree, i did not GENERALIZE but SPECIFIED where you made generalizations in your talkback. You might have noticed that i already said in my comment to Sagi #36 that its quite normal to use some forms of generalizing when we argue such as using the terms "religious people" and "seculars". What i had a problem with is that you apply standards, principles, rules..etc to others while taking yourself to be exempt! For example, when i or any other person use the term "religious people" or "most religious people" your immediate reaction would be "generalizing is a logical fallacy" while you allow yourself to generalize about seculars and talking about them as they are one entity! Let us revisit your previous talk back: 1- "while most everyone agrees that "faith" is the problem" i am a non-believer but i dont see that faith is the main problem, i think the problem is with radical interpretation of the text and i know many people who share this opinion with me. Now when you say that "almost everyone" you generalized and i kindly request you to prove it. 2--" Yet, in their lofty self-image, their thimble minds view all religious as the fanatics who throw feces and spit on passers-by." Once again i exclude myself, and most of non -believers that i know from your statement, are you able to explain/prove how did you come to the conclusion above? 3-"ordinary people in all three communities are increasingly disgusted by "anarchic-hedonism-and-to-hell-with-morality" here you divided people into: ordinary people in one group, and Hollywood and most of the western world's amoral ruling elite bohemians in another group, and assumed that all ordinary people are getting increasingly disgusted. Prove it, until then your generalization and division of people is baseless. 4-"Seculars offer us nothing but immorality and hedonism wrapped in glittery foil. " i and Sagi in comment #26 exclud ourselves from this baseless. Once again, i kindly request you explain how did you come to this conclusion? 5-"Arabs, Americans and Israelis are increasingly concerned about family values, " I know people from those three back grounds, while some of them are truly concerned about family values, the majority of those i know (including religious people) have no problem whatsoever. Would you please explain how did you know about the feelings of people in the abovementioned three nations? Finally, if you dont consider the all/some of the above as generalizations, would you please explain why they are different from the author's argument or from other arguments when you accused people of generalizating?

Your effusive verbosity is difficult for me to contend with right now. This is not an "out". I was released from hospital two days ago after very major surgery, I am not a young man and my brain is fuzzy, my operation included neurosurgery. Please forgive me, we shall no doubt have other opportunities, I have respect for you unlike those who throw epithets at you. Another time I shall enlighten you as to the clinical experiments of Rama. Ab nihilo?, where is the proof that existence did not exist, ab ovo is more pertinent, but then you shall of course ask, where did the egg come from. it is never ending, it is a roundabout. You can argue your point as I can mine but neither of us shall ever be able to substantiate our platforms. This is the reason why I have always chosen logic and pragmatism as opposed to ethereal and metaphysical. Empiricism is important in a court of law, in fact it is pivotal, puond on the table or not. Enjoy the rest of your day.

I don't think Paqid "misinterpreted" as you say. Paqid is not the kind of person to "miss" a point. He has his agenda and not only his opinion as you and I do. A pleasure to read your contributions.Good day to you Sir.

All those epithets you mention that I absorb are the reason that sometimes I'm overly defensive. I try to be careful but… nobody's perfect. :-) We'll save the discussion regarding ex nihilo for another time except to demonstrate that my position is based on logic and pragmatism and logic falls on the side of the weight of evidence. Mohammed has already heard this in the Netzarim Web Café and I anticipate similar responses. Everything in the universe conforms to orderly laws of physics and everything in the universe has a cause. This implies a Prime Cause. On the other side of the coin, there is no evidence of anything in the physical universe that has always existed, nor evidence of anything that exists without a cause. Thus, in fact you are choosing contrary to the weight of evidence and the laws of physics, logic and science as the basis of disbelief in a Prime Cause Singularity. Readers can withhold judgment until further discussion when you're feeling better. Again, rephuah shleimah we-khanukah sameiakh! (Oy! I can't keep up with so many responses and, Barukh ha-Sheim, I'm relatively healthy. Kol ha-kavod to you!) Paqid Yirmeyahu Paqid 16, The Netzarim, Ra'anana, Israel Israeli Torah-reverer (& Orthodox Jew) Advocate for Logic as Halakhic Authority Welcoming All Torah-reverers (Jews & non-Jews) www.netzarim.co.il

Finally I read some clear analysis of what pushes countries and people into polarisartion and conflict. There has been a constant trend towards radicalization in Israel. I do feel currently that rational thinkers are a minority in Israel and that scares me.

it's articles like this that sets Isreal back. Isreal has the right by God Almighty to live in this land, uncompromised and unconformed, to any other nations or peoples views. God bless Isreal and God bless the jews.

It's not just Israel and Arab states that see a rise in fervor among religious, or non-religious, people. There's a rise in all kinds of 'spiritual paths' going on. There's a rise in radical belief of things that aren't considered spiritual, but are treated by their followers as a religious belief would be treated. There's a revival of fundamental Hinduism going on. There's a big rise in various forms of Paganism. There's also 'fundamental' Atheism on the rise as well. Christianity is making inroads into countries in big ways and there's a small revival going on. Even the rise in radicals in the ecology movement is remarkable. Global warming is treated like a religion by some. Socialism is also treated like a religion and the believers are getting very fundamental. (Recall when the Nazi's Socialism had a big grip on people?) Personally, I believe people sense something is in the air. My opinion is that we are approaching the Last Days spoken of by the Biblical Prophets. It's natural to see a rise in ALL forms of faith, or non faith, as the Last Days approach. It's no something that will be stopped. Wisdom is required to prevent extremists of any faith, or non-faith, from getting the upper hand.

I believe your very right on all points. As it was stated, knowledge would increase and just like leafs on a fig tree... I believe there is something on the horizon just not sure how close that horizon actually is but we're closer today than yesterday. It's a very interesting and exciting time that we are living in. I scour the news daily for things happening around the globe.

Dan Caspi wrote "When faith is burning in one’s bones, logic and common sense grow silent." Such nonsense! This is the kind of bigoted tripe commonly heard from rabid atheists. Faith does not silence logic and common sense. To the contrary - faith enhances, guides, and corrects for the shortcomings of the human intellect. Pride, anger, hatred, greed, envy, jealousy, covetousness - these are the things that darken the mind and silence reason.

I have been sitting here reading hundreds of comments and what I have found is that it all boils down to one thing. Either you believe the Bible or don't Believe the bible. Israel either exists or it doesn't. These are logical things not speculation right? Maybe we can all agree on that fact, or is it not a fact. Anyway, Israel does exist in my estimation. I read in the book of Ezekiel that it was predicted that Israel would basically become a nation again after being dead for a long time (thousands of years almost). Back in 1947 I believe was the year the world officially recognized it was back in existence. So, is that true? To me that is logical, that the bible is a true word and has extreme accuracy. This would imply the prophecies written in it are true and the one Deity spoken of in it and throughout it and through it must be the true and only one real supreme being of all the universe and all known existence and unknown existence. Secular people, and non Jews, atheists, and ect...all should really examine themselves in regards to why they don't believe in the Almighty. I know from doing this myself, that I didn't believe in God because I was sinful. So if there is no God then I am accountable to none. So, when I learned that the bible has prophecies that came true from thousands of years ago, I knew I was in trouble and better repent (change my mind) about my sinful selfish lifestyle and thinking. There is a God and all the big grand ideas you and man come up with to explain him away are vain. The Bible says that God wants us to seek him, and that if we seek him with our whole hearts and sincerely regardless of the motivation, he will reveal himself to us in the exact way you need him to. So ask him to.