You don't actually get to tell Jews how to define their religion! How do you not see how fucked up it is to try to do that?

It is the same when someone tries to tell me what I have to think. We can just disagree and it is fine.

No, we can't just disagree when you're deciding your definition of religion supersedes that of religious experts and calling atheist rabbis "lying opportunists".

Again, you are asking to be allowed your own facts. Not acceptable. bsky.app/profile/cape...

You're categorizing people telling you that 2+2=4 as "telling you what to think". 😂

When you say “I don’t like red” and someone says “oh no, you have to like red” that’s one thing. When you say “religion is/isn’t [x]” and the people of that religion correct you, that isn’t a matter of opinion. You’re just wrong about someone else’s religion.

no-one can force you not to be wrong

Well, it is just our view of things. That cannot be right or wrong.

...if my view is that dogs are better than cats, that can't be right or wrong if it's whether or not concrete is real, then yeah, you can be wrong in your view that concrete isn't a real thing

No, you are insisting on your own facts and refusing to own up to that. You are telling Jews (and people of other orthopraxic religions) that their definition of religion is wrong. If Jews don't think that atheist rabbis are "lying opportunists" then you don't get to say they are.

And for some reason keeps ignoring that "lying opportunist" isn't "I think you just don't count as religious" it's "I'm asserting you're a malicious actor because you don't match my definition of 'religious'" which is Absolutely Not just "criticism based on my opinion" (all paraphrases)

I thought that my question before that was enough. Apperentely not for some people, but at least I got bunch of different opinions where only half of them were insulting to me and the other half was presenting their views on this topic.

You mean the question before the insult in the same fucking post? The question that people STILL answered over and over and over? You poor fucking BABY. bsky.app/profile/skre...

You're really going to ask us to take pity on you while STILL refusing to deal with how insulting you were?

Where I am asking for pity?

You want us to cry for you because people responded to your insults with insults. Go fuck yourself.

No, you can say I am an idiot. I dont care.

You're much more than an idiot. You're a horrible person.

the ones insulting you also included people giving their views on the topic

Also your question was "tell me I'm wrong that atheist rabbis are lying opportunists" which is still asserting that this is the case when you have no clear reason to conclude malicious intent to begin with while calling this accusation "criticism"

like you can't even make the deeply questionable claim "I'm just asking questions" because you made the assertion *first* and then you're question is "but where's the lie" and every time you're told you're all "well this is just my opinion and everyone is allowed their beliefs on non-factual ideas"

but mate all else aside "people who don't match my definition of religion but still claim to practice are malicious grifters" is not an opinion on non-factual matters it is a direct accusation that a class of people are bad actors

so it's a bad opinion *and* you're wrong *about your own opinion* or you're lying about it, either way what you're saying when you describe your stance (which is not true) is not true *about your stance*, on a factual level

I did that because I reacted to contadicting statement in my view. So I couldnt imagine that there are many people who actually describes themselfs with that for me contadicting statement. As I get it I am not the first one and I will not be the last one.

Because you're part of a majority culture with no fucking curiosity about people who aren't like you, only assumptions. Yes, there are many people like you, and you're all shitty, and you all make the lives of people in minority cultures more miserable.

okay but you don't have to keep being one

You're lecturing people on the basis of an opinion and a very narrow, Christo-centric definition of religion. And these folks you're lecturing know a hell of a lot more about what they're talking about than you do. Ya might try listening instead of pontificating.

And you're welcome to jam your opinions entirely up your own asshole where they belong and leave the Jewish community out of it. K? K.

Why you are so angry that I have different view on religion?

There are non-theistic religions. Is it safe to assume that you’ve never learned much about Buddhism, Jainism, Daoism, or Confucianism?

No, they believe in something. So they are religions in my view.

every human believes in innumerable unverifiable things and if we did not then assembling a common system of laws would be, at best, a much worse ordeal

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Of course, but they do not believe in gods in many cases. That makes them a-theist. And that’s what you were objecting to. So you’re ok with Buddhist atheists but not Jewish ones?

Budhists believe in reincarnation, right?

That is not Belief in A God or Gods.

Many do, but not all. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any philosophy or religion where all proponents/practitioners believe in exactly the same way, and I suspect that's at the heart of why you're getting so much push-back on your initial comment.

And this entire thread reminds me of this classic Emo Phillips bit: www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fA...

ok, but is your opinion more important than what other people believe, feel, identify for themselves?

No, why it should be? Its about religion which is not a fact based topic so everyone can have thier view.

But you are insisting on a definition of religion that many people, including experts in the field of religious studies, do not share. That is a factual matter. You are not asking to be allowed your own opinion, you are asking to be allowed your own facts.

It's like arguing with an anti-vaxxer or creationist.

Of course "what is the definition of religion?" is a fact-based topic. "Christians believe Jesus is God" is a fact regardless of whether "Jesus is God" is a fact. What various religions teach and practice is probable fact regardless of whether the claims those religions make are true or false.

In this case, your definition of religion contradicts the fact that some religions have no deities and others have deities but define their membership by taking certain actions rather than holding certain theistic beliefs. Therefore, your definition of what constitutes religion is *factually* wrong.

Think of it like politics, if it helps: when Donald Trump says tariffs will boost the U.S. economy, does the fact that what he's saying isn't true mean everybody else is free to make up their own opinions on whether or not he said it? Or is the fact that he said it a fact?

I do not agree with you. That is not my understanding of the word religion in my language which is Czech.

It DOES NOT MATTER. You've been told what the definition is for large parts of the world, including scholars, AND you're refusing to address that you started all this with a massively insulting statement that is still up.

you understand wrong and Jews aren't gonna be magically different about how they believe in practice because you're using a different language

Then congratulations! You're now wrong in two languages.

I won't claim to understand Czech - and maybe their word for religion specifically excludes non belief in any gods. But also, this conversation has been happening in English, so your native language isn't relevant here. You need to update your priors.

I just checked Czech-language Wikipedia and confirmed that both Buddhism and Judaism are referred to there by the term "náboženství" (religion). The article on Confucianism refers to it as a philosophy instead, but later describes it as a "systém náboženských" (religious system).

So even if this were a discussion of the meaning of the word náboženství rather than the meaning of the word religion, they'd still be wrong. Náboženství/náboženských are *not* exclusive to theistic beliefs.

It gets funnier, actually! the Czech Wikipedia entry on "Náboženství" itself has an entire section on the evolution of how religion has been defined and understood that outright calls the way our Czech friend is defining it a discredited, Eurocentric error: cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A1...

Beautiful. Hang it in the Louvre.

There is no agreed upon definition of religion but yours is objectively wrong.

There is, however, a reasonably agreed-on definition of religiosity and self-identification is basically most of it.

OK let's try this. God or gods may or may not exist and nobody can prove a thing about it. Therefore, whatever anyone thinks on THAT SUBJECT is beyond criticism. You're asserting things not about gods tho, you're asserting things about people. The things people do can be verified factually.

Sure nobody can prove that for now. I doubt that someone will ever be able to do so. But saying that I cant critise your view of life and world just because you believe in it is in my opinion very coward. You do not have to change your belief if someone disagrees with you.

It’s like we are discussing our clothes and you’re insisting that everyone has to be wearing blue because it’s Wednesday and you can’t conceive of a Wednesday without a blue shirt. My shirt is green and it’s still Wednesday. Your conception changed neither of those facts.

you're very explicitly disagreeing on something that is not a matter of what people believe in but asserting their malicious motivations specifically because they *don't* believe something you also disbelieve but are accepted members of a group *you* define by belief

criticism requires coming from a place of knowledge and this "criticism" is just lashing out at information that doesn't match your preconceptions

Because those words are contradicting themselfs in my view. Religion and atheism. So I do not understand how anyone can do both. Even after this discusion I do not understand that. But many people say that they view themselfs like that. It is wierd to me but I do not care what anyone believe.

*your* definition contradicts *other people's* lives, yes, which is generally a good indicator that you need to find another definition

People have explained how, though? Many times. So your continued lack of understanding feels kind of disingenuous, at least as a justification to keep insisting that your opinion is valid instead of wrong.

And it's not even about an opinion, no matter how often they phrase it that way, it's an insistence on the right to believe alternative facts. "String theory" is what you lace your shoes with, "arugala" is a Jewish pastry - same difference!

Yeah, the opinion framing is really frustrating. It’s just a limited understanding of what things mean and a refusal to learn.

Its limiting understanding what those words mean to you and limiting understanding what those words mean to me and it looks like to some others because I am not the first one who is confused. I can say the same as you that you are refusing to learn that.

It has already been explained to you that theism = a belief in a higher power. This is why the word for lack of such belief is atheism, and not, say, areligious. Irreligious is a thing, but it refers to not practicing a religion, and has nothing to do with belief.

Not in Czech language. Atheism can have both meanings. And it is also quite not exactely defined word in other languages.

but this is a conversation in English.

which, like it's perfectly normal to not already know the nuances of a word in a second language, particularly if there's a partial cognate in your first, but when you encounter that the appropriate response is, like, "oh oops" and revising how you use the word

What language are we speaking now, genius?

English. It is also not defined in English. I tried to look it up and I found that poeple does have different views on what atheist and religion means.

If my believe would be that I have to kill every living fish because they are evil I bet you would critisize that.

I would criticize that, but I would not argue that you are in fact not doing it, nor would I argue with whatever name you give yourself. You do not have to agree with Jewish atheists. You have to accept that they exist and are practicing their religion in a way that is accepted in the group.

That's the worst part here - not the ignorance, but insisting on the "right" to speak over Jews about how THEIR religion works.

You do not understand what I mean. For me an atheist is someone who does not believe _____. Who does believe _____ is a religious person. And you cant be both. So my point of view is different than yours and others in this discusion. It doesnt mean that you have to agree with my definition.

Ok, but if i were to say that calculus is the study of plants, I would be FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Like you are, right now. Words mean things. Religion does not mean what you think it does. Whether or not god exists, religion exists. In many different forms.

There are also different languages with different meanings of the same words or with multiple meanings of the translation. So no, one word doesnt mean that everybody will every time understands what the other side means.

okay but you're having alternative definitions that fit the topic provided for you, or reasons yours isn't working, and you're refusing them

okay, but this is a conversation in English about English words?

wait you are criticising now? why is there a need to criticise? you have an opinion, that is fine. others are saying you are speaking from a narrow perspective, and you don't want to consider this and maybe shift perspective, also fine. so then just let other people be. there's no harm here.

That's not an accurate portrayal of your own argument thus far.

Dozens of Jewish people, a few Buddhists, and I'll add one Druid to the pile are here to tell you that our religions do not demand a theistic outlook. What is under discussion is not whether there's a higher power, but WHAT WE DO.

putting myself forward as an unspecified pagan who also does not have a theistic outlook.

For me, it's ritual. Mmmmm ritual

scrumptious, delectable ritual

Who made you Pope of the Jews? Seriously though, when your opinion about how an ethnicity/culture you’re not a part of collides with a member of that ethnicity/culture telling you you’re wrong, you just lose.

I dont know, you? It is just my opinion I am not trying to win. I think it is quite normal to be able to critisize anyone. There was plenty of different views so I learn a lot about how religious people view the world.

your opinion is an incorrect factual claim, and since you believe in a thing that cannot be verified (because it is in fact untrue) I guess that makes you religious

I’m just flummoxed by your lack of curiosity.

My mother’s version of that was, “Who died and made you god?”

Do you have access to the inner thoughts of others?

I can view him as nonreligious and he can view himself as religious. I do not see anything wrong about that. We just discribe things differentely.

...that is not how that works.

Considering that a person's religious beliefs are considered a core part of human identity, this is just bigotry. "This light Black person isn't really Black" "This Bi person is really just straight" "This trans woman is really just a man" "This atheist Rabbi isn't religious." All the same shit.

Am I the first one who is confused by the oxymoronic/nonintuitive description? It looks like I am not. We are in the age of social sites so maybe it would be better to describe it differentely and avoid these type of clashes? E.g. Turkey changed its spelling to Türkiye to minimaze the confusion.

a great way to avoid these types of clashes is to be willing to learn when your assumption of expertise turns out to be false yeah, a lot of people are wrong about this. a lot of people are wrong about a lot of things. a lot of people think the earth is flat.

But that means that everybody has to be keen to learn and explore which is sadly not the case in real world.

Oh fuck off. Plenty of people are capable of intellectual curiosity, and plenty of people are capable of listening and learning when people tell them they don't have all the facts. I don't believe you were ever just an ignorant innocent. I think you're malicious as fuck.

yeah there are a lot of people like you it's true but it's not an excuse

So you think whether someone is religious or not is down to whether they think religious thoughts. Not whether they practice religious behaviour. One of these things can be measured and the other can only be guessed at.

Yes.

oh so it's not just factually wrong beliefs, you do in fact have faith in a fundamentally unverifiable belief

So you oppose religion, right? That seems to be the assumption here