Again, you're not talking about burying, you're talking about funeral ritual.

I am talking about the archaeological evidence found. Whatever you want to call it.

It's what you want to call it which is important. Different words mean different things. Arguing without a concern for meaning leads to ridiculous circular arguments which can go nowhere.

Your right, which is why its pretty frustrating when people keep changing what they are talking about by playing semantic games.

I made a very simple reference to the oldest burial known, and the archaeological evidence of humanity since our inception burying people with objects and other evidence which points to a simple belief in the afterlife.

1) Burial rite does not necessitate belief in the afterlife, nor does it necessarily carry religious significance. It is not unusual for atheists, secularists, agnostics and such to be buried in their clothes - Doesn't mean that it has any religious significance. For that matter, a lot of what happens in a Christian funeral isn't dictated by religion - The dead person doesn't need to wear clothing, for example, and in fact the only religiously required part of a Catholic burial happens usually before the burial (Extreme unction).

2) When funeral rites have a supernatural origin, it is often magical and not religious in nature - Means of keeping the dead from rising again, etc.

3) The fact that most human societies had funerary pratices is no evidence for the existence of gods. The fact that most human societies had some form of religious belief doesn't, either.

It seems to me belief in an afterlife is easier than belief in the lack of one; the mind has difficulty in conceiving its own nonexistence (Nonexistence is unknowable, in fact, as none of us will actually experience it) and so it is easier to accept that it will continue to exist after the body has died. This is one of several things that contribute to the notion of separation between mind and body, and even of one person's essence from his actual thoughts and memories - What all afterlife beliefs have in common is that they involve continuing to experience things after our deaths, but they vary wildly outside that. And then you have belief systems, like Judaism, that don't deal with the issue altogether, or touch it only in passing, or aren't clear on how it works or whether it happens or not.

I really don't get your point of 2) and nobody was claiming it was evidence for anything except for humans having a very long tradition of ideas that its not so easy to separate from atheist ideas. What are you implying to separate "religion" from "magical" ideas.

As for the rest of point 3) the exact same statement can be said with regards to free will. Meaning, belief in free will is based on the same mechanisms that you are saying belief in the afterlife is based on.

As for point 1, I completely disagree with you. To say that many non religious people carry on the customs of religions and therefore those aren't religious customs, is just illogical.

Lastly, I'm not sure what you are talking about with Judaism. Like I have said many times, Judaism should not really be called a religion any more than say Taoism is a religion.

Religions are belief systems involving moral and behavioral codes and belief in supernatural forces or entities. Most religions also involve some concept of what is 'sacred' or 'holy' (Worship-worthy) and some form of spiritual truth which is not readily apparent from observation (Call that faith). Most religions are also theistic, meaning that they imply belief in personal entities responsible for the universe, either as creators, caretakers, or simply tampering with human and natural life through supernatural means.

Magic, on the other hand, is a belief system involving means through which human beings may alter their environment through ritualistic, pseudoscientific/non-scientific practices, which may or may not be associated with a particular religion (Like the Kabballah is associated to Judaism) and may or may not involve belief in supernatural, personal entities.

There are cases of belief systems being both magical and religious (Certain types of paganism, shamanism and animism, for example, are both religious practices and bodies of magical ritual), but this is not necessary. Most believers in a magical system also have a religious belief system, and religions tend to either condemn magic or 'adopt' a particular brand of magic as their own, further confusing the matter.

The debate over whether or not we have free will is, quite frankly, academic. You can't act as though you don't have free will; we are all forced to make decisions, and we perceive those decisions as real. We know very well that people aren't pure stimulus response automatons. We also know that people are unpredictable; for all practical purposes, society and life as a whole are better if we act as though we had free will, and, in reality, there is no way we can not perceive free will in ourselves and others, so human experience is centered around free will. I personally believe we do not live in a deterministic universe, although I don't lean towards a particular opinion on whether human brains are inherently random or just Turing machines of such obscene complexity that they seem random. The whole notion of 'free will' seems so amazingly far removed from reality that debating it is utterly meaningless.

Like most theological arguments, in fact. The reality of the thing is that, if theistic belief systems didn't have a tendency to counteract belief in reality, then they would be just really academic beliefs in things which are far removed from practical matters, and we wouldn't have to argue about it so much.

Er, no. I say that there are burial customs which are either non-religious (Eulogies, for example, do not serve a religious or supernatural purpose, but rather a simple psychological one - evoking memories of the deceased) or which could have been religious at some point, but are now utterly secularized and no longer considered religious practices, even by theists.


And Christianity is not a religion, it's a personal relationship with Jesus. And Islam is not a religion, it's obedience to Allah. And Scientology is not a religion, it's a . I'm afraid this doesn't hold water. Judaism is a religion, or if you prefer, a group of related sects which all derive their beliefs from Jewish oral tradition, the Old Testament, and the Torah.

Some snippets from JewFAQ




Just thought I'd clear that up because they say it best.

There is a religion called Judaism, which is based on the teachings of the Torah, its oral traditions, and so on. Just because Judaic authorities insist on saying it's 'not a religion' doesn't mean it's not one; as a belief system, it fits my definition perfectly, even if religious practices vary a lot from one group of Judaic practicants to another.

There is an ethnic group, race, extraterritorial nation, what-have-you, called the Jewish People. While most jews also subscribe to Judaism, it is possible to be judaic without being ethnically a jew, and it is possible to be a jew without being judaic. The two things are separate; Atheist jews may go to the synagogue, but they don't believe in the supernatural content of Judaism. Judaism is a religion; the fact that it's part of a greater cultural memeplex (The culture of the Jewish people) doesn't make it a non-religion. Just because a relay is part of a circuit doesn't make it a non-relay.

It's a curious thing that religious belief systems tend to claim they're not religions, either by saying they're personal and not dogmatic in nature (Cthullu Cultism is a personal relationship with His Tentacle!) or by confusing itself with larger cultural complexes that are tied to a particular group of people (Qwaghlmianism isn't a religion! It's the way of life of the Qwaghlmian People!)

Whatever you say.

Dude, the article you linked to is about a mass grave. And I don't think you actually read my post, or you would have seen how I adressed the ax head (summary: magic!).

And JewFAQ would carry more weight as an authority on Judaism if the webmaster had any credentials besides "I'm a Jew! Listen to me!".

The site is well referenced and is the most accurate, while easy to read and digest site on the web I have found.

Religionfacts.com (http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/beliefs/afterlife.htm) Says basically the same thing as JewFaq, its just not as quick and easy to read.


I still don't see the difference between religion and magic. Its a difference that I don't see as being very relevant at all.

To phrase this differently. As much as Judism is a religion, so is any belief in magic or shamanism or whaterver you want to use.

JewFaq.org is written by a librarian, not even a rabbi.

Re: Burial is religious - I think that's a silly argument.

Many people hang on to their favourite childhood toy without destroying it or tossing it out with the garbage, does that mean they are following natural religious practices and have an innate belief in persistent spirits within objects? I don't think so.

Many people bury their family pets (often with a miniature ceremony), does this demonstrate that all people are naturally inclined to believe that animals have an afterlife? Very doubtful.

I think funeral ceremonies and practices in most societies are much more about facilitating the grieving process of close friends and relatives, and providing a sense of connection to the departed. I also don't really think the article you quoted is very applicable, given that we don't need to embalm the dead or use rot-resistant caskets.

As to Judaism not being a religion or having any formalized beliefs, I dispute the objectivity of that statement.

And another, from ReligiousTolerance.Org:

Although it is certainly possible that the spirituality you yourself personally practice might not be termed 'religious', I believe Judaism in its entirety is.


I think it would be wrong to argue that humanity is predisposed to religion. As all religions that I know of are founded upon teachings and tenets which cannot be independently discovered in isolation, I don't see how it is possible to argue that religious belief is a default position.

Hope, on the other hand, I would not be surprised to find is an inherent characteristic that is innate to our being. Belief in good things beyond the harsh realities of the observable is very likely programmed into us, either biologically or as a result of creative thought, but there is a vast difference between 'I believe there is a personified entity that requires me to devote myself to its worship such that I can achieve immortality' and 'I believe that there is some reason to think that whatever happens... it will be alright in the end'.

Remember that the opposite of religion is not emotionless automation in an unswerving pursuit of efficiency and productivity, it is just not agreeing with the assumptions of religion.

Give a source that says one idea, and I can give you three that say the opposite. I'm not sure how that corresponds to "formalized beliefs." Even the agreed upon "Gd is One" has many different meanings.

In a search for finding a statement that all Jews could agree on, someone I know came up with this cute little thing.

"IF you have seen one god, you have seen them all".. and the IF is very important.


Just a cute thing I noticed... Religionfacts.com uses JewFaq as a source.




So which is which? Because I would stick my self with second quote in a heartbeat, and the first quote I would argue till the cows come home against.



What may I ask is an Abraham faith?

No. Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about; stop acting like you do. The only similarity between magic and religion is the same as between religion and science, and science and magic: they are three ways of perciving the nature of the universe and of reality. I'd extrapolate, but this is one of the major ideas used when one studies spirituality from an anthropological perspective, and this isn't the proper place to digress into an anthropology lesson. Just read somehting like The Golden Bough, or some of Durkheim's works.

Oy vey. You claim that much knowledge of Judaic theology, and you don't know what an Abrahamic religion is?

And for many Science is thier/also a religion. It has laws and customs and assumptions.

ReligiousTolerance.org also has JewFaq listed as a source, interestingly.

Can you be a follower of Judaism and be an atheist?

As for finding sources that say other things... sure, we can play that game endlessly. I can find numerous sources that say or claim absolutely anything, that doesn't make it true. It's not a numbers game.


That's fine. The former is an example of a particular religious belief (which is obviously not from the jewish religion, so I would be surprised if you did), while the latter is not. I am saying that while the latter may spontaneously occur in human societies and be an intrinsically common and default expression of belief, religion itself is not necessary to or integrated into human culture and psyche, which I believe is what you were arguing.

I know what Jews claim that Abraham taught, and I know what Muslims claim that Abraham taught, and I know they are not the same. Many of the stories while very similar are also very different. I also know that it says in both books that Abraham sent his people to the east.

Abrahamic faith is a nice invention that was created to help Christians and Muslims to stop killing eachother.

No, you dingbat. It's a classification. An Abrahamic religion is one which recognies Abraham as a patriarch in some way or another. They also have lots of other things in common, like monotheism and absurd rules regarding what you're supposed to eat or how to properly sacrifice animals.