K-cup

Yichusdik, you aren’t discussing what yeridos hadoros is at all, I don’t understand what the point of saying those authors quote past authors is. Your post was in response to low level. This is in the context of yeridos hadoros. Are just saying intelligent atheists are around? Russell routinely described himself as agnostic, in Why I’m not a Christian as well as his essays in religion and science., ect. That was the scale. Your post seems to me like a forced opportunity to mention atheists names. Even your response doesn’t seem to have a point other than you are familiar with atheism, but doesn’t say why it might be more developed than past athiesm, or more developed than past theology wich would be heretical to judaism. You’ve read one book of Dawkins (the one everyone read), know a lot about existesialism due to two courses therefore speak to sartre positions, and own one of Russell’s works wich has the least of his own opinion in it. But you’re an Orwell expert, and heard Hitchens speak. I maintain your post was very disingenuous.
If you’re interested In Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris ect., Dennett is the best of the lot

Catch yourself, the absence of evidence to support the claim of gravity is evidence that there is no gravity even though no evidence was brought to discredit the theory of gravity.
Here is how people use the phrase “lack of evidence …”,
Lack of evidence for theory A doesn’t mean it’s been discredited (not no evidence is not the same thing as evidence)
However If I claim A because of observation B (usually how theory are born), and B doesn’t really happen, I do not need to evidence against your claim A, because you’ve given an expectation of B. Often, there isn’t an expectation of B. If I come along and say C is inconsistent, that’s evidence against.
Bemigman, read my first post, that is what I wrote above. It wasn’t clear because the second was a follow up.

Catch yourself: A catchy quote is an oversimplification and completely misses what evidence is supposed to be ie support a claim. Absence of evidence isnt evidence against is only because there may be other evidence. Certainly if you’ve ruled all possible evidence out, that is evidence against whatever was trying to be supported. The less evidence there is, the less reason to believe it, and as you rule out possible evidence, the less likely there will be reason to believe it. With is evidence against, as it moved you in another direction, even though at some point it is possible to swing the other way. Reiyah is a proof if I’m not mistaken.

I read his bio on the above link, ( I may have been sent somewhere else from that page) where he described his path to Judaism, and what went into his chassidus. He lists what he’s versed and learned in, zero mention of gemarah. He lists many many other things. I wish him hatzlacha, but I doubt he’s qualified to lead a chassidus

To chabad shlucha and sechel and others. I don’t know how you made it this long. These chabad threads were unfair when the mods edited shlucha for “chashash apikorsus” (doubtful). They allowed a comment in calling the Rebbe some kofer from Russia.

We also allowed a comment calling the Rebbe Nasi Hador. The facts are up for discussing, apikorsus is not.
Syag lchachma
What you are saying is an explanation on a source can’t be it’s own source. The Rebbe said it can the the reason the rebbe is correct. Chabad isn’t really saying that (even if they are using those words). EG. If you ask where the ramabm got a halacha, you can give the lamdus of where it came from, but I can ask why he is the lone opinion, and the only reaponse is his own svara. Thus he has a source that no one agrees with, and his way of understanding is his own source. Similar to lubavaitch understanding the rambam and different understandings of the Zohar ect. That’s true of pretty much all machlokes. The Rebbe may be wrong, but Chabads way of thinking is really not illogical if his argument is sound, wich chabad for whatever reason thinks is.

Is there a reason someone like the Chazon Ish isn’t also nasi hador? He created a frum community and hareadi movement in Israel. Is it simply he didn’t say so? Would there be a way to verify? And if not, does Chabad believe in an infinite number of moshiach or nisiam ha door? Let me Kno when if this was answered in other posts

Burntface, what do you mean lubavaitch has less? Lubavaitch has a tremendous amount of Torah from alter Rebbe to tzemach tzedek, RASHAB, ect. Do you mean Crown Heights?

professor Menachem Friedman of bar ilan in a published a study on chabad history, says the student records of the Rebbe as a student in Berlin, and in Paris state he never graduated and dropped many courses

Somewhat important backround, It should be noted, the opening perakim is the Tanya establishing his take on Tzadik vetov like/ Vera love/ Beinoni on a number of stiros between a number of gemmarahs. So the ideas of yetzer hara ect.. are his explanations on aggadici gemarrahs and statements chazal made and should be analyzed as such. its based in specific statements in chazal. Chabadshlucha didn’t go into that, because its the coffee room, and some commenters seem to be assuming the tanya just said those things. Nothing to do with moshiach stuff, just the questions on Tzadik and different pesukim.

Are there leading mishichist rabbaim, that are respected scholars that really write about and defend their position?

This thread is one hot mess

My neighbors growing up had a pug, and I now have a pug and he’s great!