What's the worst thing about being an atheist?

[Perknose]

I guess I read too much into the word "divine", it's usually used in a religious/godly context. If you want it to mean something wondrous, awe-inspiring and deeply moving etc. then go right ahead.

It is also meant as "religious." Albert Einstein was deeply religious, just not in the way you and many others mistakenly constrict that term to mean.

One simply cannot read his entire body of work on the subject and conclude otherwise. He said this below on the subject.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Please don't let your all too narrow understanding of what it means to be religious get in the way of your accepting that Albert Einstein was deeply and irrefutably religious.

 

[MovingTarget]

It is also meant as "religious." Albert Einstein was deeply religious, just not in the way you and many others mistakenly constrict that term to mean.

One simply cannot read his entire body of work on the subject and conclude otherwise. He said this below on the subject.



Please don't let your all too narrow understanding of what it means to be religious get in the way of your accepting that Albert Einstein was deeply and irrefutably religious.

This. Very much this. Just because Einstein may not have fit into the traditional labels of Catholic, Muslim, Methodist, Jew, etc. does not mean that he wasn't religious.

If you believe in God, a god, gods plural, a creator, a divine entity, etc. etc, you are not an atheist. Atheists, to the best of my understanding, exclaim that there is no such divine entity or entities. Einstien clearly would not subscribe to that statement.

 

[Jeff7]

Where do you live? Here, your religious preferences or lack thereof wouldn't be cause for termination of employment.

Pennsylvania.
I know there are laws and such which are meant to prohibit hiring/firing exclusively on the grounds of religious reasons, but they can always find other excuses. (And there's the whole "at-will" employment thing.)
People invariably make mistakes at work, and I'd imagine that it's to be expected at any job. I've done some stupid things now and then, and I do try to minimize the frequency and severity of such things when possible, but my supervisor does also understand that these things can happen. It helps that he once worked at the job that I do now, and still does from time to time. So he knows how it can be. Stupid little things slip by, and they can cost money.

But if they'd get it in mind that they don't want me employed there anymore, they'll find a legally-acceptable way of doing it. Suddenly any little mistake you make is worthy of disciplinary action. There's always lots of politics in play, unfortunately.

If you were to preach to those around you trying to convert them or mock those around you who have faith when you don't, THEN you may have issues at your place of employment.

Yeah, though it depends a bit on who's saying it, and what they're saying. Someone at work will inject little snippets about his religion into conversation now and then; he's also very involved with his church outside of work.
But it's a sect of a majority religion, so no one else really seems to notice.
I have a feeling that if I'd make similar little statements about a lack of belief, well, it wouldn't go over so well. I have to be careful in conversation about hinting that humans evolved from other primate-type lifeforms, even though that's a pretty well-established scientific principle. (Sometimes that sort of thing does manage to come up in conversation, mainly if someone else is wondering about certain behaviors they observe in people - a lot of our behavior can be explained by our basic primate history.)

I wouldn't think an Atheist is evil, looking for opportunities to rape/murder. I would just think they don't believe in God, and that's their choice. It's when an Atheist feels the need to mock unprovoked, and attack others for their beliefs that I see the hypocrisy.

And thank you for that; there are quite a few people I've known who do believe that ethics cannot exist without some manner of deity and religion, and therefore those who are without religion cannot behave in an ethical manner.
So it's just, well, all I can think in such situations then is, "So you're saying that the only reason that people don't go out murdering and raping and torturing is because of religion? You don't have a very high opinion of our species, do you." Were I a robot from a 1960s sci-fi film, that sort of thinking would likely result in a head-exploding "error-error-error!" type of event.

 

[jjzelinski]

wow, what a weird thread. Half of it is pretty far off topic and openly hostile, buuuuut.... I share similar sentiment to what other atheists have already touch upon; you're on your own. No absolution, no redemption, nothing to look forward to to excuse the failures and follies of today. I often find myself wishing I could convince myself of some redeeming higher power with a human like consciousness I could relate to and confer with, but I simply can't. It is what it is, so I try to make the most of it and make the best decisions I can since I know I'm the only one responsible for them.

 

[mk]

This. Very much this. Just because Einstein may not have fit into the traditional labels of Catholic, Muslim, Methodist, Jew, etc. does not mean that he wasn't religious.

You should've stopped here.

If you believe in God, a god, gods plural, a creator, a divine entity, etc. etc, you are not an atheist. Atheists, to the best of my understanding, exclaim that there is no such divine entity or entities. Einstien clearly would not subscribe to that statement.

An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in god(s), those who claim that there no such thing exists are only a subset. Einstein clearly would not agree with the statement that gods exist. This would make him a non-theist, an atheist. Whether or not he was a religious I don't know but a theist he was not.

 

[disappoint]

Einstein has this to say about that:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

He couldn't have been clearer.

I agree. Which is why I said I prefer science. Not that religion should be completely ignored. That would be...downright ignorant wouldn't it? I suspect Einstein would agree, considering he spent a lot more time studying science than religion.

It's just my opinion that science should be studied before religion for one to have a better understanding of what is going on in the universe.

 

[TridenT]

Who gives a shit what Einstein thought about religious topics? The only reason you should even bring up his name is for physics and science topics of that sort.

 

[Aikouka]

Why wouldn't they call it Christmas? Because it refers to Christ. Simple concept, you don't believe or have faith in something then why would you refer to it?

Because that's the name of the holiday?

Some people love to make a big deal out of things that don't matter, and getting all uppity about using the word "Christmas" as an atheist would be an example of that.

 

[Perknose]

The only reason you should even bring up his name is for physics and science topics of that sort.

Lol -- decisions, decisions -- to take advice from Trident the Twerp or not. :hmm:

:biggrin:

 

[Perknose]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
-- Albert Einstein

I agree. Which is why I said I prefer science. Not that religion should be completely ignored. That would be...downright ignorant wouldn't it? I suspect Einstein would agree, considering he spent a lot more time studying science than religion.

It's just my opinion that science should be studied before religion for one to have a better understanding of what is going on in the universe.

I think it's clear that Einstein (and btw, I) agree with you.

But what Big Al is also saying is that some sense of the divine is nevertheless integral and necessary to the intelligent and informed pursuit of science.

 

[nublikescake]

Why wouldn't an atheist call Christmas Christmas? Do Christians refuse to refer to Mohammed as Mohammed, instead calling him 'Prophetic Arab Guy'? Would Jews refer to Kwanzaa as 'Made-up Bullshit Harvest Time'?

Just because an atheist doesn't believe in the "divine definition" of Christmas doesn't mean they can't use that term to refer to that particular day.

Makes sense.

 

[mk]

It is also meant as "religious." Albert Einstein was deeply religious, just not in the way you and many others mistakenly constrict that term to mean.

One simply cannot read his entire body of work on the subject and conclude otherwise. He said this below on the subject.

Please don't let your all too narrow understanding of what it means to be religious get in the way of your accepting that Albert Einstein was deeply and irrefutably religious.

There's the problem of using words that have deeply entrenched connotations. A.E. used religious vocabulary (as used in Western Christian culture) for its poetry and because it was something people could relate to not because he shared supernatural beliefs of the traditionally religious population.

I don't think that my understanding is that narrow it's just that words have baggage. Historically words like religion, god, divine etc. have been used to mean something at least somewhat specific. Using religious language when it isn't apparent from the context that you mean it to be taken only metaphorically will just confuse people.

 

[slayer202]

But what Big Al is also saying is that some sense of the divine is nevertheless integral and necessary to the intelligent and informed pursuit of science.

I think it is likely, and I'd say probable, that when we find something that Einstein, in his day, would consider divine, we will have a scientific explanation, and it won't be unexplicable or "godly."

he would probably use plenty of seemingly religious words to describe the large ladron collider, and other things we are now doing

 

[nublikescake]

Historically words like religion, god, divine etc. have been used to mean something at least somewhat specific. Using religious language when it isn't apparent from the context that you mean it to be taken only metaphorically will just confuse people.

Agreed. Perk, you can't seriously expect the majority of those who read the words "religion" or "divine" to think of them as the way you interpret them. They'll go for the most commonly understood meaning first.

 

[KaOTiK]

What's the worst thing about being an atheist?

Watching our species be held back by religion.

 

[nublikescake]

wow, what a weird thread.

Tell me about it! Honestly though, I just wanted to post that joke in the OP but it looks like it might devolve into a shit-slinging contest.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Einstein was a theist somewhat like Spinoza was a theist -- that is, not much at all. It's not surprising that he clothed a lot of his language in theistic terms in order to communicate with a largely theistic society, but it is true to say that the difference between an atheist and a pantheist is merely semantic.

Personally, I think Perknose overstates Einstein's religiosity in order to appear to transcend the atheist/theist dichotomy on the one hand, and on the other to liken himself to one of -- if not the -- greatest thinker in the last several hundred years. I'm sure we're all duly impressed.

 

[MovingTarget]

Who gives a shit what Einstein thought about religious topics? The only reason you should even bring up his name is for physics and science topics of that sort.

People often bring him up because of the misconception that science and faith are in direct opposition.

 

[Perknose]

I don't think that my understanding is that narrow it's just that words have baggage. Historically words like religion, god, divine etc. have been used to mean something at least somewhat specific. Using religious language when it isn't apparent from the context that you mean it to be taken only metaphorically will just confuse people.

You have to understand that Albert Einstein (and I) do not automatically exclude descriptions for the workings of the universe which you might well be doing, and which most here would consider, at present, otherwordly magic and dismiss, at present, outright, even though they might prove not to be otherwordly or magic at all.

Note: This is not some statement of support for the big magical guy in the sky, which I have repeatedly said I don't believe in.

I think it is likely, and I'd say probable, that when we find something that Einstein, in his day, would consider divine, we will have a scientific explanation, and it won't be unexplicable [sic] or "godly."

Agreed. And not just in his day, but in this day.

Indeed, by definition, if and when we discover how reality works at its root that will be, can only be, because we will have discovered a scientific explanation for it. It may, however, blow our little minds.

But until we know more, to exclude anything is unsupportable hubris. We presently know too little to do so.

Re: religion. There is the Zen view, which holds there is no God as Christians understand the concept, but also holds that the universe is one indivisible and divine entity, and that the divisions we perceive are simply our wrongly and illusory way of viewing it.

We presently know far too little about the basic "IS" of reality to make confident statements about what is and isn't.

The true nature of reality, as hinted by our present day physics is SO divorced from what most think of as "reality" -- double digit dimensions, simultaneous multiple universes, etc -- that to a priori exclude anything is simple hubris.

he would probably use plenty of seemingly religious words to describe the large ladron collider, and other things we are now doing

Nah, don't think so. I believe you are severely underestimating the man.

 

[Perknose]

Einstein was a theist somewhat like Spinoza was a theist -- that is, not much at all. It's not surprising that he clothed a lot of his language in theistic terms in order to communicate with a largely theistic society, but it is true to say that the difference between an atheist and a pantheist is merely semantic.

BIG STRAWMAN. I never said he was a theist. I said he was religious. Einstein himself said he was religious, multiple times and in depth.

Go read the four unredacted articles and speeches he gave on the subject. It's beyond clear.

Personally, I think Perknose overstates Einstein's religiosity in order to appear to transcend the atheist/theist dichotomy on the one hand, and on the other to liken himself to one of -- if not the -- greatest thinker in the last several hundred years. I'm sure we're all duly impressed.

What else can this statement of his possibly mean?

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
-- Albert Einstein

Riddle me THAT, please.

Instead, you lazily tell us how you think what I have posted here overstates Einstein's religiosity, which Einstein himself tells us all was deep and fundamental and profound.

Then you go on to personally attack me because that's seemingly all you've got. That's just trolling, son.

Instead, why don't you contribute substantively in a way that supports your great thoughts on the matter and debunks not what you think I said, but what I have posted?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

The worst thing about being atheist is living in a religious world.

 

[sactoking]

Why wouldn't they call it Christmas? Because it refers to Christ. Simple concept, you don't believe or have faith in something then why would you refer to it?

Well, like I said earlier, just because an atheist doesn't believe in the religious underpinnings of Christmas does not mean they have to treat the word itself as taboo. Many atheists believe Christ was real, just not divine, similar to his treatment in Judaism.

An atheist is not "banned" from saying Christmas, Mardi Gras, Eid al-Sadr, etc. Many atheists observe the "Christmas" holiday by spending time with family and whatnot similar to Catholics and Christians.

There are people who won't refer to it as Christmas for that reason.

Yes, unfortunately there are some militant atheists out there, but they are no more representative of all atheists than super-ultra-conservative Christians are representative of all Christians.

That is why you see more businesses/schools going with "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".

I don't think I agree with that. The overall shift from 'Merry Christmas' to 'Happy Holidays' is not an evil atheistic war on Christmas. Schools and businesses realize that atheists, jews, muslims, and a myriad of other members of various religions patronize them as well as Christians/Catholics. The phrase 'Merry Christmas' isn't terribly inviting if you're part of the majority of the world's population that isn't Christian.

 

[Perknose]

There are people who won't refer to it as Christmas for that reason.

Yes, unfortunately there are some militant atheists out there, but they are no more representative of all atheists than super-ultra-conservative Christians are representative of all Christians.

Lol, I don't know of any "militant atheists" or atheists of any kind who won't call Christmas "Christmas." This doesn't come from any atheists at all, that I know of.

The movement to the generic "Happy Holidays" is more for the (overstated) reason you gave below.

The phrase 'Merry Christmas' isn't terribly inviting if you're part of the majority of the world's population that isn't Christian.

To me, Christmas is an AMERICAN holiday for ALL Americans -- some crazy mixture of naked commerce tinged with Jeebus and meant, as the pagan winter solstice celebrations it was designed to usurp, to brighten our spirits and get the party going in the dead of Winter.

I make it a point, if some clerk says "Happy Holidays" to me, to respond, "Merry Christmas." Most smile broadly and look relieved. Many defy their overlords and respond in kind.

Christmas is an AMERICAN holiday in America, as inclusive as the Bill of Rights.

 

[Turin39789]

I realize this.

It's a tough thing to grasp, but I was speaking of the origins of the word itself.

What the hell do you call Thursday?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

BIG STRAWMAN. I never said he was a theist.

I never said you said he was a theist. Please, try to read what I write, and not what you image that I've written.

I said he was religious. Einstein himself said he was religious, multiple times and in depth.

Go read the four unredacted articles and speeches he gave on the subject. It's beyond clear.

I don't think it is as clear as you think it is. Given then totality of his writings on the topic, it's rather clear that Einstein was a naturalist who occasionally dressed his language up in religious camouflage.

What else can this statement of his possibly mean?

Riddle me THAT, please.

A great many things, actually, only a few of which bolster your suggestion.

Instead, you lazily tell us how you think what I have posted here overstates Einstein's religiosity, which Einstein himself tells us all was deep and fundamental and profound.

I think the way you define "religion" departs from common usage. Reverence for the natural world does not a religion make, even when you start calling it divine.

Then you go on to personally attack me because that's seemingly all you've got. That's just trolling, son.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. That ain't trollin', grandad.

Instead, why don't you contribute substantively in a way that supports your great thoughts on the matter and debunks not what you think I said, but what I have posted?

I have done precisely that, your blustering dismissals notwithstanding.