What's the worst thing about being an atheist?

[Perknose]

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

Cerpin, you wrote in your "rebuttal, "Einstein was a theist somewhat like Spinoza was a theist -- that is, not much at all."

Since NO ONE, including me, has said he was a theist in this thread, just whom were you responding to, and why? It was nothing but lack of reading comprehension or deliberate troll misdirection on your part.

Either way, just cut it out, ok?

... but it is true to say that the difference between an atheist and a pantheist is merely semantic.

Lololololol, that's a laughably loose and lazy statement on your part. You should be embarrassed by it! :awe:

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.

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.

Do0d, I have asked you more than once to back up what "you think" with actual examples from Einstein's writing, as I have.

What "you think," absent any factual support, is not as special or conclusive as you seem to want it to be. Anyone can say "I think" without any back-up whatsoever, and despite repeatedly being asked to, you have provided NONE in this entire thread.

Man up and get in the game.

Please PROVE you assertions, son. Offer some supporting evidence every time you say, "I think," k?

Here, I'll show you how it's done on the other end.

This statement by Einstein is manifestly and directly and irrefutably NOT as you wish to claim, the statement of "a naturalist who occasionally dressed his language up in religious camouflage."

It is the statement of a "religious" man defining his religion, and not merely as non-religious "reverence for the natural world."

"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."
-- Albert Einstein

See how that works?

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
-- Albert Einstein

^^^ Now you wish to claim that THIS rather unambiguous statement above can somehow mean, "A great many things, actually, only a few of which bolster your suggestion."

Fine, Sparky. Please tell the class ONE thing that it can elsewise mean and back your claim the fuck up.

Of course, please first tell us what "you think" "my suggestion" is, since "my suggestion" was only that Einstein was "religious" in the same way that I am, as defined in my first post, which say NOTHING about any mere non-religiious "reverence for the natural world," which are your words and completely and utterly contradicted by Big Al's own words on the subject.

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.

Sigh. There you go again. "Reverence for the natural world" is not my definition of "religion", nor have I said it is anywhere in this thread.

Please take your own advice, troll.

Here, I'll quote it back at you: "Please, try to read what I write, and not what you image[sic] that I've written."

THIS is what I said:

But then, I don't believe in hell (a later Christian concept which postdates Christ and all the surviving apostles) or a corporeal God (you know, a Joe God who lives at One Heaven Place) who could or would damn anyone or anything and yet I exclude no Christian based curse from my lexicon, either. <shrug>

Nevertheless, personally, I stand with such luminaries as Big Al Einstein in having a strong and enduring sense of the divine:

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
-- Albert Einstein

YOU have repeatedly mischaracterized what I said, and you have repeatedly tried to dismiss, without ANY proof, that Albert Einstein meant what I have claimed he obviously meant in the quotes I have repeatedly posted here.

That ain't trollin', grandad.

Sorry, son, it's pretty much the definition of trolling.

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.

That's the problem, you haven't done so at all, not even once, not even one little bit.

 

[HAL9000]

No afterlife, and the lack of magic.

 

[J-Money]

The worst thing about being an atheist:

The overwhelming pressure of being so right.

Followed closely by lack of magic.

 

[Codewiz]

This is the quote that gives Einstein's true thoughts on christianity. He felt the same of jewish faith and religion in general.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

 

[sourceninja]

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

Sadly, as science discovers more, religions here in the US refuse to accept it and demonize it.

My only problem with being an atheist is knowing that end the end we all die alone, scared, and never get to see our legacy. But that thought has only inspired me to live a more eventful, full, and wondrous life.

 

[Perknose]

This is the quote that gives Einstein's true thoughts on christianity. He felt the same of jewish faith and religion in general.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Thanks, finally some substance. Appreciated. :thumbsup:

Einstein holds the Bible in the same lack of esteem as I do .No interpretation of the Bible, no matter how subtle, can change his opinion that the Bible legends are primitive and childish. I agree!

But this does NOT prove that he was an atheist.

I simply don't believe in a corporeal God, and neither did he. But he was NO atheist, and neither am I.

Here below is a further elucidation of his thoughts on the matter, from an article that talks about this exact quote:

Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheist. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

He was not an atheist. He was opposed to conventional religion, as I am. His "religious" view (and mine) was simply more subtle than most here wish to admit.

For those of you who want to claim he was not religious, that is simply untrue, and is not at all proven by CW's quote of his that I am responding to.

He was not religious in your constricted, "conventional" sense. Neither am I. I stand with Big Al's words here:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

For those of you who wish to continue to claim he was an atheist, this is also simply not true.

He did not share your dismissive views on what might be. If you need more proof of that, here is the quote he chose to hang in his office:

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)

It bears repeating here:

Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheist. He was offended by their lack of humility...

Einstein NAILS his substantive differences with many here below:

Einstein also stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

To clarify further:

According to Hubertus, Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[3]

At least now, at long last, we are having a substantive discussion. :thumbsup:

 

[Modular]

That my children will eventually be "found out" and ostracized by other kids for their lack of religious belief.

LoL...cause it's 120&#37; the other way because of the ongoing, underhanded religion bashing. If you truly believe that I can believe what I want, then don't talk smack about it when I exercise that right.

That's a fantasy world, unfortunately. The reality is that most atheists will continue to sit smugly believing that the world continues to be flat and that they understand it all...

We don't understand anything, yet we continue to hide behind the veil of "science" and pretend that we do. Mind boggling...

 

[TeeJay1952]

I have been an atheist my entire life. As a child I kept it to myself and as a teenager I liked to proselytize. As an adult I find my lack of faith to be mine and mine alone. I DO NOT want to talk anybody out of anything. If God keeps you in line and or happy who am I to poke a hole in that?
I cringe when Bill Mahr goes on one of his rants against religion. After all we are discussing faith which has no basis in fact. That is what faith is. It is a determination that you make without proof. I have had people get mad and tell me I am going to hell, I have also had people tell me that "I really don't believe what I said." I just "know" what I believe and expect you to do the same.

 

[jman19]

I lol'd. Well done :thumbsup:

 

[sourceninja]

LoL...cause it's 120% the other way because of the ongoing, underhanded religion bashing. If you truly believe that I can believe what I want, then don't talk smack about it when I exercise that right.

That's a fantasy world, unfortunately. The reality is that most atheists will continue to sit smugly believing that the world continues to be flat and that they understand it all...

We don't understand anything, yet we continue to hide behind the veil of "science" and pretend that we do. Mind boggling...

Not in my experience. What I have seen is that christians, who are the largest religionin the US mostly persecute themselves by claiming doubts on everyone's version of it and calling them wrong. They also seem to actively attack opposing versions in both press and in person. They go door to door waking up hard working folk to tell them they are wrong and they need to be born again. They make outcasts of people who do not hold the same beliefs.

The atheist I know keep those facts to ourselves. At least until the bullshit gets too thick. At least I've never gone door to door telling people god is dead. Atheist do not claim to have answers. They simply claim no proof of the faith religious people have (which is why its not called fact. ).

I personally believe that orginized religion stifles human ambition and holds us back from greatness. I also understand why we have religion. I have no problem with faith. I have problem with people trying to use that faith to prevent us from finding fact.

 

[sourceninja]

On iPhone and can't scroll to the bottom to edit. I wanted to add this.

To think Dawkins is all athiest is to think all chritians are from the westboro baptist church.

 

[Codewiz]

Perknose,

I didn't want to quote the whole thing you posted but I will add this. It is obvious from the quote I posted that he did not believe in a God as we label it.

But let me ask you this. If someone doesn't believe in an afterlife and doesn't believe in a God/Gods, what does that make the person? Keep in mind this is different than someone saying they don't know. That was not Albert's position.

 

[Moonbeam]

Cerpin Taxt: 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.

M: So Perk is saying the Einstein says what he, Perk, believes and you are saying that he camouflages what you believe. In the absence of quotes to support your position would not the rational conclusion be to take Einstein at his word? I certainly use the word God to mean not what others mean, but I use that word because I believe that what folk call God and is not possibly accurate in reality, does not deny that what they believe in nevertheless, still exists. It is like believing that oh say that lightning is a god. It isn't a god but it is electricity. Believers and deniers are both out in left and right field. He who says lightning is a god or doesn't exist will never benefit from electricity.

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

M: How so. Do I take your word? One thing that characterizes the certain is their assumption that what they say is self evident, I think.

CT: 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.

And where exactly do you propose that religions came from if not just such a reverence?

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


CT: Doubtless you do, but what is that worth? Not intended as a criticism or an insult. Just a flat out question. I generally agree with a whole lot of your posts.

CT: I have done precisely that, your blustering dismissals notwithstanding.

M: I don't see it.

 

[Codewiz]

But to actually address the topic at hand, I want to ask a question of people. Why in the hell would you define your life by something you don't believe. Asking, what is the hardest thing about being a unicorn denialist.

I do not believe in a God or Gods, but I do not define myself by this. This is just one exceedingly small aspect of who I am as a person. To steal from someone else, if I had to describe myself, I live my life by examining physical evidence and using reasoned logic. That does far more to define me than lack of belief in a God. That is just a byproduct. So there is nothing hard about being an atheist.

 

[HAL9000]

Cerpin Taxt: 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.

M: So Perk is saying the Einstein says what he, Perk, believes and you are saying that he camouflages what you believe. In the absence of quotes to support your position would not the rational conclusion be to take Einstein at his word? I certainly use the word God to mean not what others mean, but I use that word because I believe that what folk call God and is not possibly accurate in reality, does not deny that what they believe in nevertheless, still exists. It is like believing that oh say that lightning is a god. It isn't a god but it is electricity. Believers and deniers are both out in left and right field. He who says lightning is a god or doesn't exist will never benefit from electricity.

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

M: How so. Do I take your word? One thing that characterizes the certain is their assumption that what they say is self evident, I think.

CT: 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.

And where exactly do you propose that religions came from if not just such a reverence?

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


CT: Doubtless you do, but what is that worth? Not intended as a criticism or an insult. Just a flat out question. I generally agree with a whole lot of your posts.

CT: I have done precisely that, your blustering dismissals notwithstanding.

M: I don't see it.[/QUOTE]

I wish you would wait to have the conversation before making it up in your head.

 

[Perknose]

I wish you would wait to have the conversation before making it up in your head.

Psssst. Moonie is using actual quotes of what CT has posted in this thread, and then addressing them. Try to keep up.

 

[Moonbeam]

M: I don't see it.

I wish you would wait to have the conversation before making it up in your head.[/QUOTE]

I wish I knew what you are talking about.

 

[Perknose]

Perknose,

I didn't want to quote the whole thing you posted but I will add this. It is obvious from the quote I posted that he did not believe in a God as we label it.

But let me ask you this. If someone doesn't believe in an afterlife and doesn't believe in a God/Gods, what does that make the person? Keep in mind this is different than someone saying they don't know. That was not Albert's position.

Yes, as you label it. He is not a theist. I have said he's not a theist. But he has also said, more than once, that he is ANGRY at atheists who would use his quotes to support their viewpoint.

He was not an atheist.

You err when you say that Einstein (someone) didn't believe in an afterlife or his conception of a non-corporeal god. You don't know what he believed on either issue, only that he didn't believe in a personal God. That's all.

He held himself open those possibilities, and not you or anyone else can legitimately claim otherwise. He said, repeatedly, that it was folly not to!

Here he is getting angry at those who say, like you are, that he flat out doesn't believe in "God", according to his non-corporeal, non-Christian view of this CONCEPT:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

That's pretty damn clear, wouldn't you say?

And here he is saying what he does believe:

"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."

His is just not a corporeal God, not a personal god. Perhaps that concept is too subtle for many here to grasp. It shouldn't be.

Here's why Einstein himself thinks you guys may be so wrong about what he believes or doesn't believe, and he seems kind of pissed about it: :awe:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

In any event, C-wiz, thank you for debating with me civilly and substantively. I really do appreciate that. :thumbsup:

 

[Perknose]

I wish I knew what you are talking about.

Trust me, in Hal's case you often might not.

 

[Zebo]

What's the worst thing about being an atheist?

Head chopped off in some places to just wishing someone would chop your head off when grandma gives you a sermon.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is quite obvious that much of the anger and ferocious rejection we see in atheists comes exactly and precisely from what Einstein said, "... the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

A painful fact about self hate is that we hate ourselves when we get taken, when we are naive and get duped. This is because we were all deceived by our guardians who said they loved us but didn't.

 

[HAL9000]

I wish you would wait to have the conversation before making it up in your head.

I wish I knew what you are talking about.[/QUOTE]

M: I wish I knew what you are talking about.

H: What I'm talking about is when you create conversations with yourself assuming what the other poster is going to say and pre-empting it.

M: I do that because of self hate.

H:

 

[HAL9000]

Trust me, in Hal's case you often might not.

I don't always know what I'm talking about. That you can quote me on.

 

[Modular]

Not in my experience. What I have seen is that christians, who are the largest religionin the US mostly persecute themselves by claiming doubts on everyone's version of it and calling them wrong. They also seem to actively attack opposing versions in both press and in person. They go door to door waking up hard working folk to tell them they are wrong and they need to be born again. They make outcasts of people who do not hold the same beliefs.

The atheist I know keep those facts to ourselves. At least until the bullshit gets too thick. At least I've never gone door to door telling people god is dead. Atheist do not claim to have answers. They simply claim no proof of the faith religious people have (which is why its not called fact. ).

I personally believe that orginized religion stifles human ambition and holds us back from greatness. I also understand why we have religion. I have no problem with faith. I have problem with people trying to use that faith to prevent us from finding fact.

Fundamentally, that which you claim to be "fact" takes just as much faith to believe as religion. It's just more acceptable in this day and age to call science "fact" and believe it to be as such, even though the breadth of that same knowledge used to make such claims is constantly pointing out how much more we really DON'T know.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not advocating a Nihlistic view of science here, but honest people will not tell you that there's absolutely no God, and that there's a 100% chance that science is correct. If they do, then I'd posit that they're making that claim non-scientifically and instead that it's based off of some emotional reaction.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't always know what I'm talking about. That you can quote me on.

You certainly don't know what you are talking about here. I am very stupid and learning how to quote portions of a post to reply to is beyond my keen. Instead, I simply put the name of the person who said what I want to respond to in front of it and them my M: in front of my reply. I would require professional hands on counseling to change this ignorance and I am powerfully motivated not to. It cause gales of disapproval whenever I do it. I get ridiculed as the complete idiot that I am and of course that feeds and satisfies my self hate. Incidentally, but of no real consequence to me, I can assure you, it also flushes out the superficial for whom the 'rules' are hallowed and their infraction, life threatening. I am, it seems, a protocol atheist and roundly despised by believers.