By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why try to disprove/disagree with religion?

dsgrue3 on 24 January 2013
timmah said:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

Seems to indicate a specific belief that something bigger exists. In this quote, the words 'he' and 'himself' were used to describe the 'god' einstein said he believed in. I don't see any indication that he was not at least open-minded on the subject of some sort of God existing, though he clearly was critical of the idea of a personal God. I thought he was personally an agnostic as well as academically. An atheist by definition says there is no god, period, so he would therefore be agnostic.

Since you say it isn't up for debate, though, it clearly isn't.

EDIT: Also note he wasn't postulating something academically in this case, he clearly was quoted saying "I believe in", which indicates agnosticism was his personal belief. Obviously he doesn't agree with me, but I'm not sure how you say he was an atheist either.

Again, academically agnostic.

Privately, personally, atheist. 

This isn't up for debate.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein) Following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?"

A very public circumstance = academic response.

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever... This is a somewhat new kind of religion. Letter to Hans Muehsam, friend.

Something told in confidence to a friend = personal belief.

I hope this resolves the dispute.



Around the Network
timmah on 24 January 2013
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

Seems to indicate a specific belief that something bigger exists. In this quote, the words 'he' and 'himself' were used to describe the 'god' einstein said he believed in. I don't see any indication that he was not at least open-minded on the subject of some sort of God existing, though he clearly was critical of the idea of a personal God. I thought he was personally an agnostic as well as academically. An atheist by definition says there is no god, period, so he would therefore be agnostic.

Since you say it isn't up for debate, though, it clearly isn't.

EDIT: Also note he wasn't postulating something academically in this case, he clearly was quoted saying "I believe in", which indicates agnosticism was his personal belief. Obviously he doesn't agree with me, but I'm not sure how you say he was an atheist either.

Again, academically agnostic.

Privately, personally, atheist. 

This isn't up for debate.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein) Following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?"

A very public circumstance = academic response.

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever... This is a somewhat new kind of religion. Letter to Hans Muehsam, friend.

Something told in confidence to a friend = personal belief.

I hope this resolves the dispute.

I can definitely see what you're saying, though he could be referring to 'nonbeliever' in the sense of a personal God (which is the traditional stance of a believer), so it's not necessarily as concrete as you say. You're very quick to say this is not up for debate... unless you have a time traveling mind reading device that I'm not aware of. I personally don't care too much either way.

EDIT: Just to throw in another quote: "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." - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949

Even one of the most brilliant men of our time used words like 'in my opinion' and expressed humility regarding such things. That's all I hope for in a reasonable debate.



dsgrue3 on 24 January 2013
timmah said:

I can definitely see what you're saying, though he could be referring to 'nonbeliever' in the sense of a personal God (which is the traditional stance of a believer), so it's not necessarily as concrete as you say. You're very quick to say this is not up for debate... unless you have a time traveling mind reading device that I'm not aware of. I personally don't care too much either way.

Laughable, and not remotely traditional. It's as concrete as they come. If Einstein meant to say personal God, he would have, as he has done in multiple other quotations.

Ironic that you think this is fallible and Jesus isn't. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, merely hearsay accounts.



timmah on 24 January 2013
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

I can definitely see what you're saying, though he could be referring to 'nonbeliever' in the sense of a personal God (which is the traditional stance of a believer), so it's not necessarily as concrete as you say. You're very quick to say this is not up for debate... unless you have a time traveling mind reading device that I'm not aware of. I personally don't care too much either way.

Laughable, and not remotely traditional. It's as concrete as they come. If Einstein meant to say personal God, he would have, as he has done in multiple other quotations.

Ironic that you think this is fallible and Jesus isn't. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, merely hearsay accounts.

In western culture, especially in the far more 'Christian' culture he lived in (compared to now), 'believer' commonly referred specifically to a practicing Christian. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is still active debate about Einstein's personal agnosticism vs athiesm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

Read the first line in the above article.

He also said the following in an interview:

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."



dsgrue3 on 24 January 2013
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

I can definitely see what you're saying, though he could be referring to 'nonbeliever' in the sense of a personal God (which is the traditional stance of a believer), so it's not necessarily as concrete as you say. You're very quick to say this is not up for debate... unless you have a time traveling mind reading device that I'm not aware of. I personally don't care too much either way.

Laughable, and not remotely traditional. It's as concrete as they come. If Einstein meant to say personal God, he would have, as he has done in multiple other quotations.

Ironic that you think this is fallible and Jesus isn't. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, merely hearsay accounts.

In western culture, especially in the far more 'Christian' culture he lived in (compared to now), 'believer' commonly referred specifically to a practicing Christian. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is still active debate about Einstein's personal agnosticism vs athiesm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

Read the first line in the above article.

He also said the following in an interview:

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."

Same source:

"Einstein rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence." - this is why he rejected the label, because as a scientist he could not declare this. End of.

Not open to debate, there is an abundance of evidence for this.

Your quotation merely suggests interconnectivity of everything in the Universe. Call it strong and weak forces, call it god, but don't conclude that as theistic in nature because it isn't. It's the adoration of the unknown. 



Around the Network
PoundHound on 24 January 2013
Soleron said:

If people kept their beliefs to themselves it would be fine.

But this is not so. Religion is a major US political issue influencing real laws and education. People fight and die over religion in the Middle East and Africa right now. And religiously motivated discrimination prevents equal rights for women, homosexuals and nonbelievers around the world to varying degrees.

That is why religion's influence is worth fighting against.

Apart from that, I like debating with any religious person willing to have a logic based argument because I like to see how they think, so it helps me learn about the world, and I enjoy the debate itself even if there's no realistic chance of position change.


Soleron, thank you. That's all that needs to be said. It is absolutely vital that we try to open peoples eyes to the danger of religion in politics and other areas of life. Without trying to sound over-dramatic, religion is putting the life of each and every one of us at risk. It has to GTFO now!



Kaizar on 24 January 2013

Well, I would like to add to this discussion that religions are originated from over exaggeration of foreigners like Apollo and his people who were just Migraters visiting Greek & Netherlands.

 

Even the God of Abraham was just some guy from a foreign country. And If you read the original text of the Holy Bible & Quran & Torah, you will see that it talks about Angels having sex with humans and having "half angel/half middle-eastern" children. And Angels  don't have wings, the wings were added in religious paintings so you could tell who was suppose to be the Angel & who was suppose to be the middle-eastern in the religious paintings. So Angels clearly were not spirits, because they had sex with humans all the time, having interracial kids. And there Re logical explanations in a lot of the Bible, like the tale of Moses when he's people suffered from radiation poisoning, which is why they went bald & so fort. And even the frogs jumping all over the place and the red river and the first born child can be easily explained, for instance the first born child of the Egyptians would do the farm work and so fort and would get beaten by house flies that had already been around the dead cows, which spread the illness. There's even the city of sodom that was describe to be destroyed by a atomic explosion when you read the description in the Holy Bible of the event of the city being destroyed.

 

But it's best if you just use watch the History Channel programs about religious events, like "Ancient Aliens" which you can watch on Netflix. (watch at least the first 13 episodes of "Ancient Aliens")

 

A lot of tales in the bible have already been debunk by the 21st Century.



timmah on 24 January 2013
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

I can definitely see what you're saying, though he could be referring to 'nonbeliever' in the sense of a personal God (which is the traditional stance of a believer), so it's not necessarily as concrete as you say. You're very quick to say this is not up for debate... unless you have a time traveling mind reading device that I'm not aware of. I personally don't care too much either way.

Laughable, and not remotely traditional. It's as concrete as they come. If Einstein meant to say personal God, he would have, as he has done in multiple other quotations.

Ironic that you think this is fallible and Jesus isn't. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, merely hearsay accounts.

In western culture, especially in the far more 'Christian' culture he lived in (compared to now), 'believer' commonly referred specifically to a practicing Christian. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is still active debate about Einstein's personal agnosticism vs athiesm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

Read the first line in the above article.

He also said the following in an interview:

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."

Same source:

"Einstein rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence." - this is why he rejected the label, because as a scientist he could not declare this. End of.

Not open to debate, there is an abundance of evidence for this.

Your quotation merely suggests interconnectivity of everything in the Universe. Call it strong and weak forces, call it god, but don't conclude that as theistic in nature because it isn't. It's the adoration of the unknown. 

Not necessarily saying what he believed was theistic in nature, but you're saying he was personally an atheist. Since atheism is defined as "the doctrine that there is no diety", that is unlikely, especially since Einstein purposefully rejected that label on multiple occasions. We could debate all day on the nature of his personal beliefs, but the nature of his quotes on this throughout his life indicate that he had his own internal struggle with the notion of 'God', and that he was far more humble about his opinions than you are. Atheism is something he denied outright on multiple occasions, so don't sit there and make it out as what I'm saying is 'laughable' when you're suggesting he was something that he flat out denied with his own words. At this point we're just debating semantics.



KungKras on 24 January 2013

Religion is a strong cultural and political force.

I think having these debates are important because there are important points that needs to be made. I think, the closer we get to removing the cultural and politica power of religion, the better the world will get. And the way to get there is through constantly presenting the better argument.



I LOVE ICELAND!

EdHieron on 24 January 2013
timmah said:
EdHieron said:
timmah said:
Runa216 said:
timmah said:

With or without God existing, those arguments are at least worth discussing. They certainly do not 'hinge' on that. 

My point on you asking for 'proof' of God was not hinging on any undeniable existence, but was simply arguing that your request is for something that cannot by its own definition exist... your request for natural proof of something outside natural laws is a fundamentally flawed request. You wouldn't ask me to prove something in the field of genetics using the properties of light as my basis. I'm saying the type of proof you request is the problem.

My discussion of logic was purely naturalistic and did not hinge on a diety in any way... it's also an interesting thing to consider regardless of your particular point of view. What's said is, if a non-Christian said the same thing, you wouldn't have been so dismissive

My point on your crusade against religion vs. similar behavior by some fundamentalist Christians was a simple comparison of behaviors, not a religious argument.

It would really be a shame if science and logic eliminated open discussions of philosophy and spirituality. I think all of these discussions (scientific and philosophical) are very valuable and worthwhile.

PRecisely.  If you can't prove something or at least offer supporting evidence, then your beliefs need to be treated as the mythologies they are. There is no argument beyond this.  Believing something really hard doesn't make it more real, and 'Well we can't prove it, it's impossible" does not excuse you from the burden of proof. 

You're very good at picking out only the points that fit your mold and ignoring the rest. You would not accept the supporting evidence I would offer, because it is very deeply personal, as anything spiritual would be. I don't jut believe it real hard, I've personally seen visible, physical miracles on two separate medical missions trips to Honduras for one, but you'd probably just dismiss that and call me a liar. I've experienced changes in my life after my recommitement to God that went far beyond what I was able to do on my own before that, but you'll call that anecdotal. There are a myriad of personal proofs that have led me to where I am, but they are mine and not yours. They are not scientific, they are personal and spiritual. As you automatically reject anything that is spiritual, there's not much else to say on that. It would be the same as you trying to have a scientific argument about the funciton of DNA with somebody who outright rejects anything scientific (and no, I don't reject science or see it as a bad thing).


So Self Hypnosis and Confirmation Bias equals reason enough for belief in Yahweh a God the Hebrews made up and based on far earlier Gods?  Hey, what about the millions more that believed just as devoutly and prayed just as fervently and didn't get their prayers answered?

You say they made him up, I say He revealed himself to specific individuals Hknew had a good heart. Self hypnosis? Really? C'mon, that's not even close to what I'm talking about. Why do some atheists have to be so blatently militant about their beliefs?

If I knew everything about how and why God works, I would write a book about it and become rich.

 

Yeah if he revealed himself to certain individuals that had a good heart why did he tell Moses to kill all the people in the land except for the comely virgins which he was supposed to take unto himself in Numbers Ch. 31 ( http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/31.html) and why has the Christian Church in its various guises compiled the highest death toll of any other force on earth ( http://articles.exchristian.net/2002/10/how-many-people-have-been-killed-by.php)?

And yes, any claimed personal experiences about God can only be summed up as Confirmation Biases and Self Delusions ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6LhQQr6640 )  or random and freak acts of nature or misdiagnoses (  http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/how-do-you-explain-healing/) ,  since the God they're ascribed to never existed as it was just based on other earlier mythological Mesopotamian gods ( http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=42815).

Because there are millions of Christians that want to deny other people the trivialist of rights ( and they've got all the murders and molestations in the mix too) based on the moral codes contained in an ancient novel.