• Einstein was an atheist.
    151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37921300]That is probably one of the best quotes I've seen.[/QUOTE] How do you interpret it? I've no clue what it means. How is science without religion lame?
r/atheism is gonna have a field day
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37921129]I have a friend who has, more than once, said that he thinks 'all religions need to be banned'. Shit like that makes me angry. Like a few extremists getting violent is enough reason to dismantle millions of millions of people's belief systems.[/QUOTE] Dude there are only ~7,000 million people in the world. Where the hell did you get "millions of millions"
Deism is my religion, all the perks of believing in a higher power, without a holy book, church, or religious leaders to tell me what to do or how to think. That said I still think holy texts warrant more respect than many people give them, if not simply for their historical and cultural significance.
snip
[QUOTE=latin_geek;37921718]r/atheism is gonna have a field day[/QUOTE] every day on r/atheism is a field day to them [editline]5th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;37921789]Dude there are only ~7,000 million people in the world. Where the hell did you get "millions of millions"[/QUOTE] I think he meant millions and millions.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37921861]ftfy[/QUOTE] I believe he was stating that 7 billion is not "millions of millions" but rather "thousands of millions" and further proved his point by declaring it as 7,000 million which is an equal amount.
Personally,I wish that religion doesn't exist in this age. Except for Buddhism Buddhism is pretty chill
[QUOTE=geel9;37921789]Dude there are only ~7,000 million people in the world. Where the hell did you get "millions of millions"[/QUOTE] Dead people too maybe. But I don't think that's what he was getting at.
[QUOTE=Matrix374;37921899]Personally,I wish that religion doesn't exist in this age. Except for Buddhism Buddhism is pretty chill[/QUOTE] It's really not as chill as everyone things when you look at how Tibet was before the Chinese took over.
[QUOTE=imptastick;37921859]Deism is my religion, all the perks of believing in a higher power, [/QUOTE] Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong, but that doesn't sound like very genuine belief if you're weighing up the perks of it.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37921525]But that is what they are, is it not? Why should we obscure the truth simply for their convenience? I'd be fine with religious people if they hadn't taught their children the same dribble, if church and state were truly separated, and if nations still hadn't warred in the name of conflicting faith. At this point you'll probably say that it is not religion's fault. And with this logic I discredit every single charity organization put together by religious people because religion was not at work there, right? It's the people. Given the amount of suffering religion brought upon the world, and how greatly it outweighs the good - It should be perfectly within reason to criticize it fully, without being labeled something infinitely stupid as a "militant atheist" or an "intolerant asshole" by other atheists who consider themselves the epitome of tolerance and understanding by treating religion as this harmless little thing that is so terribly manipulated by big bad humans. You dont need to go outside and yell at religious people in the park, but that doesn't mean you should put all people of faith on a pedestal either.[/QUOTE] And science, the logical binary opposition to religion and generally the champion of atheism, hasn't brought any suffering? If we forget for a moment the number of human trials and experiments and everything conducted during and before WWII by Germany and Japan, we still have the environment to be concerned about. If I recall, combustion engines, nuclear power, medicine that's enabled overpopulation and nearly everything else we have that's helping to damage and destroy the planet (and therefore, I feel, causing more harm to the wider world than good) was directly enabled by the Enlightenment and developed by scientific (and generally secular) progress. I'm not anti-science but to act as though atheism doesn't have any damaging drawbacks is silly. [editline]6th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hellduck;37921957]Dead people too maybe. But I don't think that's what he was getting at.[/QUOTE] Nope I meant 'millions of million's It's 5am here, my bad! [editline]6th October 2012[/editline] I mean to say that there are dickheads in every faith (I'd consider science a faith) and that you can't take this to be representative of the entire subculture. There are ways to critique a faith that don't involve insulting the belief system or trying to break apart or discredit the individual parts that make up this belief system. The only authority anybody outside the belief system has to critique is when discussing the actions of those who adhere to that belief system; in the case of contemporary society, the primary people to discuss are militants and violent fanatics.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922043]And science, the logical binary opposition to religion and generally the champion of atheism, hasn't brought any suffering? If we forget for a moment the number of human trials and experiments and everything conducted during and before WWII by Germany and Japan, we still have the environment to be concerned about. If I recall, combustion engines, nuclear power, medicine that's enabled overpopulation and nearly everything else we have that's helping to damage and destroy the planet (and therefore, I feel, causing more harm to the wider world than good) was directly enabled by the Enlightenment and developed by scientific (and generally secular) progress. I'm not anti-science but to act as though atheism doesn't have any damaging drawbacks is silly.[/QUOTE] The ignorance in confusing a tool (the scientific method) and it's applications is appalling and fallacious.. To say "but to act as though atheism doesn't have any damaging drawbacks is silly" as though atheism = science, is just as fallacious. Atheism is not an intrinsic philosophy or ideology, it has no tenants; it was born out of necessity so people could identify that they weren't part of the societal standard of "theistic". It is not a negative statement (in most cases), it is merely the rejection of being called "Theist" or assumed to be as such. To assert "There is no God." is an epistemological (knowledge)' statement, not theological, thus would be rendered moot under the previous arguments 'theological (belief)' stance.
How shocking, one of the smartest people in the world doesn't believe in what's not there.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;37922164]The ignorance in confusing a tool (the scientific method) and it's applications is appalling and fallacious.. [/QUOTE]' I could say the same about confusing a belief system and it's negative applications If you read my comment fully you'll see that I'm not saying that atheism = science always. I'm saying that science is what nearly all atheists turn to as a 'faith' and that this 'faith' causes damage as well.
Why did Einstein refuse to accept quantum mechanics again?
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;37922212]Not all scientists are atheists, though. So you can't really even use it as a basis.[/QUOTE] My aim wasn't to equate atheists with scientists; it was more to show that there is generally (but not always) a divide between science and religion (going as far back as the Renaissance, really) and that religion isn't the only faith or set of beliefs through which one sees the world that can and has caused significant damage
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922197]' I could say the same about confusing a belief system and it's negative applications If you read my comment fully you'll see that I'm not saying that atheism = science always. I'm saying that science is what nearly all atheists turn to as a 'faith' and that this 'faith' causes damage as well.[/QUOTE] "I'm saying that science is what nearly all atheists turn to as a 'faith' and that this 'faith' causes damage as well." How can science, in any fucking aspect, be viewed with the requisite of "faith"?
While I get the point that many atheists have caused harm with science, I have yet to hear one do it in the name of atheism. Although I am sure they have, just not near as common.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;37922238]"I'm saying that science is what nearly all atheists turn to as a 'faith' and that this 'faith' causes damage as well." How can science, in any fucking aspect, be viewed with the requisite of "faith"?[/QUOTE] I was considering a faith to be any system that people rely on to explain the world. Science is one such system. [editline]6th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=cani;37922276]While I get the point that many atheists have caused harm with science, I have yet to hear one do it in the name of atheism. Although I am sure they have, just not near as common.[/QUOTE] Please read my other posts; I wasn't trying to equate scientific harm with atheistic harm. I was trying to show that it's not only religion that is causing harm, but science as well. It just so happens that all the atheists I know rely on science to explain the universe to them instead of religion. Not all science is atheistic, but often most atheism is scientific. My point was that the idea that religion causes harm and that science is some marshmallow fun land that causes no harm and has no drawbacks is biased and generally silly
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;37922280]Science isn't a set of beliefs, though. It's science. Also faith = believing in something without proof, that is not science.[/QUOTE] Theories. Not set in stone, and therefore are generally held as a belief. We BELIEVE in gravity, but we have no tangible way of showing it aside from we stand on a rock in space and plenty of equations that still don't amount to tangible proof. What I think he is trying to say is that blaspheming others for your own beliefs, atheist or not, is simply stupid. Sure, you might not agree with it, but telling outright that you don't agree in a rude manner in their face would obviously make them irate or upset. It's a matter of how you go about it. I'm sure if the original poster hadn't been so rude as to say 'Shitty false books' and instead said something along the lines of 'books which hold beliefs that are far different from my own', then it would have been alright. But he was a dick about it. And we all know how it goes. It's ok to not like things, but don't be a dick about it.
[QUOTE=Hellduck;37921975]Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong, but that doesn't sound like very genuine belief if you're weighing up the perks of it.[/QUOTE] I did not learn about deism and change my beliefs, I thought about my beliefs tried to find the closest definition and found deism. I was not being 100% serious in that post.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;37922280]Science isn't a set of beliefs, though. It's science. Also faith = believing in something without proof, that is not science.[/QUOTE] Then maybe faith was the wrong word.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922282]I was considering a faith to be any system that people rely on to explain the world. Science is one such system.[/QUOTE] But 'science' alone is not a system, at least not in the same way that 'Christianity' or anything similar attempts to be a system of explaining things. Frankly, I don't understand this idea of "religion and science can co-exist just fine", because even though it is true it only remains true so long as the two do not contradict each other in any extremely obvious and publicized way. So that means that either scientists have to stop trying to explain things currently 'explained' by God or that the definition of God itself (as held by Abrahamic religions, at least) must become increasingly vague. We have the latter, and it has led to the delusion that whether you believe in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God or not, it can all be just as adeptly explained by saying "God started evolution" or "God started the Big Bang", which, just like the rest relies on nothing more than believing that it did happen.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922282]I was considering a faith to be any system that people rely on to explain the world. Science is one such system. [editline]6th October 2012[/editline] Please read my other posts; I wasn't trying to equate scientific harm with atheistic harm. I was trying to show that it's not only religion that is causing harm, but science as well. It just so happens that all the atheists I know rely on science to explain the universe to them instead of religion. Not all science is atheistic, but often most atheism is scientific. My point was that the idea that religion causes harm and that science is some marshmallow fun land that causes no harm and has no drawbacks is biased and generally silly[/QUOTE] What tangible benefits the methodology "faith" given us? ***BEFORE YOU RESPOND, GIVE YOUR DEFINITION OF FAITH (I USE HEBREWS 11:1)*** Then ask yourself, Does it even explain the world? How does it explain it? Is it empirically demonstrable? How do you compare two different beliefs, if not by evidence? You see, 'HuckFinn', it helps to know when you've shot yourself in the foot..
[QUOTE=Megafan;37922398]But 'science' alone is not a system, at least not in the same way that 'Christianity' or anything similar attempts to be a system of explaining things. Frankly, I don't understand this idea of "religion and science can co-exist just fine", because even though it is true it only remains true so long as the two do not contradict each other in any extremely obvious and publicized way. So that means that either scientists have to stop trying to explain things currently 'explained' by God or that the definition of God itself (as held by Abrahamic religions, at least) must become increasingly vague. We have the latter, and it has led to the delusion that whether you believe in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God or not, it can all be just as adeptly explained by saying "God started evolution" or "God started the Big Bang", which, just like the rest relies on nothing more than believing that it did happen.[/QUOTE] As far as I can see it's just about saying to ones self 'these people believe something that contradicts what I believe, we can come to a compromise if we both are understanding and respectful of these differences'. Yes there will be tension and there may be breakaway groups or states, which is fine. I don't care if one chunk of the country decides to shift away so that they can govern themselves as per their religion, if it should escalate to that point. The idea that there should be no contradiction doesn't really sit; we are inherently full of contradictions on every level.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37922369]I'm pretty sure scientific theories are very much different than regular theories.[/QUOTE] Theories are still just that. Theories. Doesn't matter if they are standard or scientific. The main difference being equations that show what MIGHT be true, but also may be wrong. What if Einstein was wrong in that e=mc^2? That would essentially destroy all theories in existence that relate to Quantum Mechanics. My point is that Science is also held on common belief, and some treat it as a religion which it isn't. Science and religion are separate things that hold some common traits. That isn't to say I disagree with science, no I generally enjoy it. But to hold it above religion is silly. They're different, stop putting one above the other.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;37922430]What tangible benefits the methodology "faith" given us? ***BEFORE YOU RESPOND, GIVE YOUR DEFINITION OF FAITH (I USE HEBREWS 11:1)*** Then ask yourself, Does it even explain the world? How does it explain it? Is it empirically demonstrable? How do you compare two different beliefs, if not by evidence? You see, 'HuckFinn', it helps to know when you've shot yourself in the foot..[/QUOTE] Who is 'HuckFinn' I don't get what you're trying to say to be honest. If you read any of my other posts you'd see that I saw that 'faith' was perhaps the wrong word to use. Maybe try reading the rest of the conversation
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;37922487]Are you saying if science proves something, they should find a middle point between religion so no ones feelings get hurt? So instead of "Hey, evolution!" they'd say "Hey, magic jesus made evolution!"?[/QUOTE] Um, no. I'm saying that just because science has proven something doesn't mean you need to go and shove it in religious people's faces. And the same with religious people vs scientific people. I don't see why there has to be some sort of consensus between religious people and scientific people, as though it's impossible for them to coexist and be respectful of each other's mutually exclusive beliefs
[B]My overarching argument[/B] in this thread is that I don't think that atheists should bitch at religious people for being religious and holding different beliefs. And vice versa. Any arguments of damage caused by religion in the contemporary age don't really fit because science has been just as damaging.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.