I resemble that remark!

Seriously though, I honestly think more atheists need to speak out against the level of influence religion has on public policy.
The whole "live and let live" attitude has allowed for the "christians" to run roughshod over everyone. Now, any attempts to curtail religious influence and privilege are seen as "discrimination".

@KKGator I speak out, but the real issue is our government. Billy Graham was more than aware government might co-opt his brand of Hallelujah jeebus religion and of course it did. Yeah, more do need to speak out but there is no need to be a fanatic while doing it. Ease into like the old time christians let the pagan rituals morph with theirs to make the masses more accepting . We need a gimmick - lol.

I agree.

@silverotter11 I understand what you're saying, I really do.
I'm just so over it all that there's no more "easing into" anything anymore.

Then again, I'm the quintessential bull in a china shop.
I have zero finesse.

@KKGator I think the live and let live notion is still a valid one, as long as it means that anyone can believe what they wish as long as they are not causing harm to others. Atheists can be much more effective if they stopped going around calling others idiots, and instead stuck to the vital issues, such as separation of church and state. The militant attitude along with childish name-calling that I have seen only serves to detract from the important issues. I love that we have organizations such as FFRF who are willing and able to take on the challenge.

@itsmedammit Andrew Seidel of the FFRF is one of my heroes. He's an amazing human being.

@itsmedammit I think part of the problem is that too many religious folks are not willing to live and let live, trying to cram their bullshit down everyone else's throats, whether that's directly by aggressive proselytizing, or more indirectly and insidiously by injecting it into government. And perhaps worse, too many not even attempting to call-out those behaviors.

@bingst It is true that there are many asshole religious people. I just think it pays to stick to the higher road.

@KKGator For me it depends on if I want to pretend I have some sort of social filter. The shock effect is fun or if the stupid is SO glaring mouth just takes on a life of it's own.

@itsmedammit You take the high road. I prefer to fight fire with fire.
I make no apologies for taking the low road. That's where most of them
are anyway.

@KKGator Okay, I'll be sure and wear my fireproof gear cause I will stand right by your side.

@Seeker3CO Yeah, I can't do that.
Fence-sitting has never been something I've been capable of.

@Seeker3CO ,@KKGator, @silver0tter11 Who is fence sitting? It's not about not speaking up. It's about being effective.

@itsmedammit No one called you a fence-sitter. It was being discussed in general terms.

@Seeker3CO Once again, I never said don't fight. I said do it from the high road. Please read what was written.

@KKGator Sorry, my bad, re fence sitting.

@Seeker3CO Sorry.

He just did't run into the enlightened atheists!

i don't see it. in addition, it is not impossible but quite unlikely, since einstein was born and raised jewish (and was hated by the nazis for that reason). to my knowledge he never embraced any kind of christianity. that doesn't mean he was ignorant of it -- but nothing in what he said suggests he was referring to it.

g

@genessaThat's not what I read.

That is how it sounds to me, too.

Well it’s not like he lived “in a land far away and a long time ago.” His lifespan and mine overlapped, as did our American citizenship. I was alive to observe the differences between then and now, and although there are some, it’s not all that much. Einstein was ahead of his time in his religious views, not behind. The world has not caught up yet. My guess is he would be even more adamant today about fanatical atheism, while still being the non-fanatical atheist that he arguably was.

@skado

I do not understand the concept of fanatical atheism. That's like saying I don't believe in astrology... I really don't believe in it...
I'm so much a non believer of it that I am insane with non belief.

Do you believe in a God? No. Plain and simple. I'm not a fanatical non believer in fairies either.

@skado

And he died in 1955 when atheism was really at the fringe.

@Athena
Do you apply that same logic to theists? They are just people who believe in a God. Plain and simple. No variation in level of zeal from one believer to the next. No variation in how wrong they think you are for not believing like them?

@skado

No. Theists vary in their belief, because there are different things to believe.

Is there a variance in a non belief of fairies?

I'm not having this discussion at length. It's silly, tiring and usually a waste of time.

@Athena
No obligation to respond if you’ve lost interest, but I usually think of fanaticism, not in terms of how firmly a person believes (or disbelieves) something, but in how confident they are that everyone else should believe as they do. Or, if they don’t, they must be less intelligent, or perhaps malevolent. I see that every day in approximately equal portions, between believers and non-believers. Then there are those like you and me, who are not fanatics.

@Seeker3CO maybe

@Seeker3CO
Belief isn't only about the accuracy of one's worldview. It's also about principle. If, for example, I say I believe in fair play, I'm not speaking about whether or not fair play exists. I'm talking about principles that I value. To say that fair play is either correct or incorrect you would have to refer to some universal source more authoritative than yourself... like a god. You won't find it in science. We choose values to believe in, and everybody chooses slightly differently.

@Seeker3CO
Our dictionaries differ.
American Heritage Dictionary
believe
-intr. 3. To have confidence in the truth, value or existence of something. Used with in: "Edison did not believe in the cinema." (Ivor Montagu).

So, according to American Heritage, "believing in punctuality" is not a misuse. That usage restriction is one of your personal preferences, like cookies, but other people clearly have different preferences.

@Seeker3CO
Wrong word. The word is "believe."

[ahdictionary.com]

@Seeker3CO
As you wish. Consider it given up. I'm not interested in swapping personal assessments of each other; just interested in exchanging ideas. Best wishes.

@Seeker3CO I just don't see things as you do. just labeling beliefs as right or wrong, seems odd to me.We make meaning of everything and religions try to do the same thing,make meaning of life. Though I don't subscribe to a religion for my meaning, I have seen many versions even here. So your statement that beliefs are right or wrong, is as weird to me . I said maybe, because beliefs I don't agree with, well so what..I wouldnt say yours are wrong, just not mine.

@creative51 im one of the few that do

If that is a joke it’s mildly amusing! If it’s not a joke, I suggest you have a look at Creationism and the Steady State Theory Of James Jeans and Fred Hoyle!

@Geoffrey51 I'll attempt to explain this to you. Some of the early philosophers had a better understanding of the Universe than any of todays astrophysicists. Hubble and theory is no match for Logic. The Universe is simple, time and space are infinite, meaning the Universe has always been here. Matter interacts at a constant rate, which we call Time. Matter creates Gravity, and gravity only effects matter - Gravity has no effect on time or space.

@creative51 I gave you the facts of the Universe - obviously this topic is way over your head.

@creative51 Who wrote that? What made him such an expert on truth? You don't know truth when its right in your face.

@gater can you post some references if the work that supports this claim. It sounds intriguing.

@creative51 I just told you - time and space are infinite - its fact.

@gater please provide references to the assertion.

@gater, @creative51 Much as my understanding. I’m only aware of Fred Hoyle with regard to static universe and I thought that had been discarded quite some while ago.

@Geoffrey51 There is no reference, Logically time and space have to be infinite.

@creative51 The model I made is perfect - all the science works. The reason most models don't work is many don't understand the true nature of time, space and matter. Time is a constant. Gravity only effects matter. Space is the complete absence of matter, that does not/ can not end.

@creative51 give me your model of the Universe - it will be clear who is full of shit.

@gater in that case there would be work undertaking to corroborate that. Maybe Newton, Hawking. Undergraduate papers from Harvard or Oxford. Easy to look up on the internet now. Maybe worth checking before making unsubstantiated claims

@creative51 I know the truth - you are not smart enough to understand/comprehend what is true..

@Geoffrey51 I told you - my understanding of the Universe is based on Logic, and a understanding of the true nature of space, time and matter. The most popular theory is the Big Bang - however truth doesn't care popularity. Gravity has no effect on time or space - its retarded to think it does - where is any evidence that it does? no evidence - none - and yet these idiots base the BB theory on a belief that it does.
I feel like Copernicus trying to explain to the "experts" that the earth moves around the Sun - and they say - well everyone knows that the Sun moves around the earth.
I come in here and hand you people the truth about the Universe on a silver platter and all I get is grief.

@creative51 Likewise.

@creative51, @gater I know of a few Religious zealots who also know the ‘Truth’. You are in good company.

@creative51, @Geoffrey51 You two wouldn't recognize the truth even when its explained to you.

@creative51 No real argument - I gave you the facts, and you're not bright enough to understand them.

Of course I didn’t claim that because a very smart man believed “X” that it must therefore be true. I just ever so casually brought up Einstein as a way of introducing an idea that I think stands on its own feet, regardless of who said it. Saying that he was not qualified to speak as an authority on this subject is an appeal to authority itself. It assumes that if Einstein were a theologian, then he could speak with authority.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m guessing there isn’t a theologian alive or dead whose authority you would respect on the subject of whether a literal god exists, so your appeal to an even higher authority rings hollow.

The point I was speaking to was the dichotomous thinking that I see so often surrounding this subject, and Einstein’s view is just an illustration of the opposite of that kind of thinking. Rather than an appeal to authority it’s an appeal to comprehensive thinking that addresses the complexities of the subject instead of just choosing sides in a black and white world.

Einstein didn’t believe in the god you don’t believe in one scintilla more than you do. Yet instead of engaging the ideas he presents you attack his authority.

You make my case for me.

@skado "It’s interesting to me that saying anything remotely positive about religion brings accusations of “apologist!” or “idiot!”. So was Einstein an idiot?"

This is the classic Appeal To Authority. Rather than make your own argument, you quote an Authority (in another field). Nor did you make an argument of your own, you quoted a Wiki article.

And if you can quote where I appealed to any Authority other than individual reason, I will stand corrected on that point, but I don't recall it.

@Paul4747
“... his qualifications as a physicist did not give him any qualifications as a theologian” is a defacto appeal to the authority of theologians.

You’re right, I did not make an argument, so claims of faulty argumentation do not apply here. I shared an observation, and gave an illustration of an alternative way of thinking (in order to stimulate discussion).

What’s super interesting to me is that when I point out that people reject ideas based more on identity tribes than on the relative merits of the ideas (that’s a casual observation, not a formal argument) they line up in numbers to demonstrate the accuracy of that observation by finding every way to dismiss or discredit the source, rather than engaging the idea on its merits.

I agree with you that Einstein’s field of expertise gives him no more “authority” than you or I in the field of religion, but how would you dismiss his ideas based on their merit instead of based on his lack of authority? Appeal to lack-of-authority is the same fallacy as appeal to authority. Would you care to address the ideas he expressed in those quotes based on their own merit?

@skado I do not bow to the expertise of theologians either; I merely point out that being highly qualified as a physicist doesn't grant a license to comment on matters of religion with any more authority than anyone else.

I see no need for any "transcendental outlook", as there is nothing to transcend. We are here, this is the universe we have. I can't agree that anything defies a rational explanation. The more we learn of genetics, for example, the more we understand that our behavior is rooted in the unconscious programming of our genes; and the more we understand that we can move beyond this programming by our rational thought.

An atheist can equally well be "liberated from the fetters of their selfish desires". I would argue that, without the belief in some afterlife reward, the atheist is in a superior standing morally. A religious person who performs charitable acts because of a commandment compares unfavorably to an agnostic or atheist who does the same out of simple compassion- regardless of the fact that the same act is taking place.

Furthermore, as many have noted, Einstein was functionally an atheist. "Spinoza's God" was the personification of the laws of nature. Einstein merely stood in awe of nature itself. He believed there was a Hidden Variable in the universe, but didn't believe this was any kind of personal God.

@Paul4747
“we can move beyond this programming by our rational thought”

and

“An atheist can equally well be “liberated from the fetters of their selfish desires"”

but

“there is nothing to transcend”

??

@skado No, there is no transcending the physical universe; there is no afterlife. Please don't pluck a fragment of one sentence out of context and then hold it next to others which are clearly about entirely different things.

@Paul4747
If they are about entirely different things then they are things you introduced to the conversation. Neither I nor Einstein mentioned transcending the universe or an afterlife.

Equally is not the right word, the atheist he is talking about is one who says Christians (et al) are wrong so I'm right as opposed to someone who says Christianity is a failed experiment so I should take what I've learned and keep learning.

@Buttercup A "failed experiment?" Strange way of putting it.

i doubt that Einstein ever taught at berkley. he taught at Princteton until retirement.

@callmedubious Took this right out of Wikipedia" Einstein's father, Albert, left Germany in 1933 to escape the virulently antisemitic Nazi threat. Heeding his father's advice, Einstein emigrated from Switzerland to Greenville, South Carolina, in 1938. He worked for the US Department of Agriculture, studying sediment transport from 1938 to 1943. He continued working for the USDA at the California Institute of Technology starting in 1943. In 1947 he took a position as associate professor of hydraulic engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He advanced to full professor, and later professor emeritus. Einstein traveled the world to participate in hydraulic engineering conferences. He was at a symposium at Woods Hole in Massachusetts when he collapsed and died from heart failure on July 26, 1973.[8] "

@azzow2 ,
i thought you were talking about the E= mc2 einstein.

@callmedubious I was very young at the time so I had no way to verify the information.

@callmedubious I did learn something interesting reading Einstin's bio he was only a guest speaker at Princeton not a regular professor.

I personally don’t think it matters what he called himself...nor should we be labelling him.

@Marionville Exactly.