HOME | DD
AAtheist — There is only one Truth
Published: 2012-06-24 17:12:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 5056; Favourites: 51; Downloads: 59
Redirect to original
Description
If you like this kind of thing please take a look at my facebook page at [link]Related content
Comments: 41
I've been looking at all the discussion below and I think it's ridiculous. It's absurd the amount of effort and thought Atheists put into legitimate debate only to be met with blabbering and denial (or even worse trolling and ridicule). Even worse, if we don't, we're considered fraudulent and to have just as much blind faith as the Religious. They burden us with the task of finding evidence, and just sit on their blind faith, and even when we find evidence they just flat out ignore us.
I love it when people say "Atheism is a religion as much as Christianity" because it really shows just how little they know about not only what Atheism is, but what a religion is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I prefer the statement "atheism is just a different type of dogma". What an ideology is does not matter, merely that stupid or evil people believe in it (or lack belief in anything else) enough that they are fanatics about it. When you look at it, the difference between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany-two states opposite in all their propaganda and self-proclaimed political orientation-are pretty much only differed by the language they shouted when they threw someone in the gulag/death camp.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Fear not. There are many thinking Christians out there like C.S. Lewis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The thing is, miracle, by its nature, is not testable, so folks shouldn't question it just because they can't try it out themselves. Who are you to demand God, or really any supernatural entity, to let you play and exam their powers?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was not talking about miracles with this quote, but since you brought them up...
It's funny how miracles only occurred when there was no way to record them properly. In fact every recorded "miracle" that has ever been testable in any way by science has turned out to be something else.
To steal a line from Tim Minchin.
"Throughout history, every mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be...
...Not magic."
There are things we do not understand or know, but that does not mean that they are caused by God, and many "miracles" are actually very easy to explain.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is not funny. Biblical God has been said to provide us freedom to choose what to belive in, so He couldn't possibly allow any of His miracles to be examined to the point of proving His existence beyond any doubt (for a person who clearly don't want to believe in Him [like most atheists]).
Comprehending several aspects essential for a physical effect to work at all (aka what our science can tell), is different from all-embracing understanding. Last time I checked, even science can agree, that 3 dimensions is not enough to explain the workings of this world. So what if there were more, supernatural dimensions, in which every 3 dimensional object has it's own existence, so that they could be manipulated from there, too?
Think about it! Supernatural or not, physical examination would still be our only tool, so unless the results of a supernatural event was something out of ordinary (which, as stated before, God couldn't allow to happen just anyhow) we would simply dismiss it as a natural event. The only scientific way to prove the existence of supernatural dimensions would be running a perfect simulation of our world and then end up with a different results. Even then it can be claimed, that the difference was caused within the physical world itself (aka simulation wasn't perfect).
With that said, it'd be really easy to see people choosing science over God because its evidences, whatever truthful or false, seems more concrete (satisfying their need of certainty), its overall message and some individual claims fits better their already existing beliefs, and its deficiency are hard to recognize and easier to understate due those two formerly mentioned reasons. In other words, the same exact reasons why some people live by some bullshit religions and beliefs. I'm stating this as a possibility to point out, that scientific world view and life philosophy is certainly not as free from bias of human mind as most people might think, and that its trustworthiness has generally been greatly overstated.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For an even better explanation for miracles than what my spiritual brother\sister\whichever just provided, read C.S. Lewis' miracles. Just like my wife, it's a mind-blowing experience, but admittedly hard to finish. X-D (I'm not actually married, though. I just wanted to make that joke.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You can't use a religious person's words as an argument against religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Two things.
1. Why not? I know you might not get this, but just because someone is religious, does not mean they are automatically wrong in anything they say.
2. You have no idea what you are talking about. Einstein was certainly NOT religious in the context that you mean it. Maybe if you read some of the quotes below (All with genuine first sources so that you read up on them and check them for authenticity yourself) you will better understand what Einstein thought of religion.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modelled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught , "Breaking the Last Taboo " (1996)
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
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.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)
"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws." W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer , p.123.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Einstein flatly said that he wasn't an atheist. He associated himself with pantheism, which is a religion nevertheless.
www.deism.com/einstein.htm
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And yet you send me to a religious website to argue your point for you? Fantastic.
Actually Einstein said that he believed in Spinoza's god, which is certainly a pantheistic belief, but is definitely NOT a religion. Pantheistic religions exist, they are called (among others) Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and others.
If you wish to continue arguing that he was religious, may I suggest you actually bother to read what I put before trying to twist his views to suit your own needs? Just in case you decide to, here are the quotes I gave you earlier. I think you will find they are very much against the idea of an organised religion.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modelled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught , "Breaking the Last Taboo " (1996)
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
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.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)
"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws." W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer , p.123.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not being for organized religion does not mean he was not religious in a personal way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Did you bother to read the quotes I gave you at all?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And this is supposed to impress me in some way? You are basically admitting that you have a closed mind and that there is no point in debating with you at all. You are in effect admitting that you do not listen to other people, but actually just spend time rehearsing your own arguments over and over again. It also means that there is no point in reading your replies, because they are basically going to be nothing more than garbage, the same garbage in fact, over and over again. It will have little to no basis in the ongoing debate and could safely be ignored as pointless.
Why do you bother arguing at all? You certainly aren't going to convince anyone else with your childish reliance on false data. The only people you can safely debate with are people who think as you do, everyone else will simply get bored and begin ignoring you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because for all the quotes you've given me I've found ones directly countering them.
I argue against people who-like yourself-encourage beliefs I oppose.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I encourage no beliefs, I do not even like to encourage atheism. It is something that I personally ascribe to, however I prefer people to think for themselves. I do not like organised religion, but people are welcome to whatever private beliefs they choose.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The problem with that, is that we can't all be right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't expect everybody to be right, I expect people to allow others to live their lives as they choose, rather than attempting to dictate what others should believe and do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I only care that others do right and the Law ought to reflect that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But who defines right? If we use your Holy book to define right then if someone rapes a hot virgin then he has to marry her and pay her father for the privilege of stealing her virginity.
The Law is in place to try and make the world as fair as possible, and to try and make sure that everybody gets as close to equal treatment as possible. The law is in no way perfect, in fact it has many problems with it. Far to much control of it is in the hands of rich people and people who believe that only they know how others should act for a start.
Try to hard to force others to do right and you will end up with the thought police from 1984, instead try to make certain that they wish to do right, and this can only be done through education, even here you have to be careful you don't take it to far and it instead becomes indoctrination.
Right is not a black and white concept. It changes depending on context and circumstances, the Law is not capable of describing all circumstances or all consequences. This is why a judge still has to decide the length of a sentence depending on his perception of the case at hand.
Is stealing always wrong?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As I said, rape and indecent sexual activities are the same thing in the Ancient Hebrew Language.
True enough.
In a state ruled by God's Law, it would most likely be semi-authoritarian in it;s rule over the populace, though not entirely totalitarian.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No you didn't say that, and how exactly is this supposed to help your case?
Much of the law you espouse is shared by Islam, you do realise that don't you? What you are espousing is very similar to the Islamic states that appear so often for their human rights violations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I said it in a separate comment.
The media willingly goes after Islamic states because it is a state that disagrees with what they define as Human Rights. I'm not saying that Islamic states don't go too far, but I also believe many Islamic governments have fallen away from the message of the Prophet Mohammed. And I was referring to a hypothetical state in which the Law of the Land was God's Law. If done correctly, many societal evils would be eliminated and corruption and corporate dominance would be lowered. However any government run by people is doomed to eventually fall, either to the sword and fire or to decadence and corruption.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
God's law. So no wearing clothes of mixed fabric? Leviticus 19:19. Women are not allowed to have authority, or teach anybody anything? Timothy 2:12. We should be on the lookout for witches and kill them if we find them? Exodus 22:18. And of course we should stone to death gay people? Romans 1:27. Wives should consider their husbands as they would the lord? Ephesians 5:22. Slaves should obey their masters? Colossians 3:22.
Or my favourite, parents should kill disobedient or troublesome children, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and also Exodus 21:15/17 and of course people should always be willing to kill children at gods command, Genesis 22:2-10
I think I would prefer the decadence and corruption of today's society thanks. At least here you aren't instructed to kill your own children.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because it's a well-known fact that Ancient Hebrew translates abundantly well into English.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course it doesn't but there is only so much room for misunderstandings. If it was a newly transcribed language I might be inclined to give it a bit more leeway for translational errors, but it's not.
Yes, concepts and ideas that were not widely used at the time translate badly. Yes individual words also translate badly and can have slightly different connotations to their equivalent in English.
This does not however change everything to the point were sentences can have completely different meaning, and concepts like slavery and killing translate very well indeed thank you, considering that they are both widely understood and discussed in both languages.
Further, even if it were the case that it was so uncertain what the actual translation meant, how could you possibly trust anything the bible said? If it was so uncertain that a perfectly innocuous statement could come to mean a child should be killed if it speaks back to its parents, how can you possibly trust everything else it says?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I trust what Church scholars say regarding the true meaning.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi, very sorry I haven't replied yet, I promise Iam not ignoring you. Unfortunately I am now working on a farm in the Australia and cannot get on the internet very often, I don't have time to reply to you at the moment, but I will get back to you as soon as I can.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No problem. I am myself visiting Ireland and my laptop has broken so I must use my mother's iPad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Albert Einstein:
"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."
"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
""Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
"Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."
"a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be"
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
None of those quotes are sourced. -_-
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well aren't you the unimaginative one? No worries I'll just give you the same reply I did last time.
First of all you provide no original source material for your quotes, on what authority, exactly, do you say that he said these? Secondly please take a moment to read the quotes below (along with a statement of all original sources).
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited
by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
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?"
Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J Stenger, Has
Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.
Strange is our situation here on Earth. Each of us comes for a short
visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From
the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know:
that man is here for the sake of other men -- above all for those upon
whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends.
-- Albert Einstein, quoted from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of
Disbelief, p. 241
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the
individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor
such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted
from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics
to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind
it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited
by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
[Excerpt]
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9
November 1930
[Passage]
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological
concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will
or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with
undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior
should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and
needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor
way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward
after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9
November 1930
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dude, is this guy trolling you? I already pointed out to him that his argument about the Church being the singular champion against the 1,000 year Reich was unconscionable horse shit. In lieu of the fact Hitler himself was an active catholic and that Germany's youth were prominently catholic as well; and were educated by catholic priests and nuns.
I also pointing out the dreaded godless communists who risked a million of their asses to stop Germany's eastern front dead in the snow. All of whom answered to an atheist leader, Joseph Stalin.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah he just blasted my Einstein images with these quotes and then didn't bother looking at the replies. Obviously not interested in an actual debate, just reinforcing their own beliefs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Imposing your theological points of view on people with belligerent self-righteousness is a staple in religion. [link]
It's everything to do with the mentalities aggrandized in the Bible: Moses confronts the Pharaoh in his palace, his home. Then what does he do? He forces his demands on the pharaoh: he doesn't ask, he tells him 'let my people go, or shit's going to get biblical'. No persuasion, just threats and a magic act with a stick. Then come the plagues, where basically the Abrahamic faiths contend, to this DAY, that terrorism is okay as long as a divine patriarch with no one to answer to does it. Even at the cost of innocent children.
This kind of lunacy persists all the way into the new testament.
Christ goes into the temple, the property of the Jewish people, and beats the money lenders off the premises. A public place of worship (where these lenders obviously have consent) and one man feels compelled to push his aggression on others. All in the name of God: and this is the central figure in the whole compendium of Christian scriptures. This is the peaceful guy.
To this day my family still justifies the killing of the firstborns. The irony? These people are "pro-life".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Religious hypocrisy is pretty universal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's true. Einstein has said some pretty wise stuff in his life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
