Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He very often denied being an atheist, and he was very much opposed to atheism. And he stated his opposition to atheism repeatedly.
He did not believe in a personal god, as described in Judaism and Christianity. He respected Spinoza's pantheism. But he repeatedly said that the human mind is not capable of understanding these things.
And I agree, we are not capable of understanding the universe.
My opinion is the opposite of Dawkins, because he is absolutely sure that the universe is mindless and he sees no reason why human intelligence can't ultimately figure it all out.
Most atheists today are followers of Dawkins or indirectly influenced by him. Dawkins and Einstein are philosophical opposites.
So when you claim that the only way to be scientific is to be an atheist, you are simply repeating Dawkins' personal opinion.
Why are you so obsessed with Einstein or any other particular person. I've known a number of geniuses that were fools.
It is possible to mention someone as an example without being obsessed with them.
Atheists now days seem to think they are scientific, and everyone else is not.
I wonder then that you keep going on about Dawkins. I suspect that we know why. Theist apologists seem to have inherited a mindset of Unquestioning reverence for Authority and its' Written Pronouncements (see? My caps work fine ) from years of being Obsessed with the bible and Worshipping the pronouncement of their religious leaders.
They cannot imagine that atheists don't have the same mindset, so they are obsessed with Dawkins, the Pope of atheism, as they see it. I have read a lot more of Creationists and Bible apologists than I have of Dawkins. Why I should i want to read someone telling me that God probably doesn't exist? I don't need bias confirmation.
Theists on the other hand, seem to find an Authority figure in Einstein, greatly iconic scientific figure. Can't deny anything he said, because he's a scientist, right? No of course not. So is Dawkins, but he is the Wrong Kind of scientist -one that isn't on the side of God. Einstein, now, he's the Right Kind of scientist as he is on the side of God. Right? In fact he wasn't, no more than Hitler was an atheist But let's not digress.
The point is that the Theiopologetic view of scientists and science is entirely conditioned by Faith -based bias. If it supports the Faith then the science and the scientist is not only sound, and valid, it is pretty much unquestionable, like Holy Writ - even if it is wrong - misunderstood or misrepresented, like Einsteins references to 'God'. Whereas, if it doesn't support the faith, then the scientist and science is deprecated as being worshipped by atheists, as though that made it untrue.
The problem is entirely down to faith -based bias by the god -believers and their projecting of their flawed and biased mindset onto atheists.
Einstein was not an atheist. He believed something like what I believe, universal consciousness. If you think my beliefs are unscientific, then you think Einstein was unscientific. But it's a very safe bet that Einstein was a whole lot more scientific than you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
No one is beyond errors in thinking. You missed the point. If you think I am unscientific because I believe in universal consciousness, then you must think Einstein was unscientific.
Please try to follow logic for a change.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Einstein was a whole lot smarter than me. He was certainly a better mathematician. The average ten year - old is a better mathematician than me. He certainly regarded the workings of the universe (what he called "God") were ordered and regular. That was why he rejected Quantum physics on the grounds that "God does not play dice". He was wrong. Einstein, great mind and scientist that he was, was wrong, because he had Faith in an assumption that the universe was ordered. That may have implied a cosmic intelligence, maybe not. He certainly said that most people would consider him an atheist. But it was the only thing he had staked Faith on and it was the one thing that continued to wrongly hold to for the rest of his life.
Einstein is not only an admirable scientist and an inspiration to those with pet theories that nobody listens to but also a lesson -that refusal to consider alternative explanations because of Faith can let down even the best and most scientific brains.
Please try to follow the actual facts rather than rely on the special pleading and misrepresentations that you are pleased to call "Logic".
I have no doubt whatsoever that Einstein was a whole lot smarter than me. He was certainly a better mathematician. The average ten year - old is a better mathematician than me. He certainly regarded the workings of the universe (what he called "God") were ordered and regular. That was why he rejected Quantum physics on the grounds that "God does not play dice". He was wrong. Einstein, great mind and scientist that he was, was wrong, because he had Faith in an assumption that the universe was ordered. That may have implied a cosmic intelligence, maybe not. He certainly said that most people would consider him an atheist. But it was the only thing he had staked Faith on and it was the one thing that continued to wrongly hold to for the rest of his life.
Einstein is not only an admirable scientist and an inspiration to those with pet theories that nobody listens to but also a lesson -that refusal to consider alternative explanations because of Faith can let down even the best and most scientific brains.
Please try to follow the actual facts rather than rely on the special pleading and misrepresentations that you are pleased to call "Logic".
Einstein was wrong about a lot of things. And he had all his great ideas before age 30.
I was in no way suggesting we should believe everything Einstein believed. I was just giving one example of a scientific person who was not a materialist.
Now days, science and materialism have become unfortunately connected. I think this was because of Dawkins' Selfish Gene idea, from the 1970s. So much more is known now about the overwhelming complexity of genetics, but atheists are still stuck on Dawkins' simple-minded materialism.
He very often denied being an atheist, and he was very much opposed to atheism. And he stated his opposition to atheism repeatedly.
He did not believe in a personal god, as described in Judaism and Christianity. He respected Spinoza's pantheism. But he repeatedly said that the human mind is not capable of understanding these things.
And I agree, we are not capable of understanding the universe.
My opinion is the opposite of Dawkins, because he is absolutely sure that the universe is mindless and he sees no reason why human intelligence can't ultimately figure it all out.
Most atheists today are followers of Dawkins or indirectly influenced by him. Dawkins and Einstein are philosophical opposites.
So when you claim that the only way to be scientific is to be an atheist, you are simply repeating Dawkins' personal opinion.
It's invidious to post this or that remark by Einstein as his views on religion can be misinterpreted,but I think that his views are best exemplified here.
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
"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."[Wiki]
I can't tell you what to do, but let me tell you at least that wagging Einstein about and stomping on Dawkins because of whether you see them as being on your 'side' or not is not going to impress me. I admire the work of both of them, but I don't base my views on the god -claim on either of them as an authority -figure, let alone allow bias to use one as a banner and deprecate the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
It is possible to mention someone as an example without being obsessed with them.
Atheists now days seem to think they are scientific, and everyone else is not.
Perhaps 'obsession' isn't quite it. I think that it is, as i said - because Theists..indeed theist -thinking - likes to use icons. Einstein is often represented by Theists as a god-believer. It wasn't in a personal god, much less a religion, but I'm prepared to credit that it was Spinozan enough to be 'Intelligent nature'. I can live with that and it doesn't decrease my respect for the man. So Einstein is an Icon for the Theist side - the most iconic God -believing scientist in the western world. Odd that they don't wave Newton about so much, but then this is a Modern scientist -not one from the old days when almost everybody believed in a creator-god.
On the other hand, you have Hitler. The Icon of evil, and thus of course the ideal weapon to bash atheism with. "What's that? You say he was a god -believer? Impossible. No god -believer could be so evil. He HAD to be an atheist". I'm not making this up. I was doing apologetics through the time that Hitler was an 'atheist' and all attempts to show that he wasn't were dismissed and often still are. "He may have said that he was anti atheist but his actions show that he must have been one." I'm sure you don't need to did too deep into your tiny stash of logic to see what's driving That argument.
Since then, Stalin and Pol Pot have been fielded as substitutes for Hitler..they were atheists, sure...but you can feel that the theist side weep for the loss of Hitler as an atheist -basher.
So there is a very simple way that you can show that you are not obsessed by Einstein, since it is shown that he does not assist your case: don't mention him again. Each time you do, expect to be told that you are obsessed by Einstein - as a poster -boy for Theism.
Now as to science. I won't go too deep into how atheists may not have to mix science with religious faith and the dodgy and fraught mental compartmentalisation that entails, but I would certainly say that we are part of Rationalism. That part of rationality that is specifically concerned with the god -claim. That's the rationale of atheism, And rationality of course opts for the tools with the best track record for finding facts. Science is the one - no contest. Thus as rationalist, we use science, just as others do. And if we may get the idea that we are more prone to be rationailsts and thus scientific than most others, perhaps there's good reason for that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-22-2018 at 10:04 AM..
I mean, the guy could walk on water and turn bread into wine. Why not?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) from years of being Obsessed with the bible and Worshipping the pronouncement of their religious leaders.
but also a lesson -that refusal to consider alternative explanations because of Faith can let down even the best and most scientific brains. 
