Hmm… I was going to say, “But read the rest of my message”, then saw that I forgot to add the rest of my message. D’oh!
I was going to say that Einstein had explicitly said multiple times that he simply meant that he felt no need to believe in a deity, because his wonder at the incredible majesty and beauty of the universe was all he needed, and was as close as he was going to get.
You’re right - it was a metaphor, and Einstein said so many times. That hasn’t stopped some religious people to pointing to him as an example of a brilliant scientist who also believed in God.
There’s nothing in his belief that requires a soul, eternal life, or a supernatural being of any sort. He’s basically saying, “I’m in awe of the incredible complexity and beauty and organization of the universe, and I feel like our tiny brains can’t begin to comprehend it all. That’s awe-inspiring and I get an almost religious feeling contemplating it.”
That’s why he said he was not an athiest - he felt that we were so far away from understanding the entirety of the universe that it would be arrogant to make categorical statements of what does and doesn’t exist - which actually isn’t required of atheism either, but Einstein may have been thinking of it differently at the time.
But keep in mind that Einstein was also talking at a time when being an outspoken athiest could get you into real trouble, so he may have couched his beliefs with enough wiggle room that he wouldn’t be attacked as a Godless heathen. But he made it pretty damned clear that he wasn’t talking about supernatural beings at all, but rather just the mystery and wonder of the universe itself.
"Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza…On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”
Einstein didnt believe in a “personal god”. That pretty much is what a deist is.
No, you could be a outspoken atheist in the 1950’s- many were. Read about the history of atheism.
I’m not sure where you get that conclusion from in your cites.
Now about strong atheism - the author of your cite does not define strong atheism as gnostic atheism, that is the claim to know that there is no god.
I wonder how many people do claim this. I’ve been debating this subject on line since 1975, and I’ve run into only one, and both atheists and theists considered him to be an idiot. (this was on alt.atheism, not here.)
The god of deism is unknowable by definition, and how can we know anything about a possible god of a planet in a galaxy a billion ly away?
Now Christians especially sometimes get any god mixed up with their God - which is the basis of Pascal’s wager, which considers only the Christian god and no god as the possibilities. And people have trouble even defining the Christian god. I can say that I know the tri-omni Christian god does not exist, since the concept is logically contradictory. Other versions? Who knows? The one who create the Earth 6,000 years ago doesn’t exist, since we have strong evidence that didn’t happen.
And, btw, someone who believes in this god is deluded or irrational.
Strong atheism means belief in no god as opposed to lack of belief in a god. And we, unlike you, are open to evidence against our belief. It would have to be very strong evidence, none of which has been forthcoming.
BTW there was a taoist temple next door to my hotel in Kowloon. The worshipers there were every bit as convinced in their gods as you are in yours. What do you call them?
Your cite contradicts your assertion. A religious nonbeliever is not the same thing as a deist. Deists, and we have a few here, do believe in a god but one which set the universe in motion and then no longer interacted with it.
For instance Tom Paine was a deist not an atheist. In The Age of Reason he explicitly rejected atheism because he could think of no reason for the structure of the solar system other than what we could call intelligent design.
He might change his views if he was alive today.
Martin Gardner, another deist, was certainly a believer, unlike Einstein. Just not in your god.
Someone who claims he can prove there is no god is certainly an atheist, since that just means lack of god belief. But if you say this belief is what atheism is, then you must say that the rabid hating Christian defines what Christianity is.
And there are more of them then there are gnostic atheists in my experience.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you were right. Being Jewish in the 1930s was scary enough.
But a lot of people back then (and still today) defined atheism as knowledge that there is no god, and Einstein might have been, correctly, rejecting this position. Even Huxley used this definition, which is why he called himself an agnostic not an atheist. I have a collection of essays by him floating around somewhere.
But the Christians in your community are Canadians, and so are nice by definition.
I think Jews go to hell in some Chick tract or other. And the Baptists who came to my door weren’t going to give me a path. And forcible conversions throughout history were done in order to save us from hell. Obviously not all Christians believe this, today, but it has been the case more often than not.
Back when angels were a big thing (inspired by the stupid TV program, I suppose) one lady said that she forgot her bag at an airport and someone came up to her and gave it back, having seen her leave it. She said this proves angels.
I’ve done nice things for people, and people have done nice things for me, but if some lady said that my giving her the bag proved that angels existed I’d take it right back.
If your treatment for cancer or other diseases involves casting out demons, I suggest that your will be in order and that you have your casket picked out. The science you scorn has raised our life expectancy an awful lot.
Jesus very much WAS the virgin tossed into the volcano to appease God. He had to be perfect, untainted by sin, and the sacrifice was to benefit the villagers—or in this case, the whole world. There are so many similarities to other myths, including the virgin birth, the birthday right after the winter solstice on December 25, the miracles, that it seems wrong not to assume that JC was a well-written amalgam of other myths all rolled into one. He makes so much more sense if looked at as mythology rather than history. That way, the non-science aspects of the bible (and there are many) become a moot point, since stories give the writer creative license.
I call BS. I’ve been very active in the atheist community in one of the 15th largest metropolitan areas in the US, for many, many years. I have never met ONE “hardcore”, “unfriendly”, or “strong” atheists, by your limited definitions. You do realize that Psychology Today is a pop psychology rag, don’t you?
If you look hard enough, you’ll no doubt find extremists anywhere, but they do NOT represent anyone other than themselves.
The basic consensus of atheists here, if such a thing were codified, would be “I don’t believe in a deity unless and until I see ANY evidence” .
Picking and choosing outliers makes you look desperate.
I think it is quite plausible that Jesus was a real person and those who wrote about him added all the myths you mention, which was quite common back then. The Bethlehem story was added to satisfy the Messianic prophecy. The virgin birth story was added to satisfy a mistaken translation of a prophecy. I think Dec. 25 was set way later to co-opt the pagan winter solstice celebration. Can’t blame the gospel writers for that one.
Well, at least it has ‘psychology’ in the name, meanwhile WorldNetDaily and Evolution News (That’s the Discovery Institute!) are cites for questions of Constitutional law!
Atheism is a religion the same way “bald” is a hair color. Seriously, if you were bald and you were filling out a questionnaire which asked for your hair color, you’d probably write in “bald” but what you really mean is “I do not have a hair color because I am bald”. Still, when compiling the results of the questionnaire, it would make sense to list “bald” as one of the options and specify how many people chose that option. And if there was a law protecting your right to dye your hair, I would expect the Supreme Court to rule that it also protected your right to be bald. But only a jerk would pounce on these facts and say, “AHA! This proves that everyone has hair. Even bald people have hair and they are the most arrogant of all because they make the ridiculous claim that their hair has no color. Bald people are such hypocrites.”
A religion is set of practices and arbitrary beliefs (dogma). Atheism has no practices and no dogma. Some atheists says they are unconvinced that a god exists, others say they are convinced that no gods exist. That still doesn’t make it a religion. But any law which protects your right to practice religion must also protect your right to be an atheist, just like any law that protects your right to choose your own hair color must also protect your right to be bald, and any law that protects your freedom of speech must protect your freedom to not speak.
