The fear of Atheism

[Magic Man]

I thought he was being too sarcastic and harsh on the other poster and was pointing out that Einstein did not share his atheism.

That's why I said to show me where the other poster said that Einstein was atheist. He never said that, and his points concerning Einstein actually implied that Einstein wasn't an atheist. If you thought he was being too sarcastic, then say that, but don't use evidence that supports his position when trying to oppose that position.

 

[Draka]

I just couldn't take all the screwed up quotes where you couldn't tell who said what anymore...so here's a fixed up recap:

Einstein was a genius, a visionary,
But you're no Einstein.

Einstein also said " God did not shoot dice with the universe."
Einstein was not an atheist.
I guess you're no Einstein either.

He was expaining your first sentence in his post. If you didn't get it, maybe read it again. Einstein wasn't a theist, some consider him an atheist, but most consider him an agnostic. So, maybe your last sentence could apply better to you.

Einstein leaned towards pantheism and saw the greatness of God in the universe and its order but did have some difficulties with the personal aspect of God which at that point becomes interpretation of the dimensions and nature of God. It doesn't matter what other people say about Einstein because he had his own words to describe his beliefs. Maybe you could do a little more homework on this topic.

First, please fix your quote so that it doesn't look like I said those first three lines. Second, I'm not really sure what you're getting at in your post here. You insulted the other poster by implying he was disagreeing with the quote you posted from Einstein. In fact, he was explaining the quote you posted, and so was not at all disagreeing with it. You agreed with him by posting the quote, which shows me that you didn't understand what the other poster was saying.

And please show me the quote from the other post where he says that Einstein was an atheist.

I thought he was being too sarcastic and harsh on the other poster and was pointing out that Einstein did not share his atheism.

 

[Michel07]

That's why I said to show me where the other poster said that Einstein was atheist. He never said that, and his points concerning Einstein actually implied that Einstein wasn't an atheist. If you thought he was being too sarcastic, then say that, but don't use evidence that supports his position when trying to oppose that position.

Your're interpreting what I said again.
When I said " Einstein was not an atheist." I wasn't alluding to the poster having said that..
I was stating a fact to illustrate to the poster who is an atheist that if he thinks Einstein was so brilliant how come he's an atheist when Einstein wasn't. And in that there is an irony in telling the other poster that he was no Einstein. Now do you see what I mean?

 

[Michel07]

I just couldn't take all the screwed up quotes where you couldn't tell who said what anymore...so here's a fixed up recap:

Thanks

 

[Magic Man]

Your're interpreting what I said again.
When I said " Einstein was not an atheist." I wasn't alluding to the poster having said that..
I was stating a fact to illustrate to the poster who is an atheist that if he thinks Einstein was so brilliant how come he's an atheist when Einstein wasn't. And in that there is an irony in telling the other poster that he was no Einstein. Now do you see what I mean?

When you post two statements about a subject that has just been talked about by the other poster, and then tell them that they're "no Einstein", that generally implies that you don't think they knew the statements you made. I'm sorry if I misconstrued that.

 

[fantome profane]

I was stating a fact to illustrate to the poster who is an atheist that if he thinks Einstein was so brilliant how come he's an atheist when Einstein wasn't.

It is possible to recognize genius and acknowledge a greater intellect without abdicating ones own right and responsibility to think for themselves.


As for myself I count Einstein as a major influence in my own “spiritual” and intellectual development. He is one of the main reasons I have come to a pantheistic view of the universe. But still I disagree with Einstein on some things (I believe that “God” does play dice with the universe).

 

[Michel07]

It is possible to recognize genius and acknowledge a greater intellect without abdicating ones own right and responsibility to think for themselves.


As for myself I count Einstein as a major influence in my own “spiritual” and intellectual development. He is one of the main reasons I have come to a pantheistic view of the universe. But still I disagree with Einstein on some things (I believe that “God” does play dice with the universe).

I don't agree with Einstein on everything either in matters of faith. Some people know a lot about one thing or the other and even though he did come to his conclusions from scientific observations he wasn't a theologian. He did acknowledge though his belief in God from his perspective.I also see genius in some theologians and religious people because of experience that is out of the ordinary. Their way of thinking is profound and so for me while only a fool does not acknowledge what is under his nose ( that which he can observe) it is no fool who thinks profoundly about matters that are less tangible.

 

[GadFly]

I don't agree with Einstein on everything either in matters of faith. Some people know a lot about one thing or the other and even though he did come to his conclusions from scientific observations he wasn't a theologian. He did acknowledge though his belief in God from his perspective.I also see genius in some theologians and religious people because of experience that is out of the ordinary. Their way of thinking is profound and so for me while only a fool does not acknowledge what is under his nose ( that which he can observe) it is no fool who thinks profoundly about matters that are less tangible.

Michel07 thanks for trying to reason with our friends the atheist but that will not be possible for some time now. They have been beaten by a gad fly. The disease they now have is like those who were bit by the gad fly of Athens. The citizens of Athens would not stop their rage until they killed Socrates. Would you not say that the last ten responses match the biblical account of Psalms 2? Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

I wonder how many who read the last ten responses will recognize rage is not reason? I know that I am still laughing. I know they are vexed beyond belief. Or will the readers and monitors recognize a personal attack due to the infection of a fly bite. One of the atheist is so frustrated at having to use premises to back up his thinking process that he flat out gave up reasoning altogether for a guide to lead him to the truth. As far as the GadFly could tell, he was not giving up anything because he never used reasoning for anything anyway.

Their attack on you has been harsh but you have done a good job in defending your faith. I admire your patience and kindness to them but kindness will not work because the Apostle Paul pointed out to the Ephesians: This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Be of good cheer, brother
GadFly

 

[Michel07]

Michel07 thanks for trying to reason with our friends the atheist but that will not be possible for some time now. They have been beaten by a gad fly. The disease they now have is like those who were bit by the gad fly of Athens. The citizens of Athens would not stop their rage until they killed Socrates. Would you not say that the last ten responses match the biblical account of Psalms 2? Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

I wonder how many who read the last ten responses will recognize rage is not reason? I know that I am still laughing. I know they are vexed beyond belief. Or will the readers and monitors recognize a personal attack due to the infection of a fly bite. One of the atheist is so frustrated at having to use premises to back up his thinking process that he flat out gave up reasoning altogether for a guide to lead him to the truth. As far as the GadFly could tell, he was not giving up anything because he never used reasoning for anything anyway.

Their attack on you has been harsh but you have done a good job in defending your faith. I admire your patience and kindness to them but kindness will not work because the Apostle Paul pointed out to the Ephesians: This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Be of good cheer, brother
GadFly

I don't know about some things Gad Fly but I certainly believe in " seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened." but I have rarely seen the proud to know of God and can't help but wonder if that is not God's will also. Either you trust your own intellect or the God who gave it to you. Keep Faith.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think Einstein was an agnostic or deist at best. Here are a few quotes said to be of Einstein's:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism."

"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."

"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."

[source]

 

[Storm]

"I believe in Spinoza's God..."

That's pantheism.

 

[fantome profane]

"I believe in Spinoza's God..."

That's pantheism.

Well so much of what Einstein said strikes me as being pantheistic, and as I said I count him as one of the influences that lead me to pantheism, but he also said this:

“I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” - Einstein

I also have to point out that wiki says this quote is in dispute, so I really don’t know, I leave it to you to decide

 

[Magic Man]

This is what I love about this place. Some consider him an atheist, some an agnostic, some a pantheist. We can get all of the opinions on it, and, in doing so, get a lot of information out of it. Maybe we'll never be able to classify him exactly, but I'd rather get all of these quotes and know a more in depth view than just know he's labelled as "this".

 

[s2a]

Michel07 thanks for trying to reason with our friends the atheist but that will not be possible for some time now. They have been beaten by a gad fly. The disease they now have is like those who were bit by the gad fly of Athens. The citizens of Athens would not stop their rage until they killed Socrates. Would you not say that the last ten responses match the biblical account of Psalms 2? Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

I wonder how many who read the last ten responses will recognize rage is not reason? I know that I am still laughing. I know they are vexed beyond belief. Or will the readers and monitors recognize a personal attack due to the infection of a fly bite. One of the atheist is so frustrated at having to use premises to back up his thinking process that he flat out gave up reasoning altogether for a guide to lead him to the truth. As far as the GadFly could tell, he was not giving up anything because he never used reasoning for anything anyway.

Characterization/insinuation is not some form of intellectual rebuttal. Impugning the character of an adversary in debate is illogical. "Fly bites" present neither empirical evidences, nor ontological substantiations of ANYTHING. Yours is a rapt and ready dismissal designed to tactically evade what is actually said, by coloring the stated position as one espoused by an ignorant fool...that does not/can not share the "wisdom/insight" that you offer as an enlightened believer of "TRUTH". In a word...that's stupid.

Sure...I readily enough acknowledge that you envision yourself as some sort enlightened "fly" within the soup of "TRUTH". I would only opine that such a fly typically lends neither enhanced flavor, nor any memorable recipe to follow in future incarnations of attempted duplications.

Not unlike the cosmos itself, idiocy is boundless...and beyond full accounting or complete measure by any sentient species within this existent realm.

Most of the time, a fly is just a fly. Easily swatted, and immediately forgotten...and never considered an integral ingredient of any "soup".

 

[Draka]

Characterization/insinuation is not some form of intellectual rebuttal. Impugning the character of an adversary in debate is illogical. "Fly bites" present neither empirical evidences, nor ontological substantiations of ANYTHING. Yours is a rapt and ready dismissal designed to tactically evade what is actually said, by coloring the stated position as one espoused by an ignorant fool...that does not/can not share the "wisdom/insight" that you offer as an enlightened believer of "TRUTH". In a word...that's stupid.

Sure...I readily enough acknowledge that you envision yourself as some sort enlightened "fly" within the soup of "TRUTH". I would only opine that such a fly typically lends neither enhanced flavor, nor any memorable recipe to follow in future incarnations of attempted duplications.

Not unlike the cosmos itself, idiocy is boundless...and beyond full accounting or complete measure by any sentient species within this existent realm.

Most of the time, a fly is just a fly. Easily swatted, and immediately forgotten...and never considered an integral ingredient of any "soup".

Let's not forget...the fly eventually drowns in the soup too. Just there...floating...contaminating what would otherwise be a good soup with its crap that it so often lingered in. Yum.

 

[Manipulated]

I must say these forums would be boring without the religion of atheism.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I must say these forums would be boring without the religion of atheism.

What is the "religion of Atheism"?

I've never heard that term before...

 

[GadFly]

Characterization/insinuation is not some form of intellectual rebuttal. Impugning the character of an adversary in debate is illogical. "Fly bites" present neither empirical evidences, nor ontological substantiations of ANYTHING. Yours is a rapt and ready dismissal designed to tactically evade what is actually said, by coloring the stated position as one espoused by an ignorant fool...that does not/can not share the "wisdom/insight" that you offer as an enlightened believer of "TRUTH". In a word...that's stupid.

Sure...I readily enough acknowledge that you envision yourself as some sort enlightened "fly" within the soup of "TRUTH". I would only opine that such a fly typically lends neither enhanced flavor, nor any memorable recipe to follow in future incarnations of attempted duplications.

Not unlike the cosmos itself, idiocy is boundless...and beyond full accounting or complete measure by any sentient species within this existent realm.

Most of the time, a fly is just a fly. Easily swatted, and immediately forgotten...and never considered an integral ingredient of any "soup".

The "fly bite" thing is something I say when the opponent of debate has resorted to the tactics you describe or refuses to follow or recognize logic in the debate. Often when the opponent has resorted to statements like "Are there really people like you," "How can you believe something like that," "you present no proof at all, just ignorance," "You show your ignorance," "You must be out of your mind,""Do you always attack a person" etc. Sometimes one must resort to stupid things like "fly bites when dealing with stupid debaters. It may be the only thing they understand. I don't mean to infer anybody is actually stupid. I am only responding to the use of the term here. Well, maybe I do mean it that way because I felt my fly bite apparatus automatically move into position. Sometimes it is a conditioned response.

Often the opponent of debate who can not win the argument with correct logic, resorts to name calling and attempts to make the opponent feel guilty for the antagonist's failures. Most people on this forum have resorted to sarcasm to prove a point or to quite the discussion. "Are you one of those people" is a good example of how to put down an opponent before he has had a chance to say anything about the argument. The GadFly uses the fly bite thing to tell the antagonist he is responding out of anger and not common sense or logic. It is relatively effective but it seems to generate more hostility than needed towards the GadFly. For that reason, you will probably see far less use of the fly bite thing but at he same time, the GadFly thinks it is also humors the way it reflects what is really wrong with opponents. So,let me say this: see you when it is time for the next bite ..... just joking.
GadFly

 

[Magic Man]

The "fly bite" thing is something I say when the opponent of debate has resorted to the tactics you describe or refuses to follow or recognize logic in the debate. Often when the opponent has presorted to statements like "Are there really people like you," "How can you believe something like that," "you present no proof at all, just ignorance," "You show your ignorance," "You must be out of your mind,""Do you always attack a person" etc.

Often the opponent of debate who can not win the argument with correct logic, resorts to name calling and attempts to make the opponent feel guilty for the antagonist's failures. Most people on this forum have resorted to sarcasm to prove a point or to quite the discussion. "Are you one of those people" is a good example of how to put down an opponent before he has had a chance to say anything about the argument. The GadFly uses the fly bite thing to tell the antagonist he is responding out of anger and not common sense or logic. It is relatively effective but it seems to generate more hostility than needed towards the GadFly. For that reason, you will probably see far less use of the fly bite thing but at he same time, the GadFly thinks it is also humors the way it reflects what is really wrong with opponents. So,let me say this: see you when it is time for the next bite ..... just joking.
GadFly

There's only one problem with all of that: There is no logic in your arguments.

 

[GadFly]

Let's not forget...the fly eventually drowns in the soup too. Just there...floating...contaminating what would otherwise be a good soup with its crap that it so often lingered in. Yum.

But s2o is good at sarcasm. You are not, so guess what's left? .....nah, it's not nice to call names. A fly does avoid falling into sewers which were once good soup. In the home and on the plate, that's where a fly spoils things. Now I know what was said here does not mean anything, but the whole thing is humorous child's play and an attempt to swat
You can tell how seriously I am injured by your sarcasm. :cigar:

Come on everybody, let's love everybody. A gadfly is a person too.
the GadFly. :bow: