Something I think bares reading.

[Ghel]

5 seconds with Google would have answered that for you instead of throwing that out just to be flippant.

Actually, my 5 seconds of searching unearthed criticism of the book that quote is from that the author had very little evidence to back up his claims of Einstein's religious views. But that's really moot, as I'll get to in a moment.

Perhaps, but he certainly has more reason and understanding than most people and seemingly more knowledgable about our behaviour and society. That alone makes him worth a listen.

It's probably true that Einstein was knowledgeable about human behavior. But what I was saying was that he had no more evidence for a god than any other person, which is all that matters to me.

Just because what they are saying can't be proven with the scientific method doesn't mean that it isn't a valid path to human knowledge.

In response to Mumford's article, I would want to ask him what method he would like to use that yields as good of results, if not better, than science. The reason science is the best tool we have for learning about the universe is that it produces reliable, repeatable, usable results. You don't get that kind of results from mysticism.

I have to ask, if I were to say "I love my fiance" would you ask me to prove it? If we are going to apply that standard to religion, to provide proof, to other areas of life, we are in trouble. There is nothing I can do to prove that I love my fiance, but I know that I do, as does he.

First of all, I don't like to use the verb "prove" in these situations. It is very easy, I would hope, to demonstrate that you love your fiance. All you should have to do is be near your fiance, and the way you and your fiance behave towards each other should be enough to demonstrate to anybody around you that you love each other.

When we're talking about a god, however, we're talking about it existing, not somebody's feelings towards it. It's even easier to demonstrate that your fiance exists than to demonstrate your feelings towards him. We could talk to him, see him, shake hands with him, smell his cologne, etc. We can do none of these things with a god. What we're looking for, here, is some evidence of the god's existence. So far, no one has produced any.

If my friend said he had a cat, but when I went to his house, I saw no cat, no cat hair, no cat food, no cat toys, no litter box, why would I believe that he had a cat?

[Gravekeeper]

If my friend said he had a cat, but when I went to his house, I saw no cat, no cat hair, no cat food, no cat toys, no litter box, why would I believe that he had a cat?

Because the cat inspired people to write a book that they left behind on the coffee table!

......sorry <cough>.

And my 5 second Google search actually brought that quote up on a number of atheist websites. ;p


"A conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors." - Albert Einstein

That one was given both in in a talk he gave and latter in a work he published himself. Really, his thoughts on science, religion and atheism aren't a huge mystery. His problem was with the concept of a "Personal God" as in the western concept of God. The all creating, all powerful, all knowing sky wizard thats watching you masturbate in brooding judgement.

[Peppergirl]

The problem is that those Christians who aren't hateful bigots never rarely speak up about their faiths.

What complete and utter hogwash. Seriously.

Speaking for myself, I've ALWAYS been very open and outspoken about the fact that I'm a Christian, I'm pro-CHOICE, and I'm pro-GAY MARRIAGE.


What's it going to take for you to stop generalizing about how every Christian hates gays and therefore wants you dead?

After awhile the 'well, if you lived where *I* live and have been through what *I* have been through' line doesn't wash.

You have been through some horrible, HORRIBLE things and for that, I am deeply sorry. I am also deeply sorry that all of the people who have hurt you profess to be Christian. It disgust me to the point of almost physical illness.

However, I'm sick and tired of hearing how awful every single christian on the planet is, simply because of YOUR experiences.

I'll say it again: I am Christian. I am Pro Choice. I am PRO Gay marriage and many of my best friends are gay, both male and female.

I'm truly not sure what it's going to take to get through.

And on that note, I'm hijacking the atheism vs christianity thread and for that, I apologize.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled circular debate.

Edited to add: I failed to notice that you changed your 'never' to 'rarely'. A step in the right direction, but still a long way. Nearly every Christian that I personally know is pro-gay marriage. I'll concede that in your area there are probably very few, but in many areas, it's not all that rare.

[Hyena Dandy]

What complete and utter hogwash. Seriously.

Speaking for myself, I've ALWAYS been very open and outspoken about the fact that I'm a Christian, I'm pro-CHOICE, and I'm pro-GAY MARRIAGE.


What's it going to take for you to stop generalizing about how every Christian hates gays and therefore wants you dead?

After awhile the 'well, if you lived where *I* live and have been through what *I* have been through' line doesn't wash.

You have been through some horrible, HORRIBLE things and for that, I am deeply sorry. I am also deeply sorry that all of the people who have hurt you profess to be Christian. It disgust me to the point of almost physical illness.

However, I'm sick and tired of hearing how awful every single christian on the planet is, simply because of YOUR experiences.

I'll say it again: I am Christian. I am Pro Choice. I am PRO Gay marriage and many of my best friends are gay, both male and female.

I'm truly not sure what it's going to say to get through.

And on that note, I'm hijacking the atheism vs christianity thread and for that, I apologize.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled circular debate.

Edited to add: I failed to notice that you changed your 'never' to 'rarely'. A step in the right direction, but still a long way. Nearly every Christian that I personally know is pro-gay marriage. I'll concede that in your area there are probably very few, but in many areas, it's not all that rare.

Its not really a Christianity versus Atheism debate by now. At least from my perspective its a "People should be respected, even if you disagree" versus "No, religious people should have their beliefs mocked."

No wonder mods keep needing to come by.

[Peppergirl]

No wonder mods keep needing to come by.

I probably should have pointed out...the post I made was most definitely made in 'mod hat off' mode.

[Mytical]

Personally, I think that this discussion has gotten to that point. The point where we have to realize we are not going to change anybody's mind, and that we are talking in circles. Let those who don't believe not believe. Let those who do, do. Any of the ones who don't who can't respect others, pity them. Any of the ones who do believe, and can not let somebody not..pity them as well.

[Ghel]

Every time I try to steer this discussion towards logic, reason, and evidence, I am told that I lack respect or humility. Instead of all these ad hominem responses, I would like to see people actually addressing my arguments. But nobody has said "those examples you gave of ridiculous beliefs aren't ridiculous, and here's why" or "there is evidence for a god, and here's a link to a peer-reviewed article that demonstrates it" or "here's a method of gaining knowledge that works just as well as science (if not better)".

Personally, I think that this discussion has gotten to that point. The point where we have to realize we are not going to change anybody's mind...

I disagree. GK and I were able to find common ground on most of the things we were discussing. He changed my perspective on one or two points, and I think I may have changed his perspective on one or two points, as well. That makes the conversation worth the month or so we've been having it.

I'll say it again: I am Christian. I am Pro Choice. I am PRO Gay marriage and many of my best friends are gay, both male and female.

Here's what I think the relevant questions are: Is there a reason to oppose abortion that isn't religious-based? Is there a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't religious-based? Regarding abortion, you might be able to find a philosophy that isn't religious but still regards abortion as wrong, but I don't think you could find the same for same-sex marriage. Opposition to either should be based on the harm it does towards the individual or society, not on what some religious authority says.

[Gravekeeper]

I disagree. GK and I were able to find common ground on most of the things we were discussing. He changed my perspective on one or two points, and I think I may have changed his perspective on one or two points, as well. That makes the conversation worth the month or so we've been having it.

True. While I am not, nor will ever be an atheist, I have learned a few things I didn't know in this thread and found some new stuff to read. Thus I have aquired +Wisdom, which is the entire point of my theism anyhow. -.-

Here's what I think the relevant questions are: Is there a reason to oppose abortion that isn't religious-based?

You could oppose it based on simple morality. It's just difficult to seperate morality from religion with a lot of people is all. I'm pro-choice despite default Buddhism being pro-life. Simply becase pro-life is an unrealistic viewpoint that falls into the realm of "In a perfect world, sure" for me. In a perfect world where everyone only gets pregnant when they mean too, there's no rape, no incest, etc then sure, pro-life all the way. But until we achieve that magical utopia, pro-choice all the way.

Is there a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't religious-based?

No. ( That was easy! )

[Mikkel]

Is there a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't religious-based?

No. ( That was easy! )

There are fear. Fear of other lifestyles.

[Ghel]

There are fear. Fear of other lifestyles.

You mean the unreasonable fear of things that are poorly understood?

[Cata]

You mean the unreasonable fear of things that are poorly understood?

Not necessarily. Tribalism is, generally speaking, just a fear of what is different. You can understand it and still fear it, if it's different enough from what you're accustomed to.

[Mytical]

The problem with 'logic', 'reason', and 'evidence' that there is nothing beyond what humans can understand..is there is none. To think that humans are the pentacle, the end all and be all, of evolution is a bit egotistical. Or that our limited understand of the universe means we know everything about it. Logically, if you believe that the universe is indeed billions of years old then any number of things could exist that we have no clue about.

Including a being that designed, made, and controls said universe.

Let us assume however, that somehow some way matter and energy always existed (how this can always exist and an entity that creates such can not, we won't discuss again as that seems a futile effort). 1) Do you honestly believe in the assumed billions of years that the earth was the first with life on it? That evolution was not possible on ANY other planet, million, maybe billions of years before Earth was even formed? Really?

Now if they have those extra millions/billions of years, what could they have evolved into? A higher power could simply be a being or beings who has evolved. Something beyond our knowledge.

Look at how many 'absolute, unquestionable' facts eventually got proven wrong. So..your arguments that logic, etc dictates there can not be anything beyond what humans can understand I find a bit..questionable.

[Ghel]

I hated having to break this quote into pieces, but there's just so much wrong here.

The problem with 'logic', 'reason', and 'evidence' that there is nothing beyond what humans can understand..is there is none.

I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. Are you saying there is no evidence beyond what humans can understand? I can't tell. Could you state this a different way?

To think that humans are the pentacle, the end all and be all, of evolution is a bit egotistical.

Does anybody actually believe this? Certainly no evolutionary biologist would. Anyone who understands evolution understands that every species alive today is the pinnacle of evolution today. If it wasn't, the species would have died off before reaching today. Evolution is not a ladder. Humans are not more evolved than other species. We might be more successful (which could mean many different things) than other species, but that doesn't mean that we are superior to any other species.

Or that our limited understand of the universe means we know everything about it.

Who claimed that we know everything about the universe? We (humans, collectively) are learning new things about the universe every day.

Logically, if you believe that the universe is indeed billions of years old then any number of things could exist that we have no clue about.

Including a being that designed, made, and controls said universe.

Until someone demonstrates that such a being exists, we have no business believing it exists.

Let us assume however, that somehow some way matter and energy always existed

Yes, that's pretty much the current understanding.

(how this can always exist and an entity that creates such can not, we won't discuss again as that seems a futile effort).

Let me push you in the right direction, and maybe you can figure out the answer to this one yourself. The matter and energy that (very probably) has always existed has not always existed in the same form. Think about that. It's far more profound than it seems at first glance.

1) Do you honestly believe in the assumed billions of years that the earth was the first with life on it?

Not necessarily, but it's the only one we know of.

That evolution was not possible on ANY other planet, million, maybe billions of years before Earth was even formed? Really?

Now if they have those extra millions/billions of years, what could they have evolved into? A higher power could simply be a being or beings who has evolved. Something beyond our knowledge.

That extra time for evolution to work doesn't necessarily mean that the resulting creatures would be more "evolved." Some creatures, such as crocodiles, have remained largely unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Or that they would necessarily have survived to the present. Some 99% of species that have ever lived have gone extinct.

Even if somewhere in the universe, some species existed that was more technologically advanced than humans, or more knowledgeable, or had evolved some sort of hive mind that allowed them to communicate at the speed of light over interstellar distances (which would still be a slow way to communicate), that still wouldn't make them a "higher power." They would be different, but not necessarily superior. I've watched enough sci-fi to know that if an alien shows up claiming to be a god, something is horribly wrong. As Kirk said, "What does God need with a starship?"

Look at how many 'absolute, unquestionable' facts eventually got proven wrong.

Right, like that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is the center of the universe. Things that religion (mostly Catholicism) continued to believe long after after they were demonstrated to be false by scientists. The problem is not that these "facts" were proven wrong, the problem is that when these "facts" were corrected, authority figures refused to acknowledge it.

So..your arguments that logic, etc dictates there can not be anything beyond what humans can understand I find a bit..questionable.

Who said this? Certainly not me. It might help if you addressed your arguments to the person who made the claims you're attempting to refute.

Oh, wait. You're talking about my statement that science is the best tool we have for learning about the universe, aren't you? Or are you? You haven't addressed my actual point: that any method of gaining knowledge that someone posits will have to show that it is at least as good at providing usable, repeatable, reliable results that can be used to make predictions about our universe as science is. If it can't, then it's not as good of a tool as science.

I actually think that, while there are limits to what humans can know currently, there may not be limits to what humans can ever know. We continue to build on our knowledge, discovering new things and correcting the mistakes of the past. Therein lies the promise of humankind - to build, to examine, to explore, to cure, to comfort, to benefit us all. Knowledge is the most precious thing we have, and we should all treasure it.

[Andara Bledin]

There are fear. Fear of other lifestyles.

For the most part, it all boils down to fear more than anything else. Religion is just a handy excuse for being against things people fear.

You mean the unreasonable fear of things that are poorly understood?

Not necessarily. There are people who fear things that they understand just fine, but still cannot accept purely due to basic xenophobia.

I hated having to break this quote into pieces, but there's just so much wrong here.

This, right here, is why people respond to you and not your points.

You could have just addressed the flaws as you saw them, but instead, you chose to be insulting first. It's demeaning and lessens the impact of anything else you might have to say to anyone that doesn't already agree with you.

Oh, wait. You're talking about my statement that science is the best tool we have for learning about the universe, aren't you?

No. He's talking about statements like this:

Until someone demonstrates that such a being exists, we have no business believing it exists.

According to this statement, nobody has any business believing in the abstract or having faith in things that cannot be quantified, which is quite uncompromising and, in a lot of ways, intolerant.

I, personally, find this a very bland and cold way to exist and it's not for me.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

The theory of a flat earth is exactly one of the problems. Lets take the scientific approach on the matter that seems to be the 'catch all' being used. That being that unless it is observable, we must dismiss it, as it can not be proven.

So therefore nothing existed beyond that horizon. It could not be observed, therefore didn't exist. IE the earth was flat. Those who dismiss a possible higher power are doing the exact same thing. They are 'thinking the earth is flat' so to speak. After all, we can not see it, must not exist. Right?

Which was the point I tried to make. Closing ones mind to the fact there might be something beyond that horizon gets us nowhere. Even limits the amount of knowledge we might possibly gain.

You see no evidence that a higher being can possibly exist, or that it doesn't matter if there is or not. So, will you be one of those who when the first person to cross over that horizon and returns, refuses to believe there is anything beyond that horizon? I mean, at the time they could not PROVE they had went beyond that horizon. All the evidence you have, points to them 'making it up'. They must be delusional, liars, or suffered heat stroke .. right? .

Would you then argue that people should ignore the sailors claims? Since they can't prove it, it doesn't exist. That nobody should believe there is anything past that horizon, and if they do they are delusional? That what is beyond that horizon shouldn't even be considered, anymore then say a 'flying spaghetti monster' should be considered?

Right now our knowledge, technology, and understanding can not provide proof. So it can't exist right? We are still living in that flat earth?

Well, I am the modern 'sailor' of the 'uncharted waters'. You want to know why I believe there is something beyond death? No, I've not had a 'near death experience'. However, I have seen spirits, and more then one. Can I prove it? Even if I had a camera at the time, and it was ready (which would make me personally question somebody..would be a bit 'convenient') there is no guarantee that our current devices can capture/measure/etc such a phenomenon.

All I can tell you is, I've been past that horizon, seen what is there, and the world is not flat. There are things that humans can not fathom, can not understand, and can not prove..yet. While spirits do not by themselves prove a 'higher power', if there is life after death my hope is that somebody is there to explain things. Not proof there is something beyond just being a spirit, however, I will admit.

You ask for proof, and currently there is none. I am sure that many people in the past asked for proof the Earth is not flat. Refused to even consider the Earth was not flat. The question is, should we not consider what is beyond that horizon? Should we not look beyond that horizon? Should we not seek answers?