ATTN: People Who Believe in Creation Myths

[Juan_Bottom]

What's the context of what this is from?

I have no clue.

You should find out before you use it. Hint Hint.
Einstein infamously flattered American Christians in a hopeless attempt to get them to stop the Nazis pogrom of killing Jews. He had gone so far as to say that Christianity was the only thing that could stop Fascism.... but the Christians did not act.

Alone this quotation is saying that Einstein would infer or dream up with an idea, and then use rationality to flesh it out. I went over this a few times to make sure that I wasn't misinterpreting it. And this makes sense to me because Einstein daydreamed his theories into being.

What? How do you get that from his quote? He didn't say anything about himself, or how he came up with his theories.

It's saying that logic/reasoning is a faithful tool for humanity, and that intuition is a sacred gift to humanity (yeah, Einstein believed in god, I guess you're going to deduct 20 points from his IQ now?). He then goes on to comment on how our society honors the tool, but has forgotten the gift. Honestly, I don't see how in the hell you could get anything else out of that quote. It's a comment on society, and how we use and honor logic, but completely forget about intuition and/or outright dismiss it.

He told everything about how he came up with his ideas. His explanation of gravity was from a daydream that he developed a test for. He always daydreamed his ideas first. As you will see I am very knowledgeable about Einstein, so therefor I'm certain that I have the context right.

Edit: Upon further viewing of sourced quotes from Einstein, he basically believed that god is nature/reality/our universe.

He was a Pantheist, the same as I am. And you're not doing the description justice at all.

Edit 2: Haha, just found this one by Einstein as well. Figured Juan would like it...

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres.

Jesus Christ TK get your shit together man.
You're stumbling all around yourself in this thread, and this is why I recommend that you check out some literature on what you profess. Right now you're behaving like a musician who cannot read sheet music. To the untrained ear you sound fantastic. But to a fellow musician you're just a string banger. But you show spirit and interest so I think that with some reading you can become a powerful Atheist orate here. But that's for later.
You're mis-interpretting Einstein just the same as you fail to understand or respond to my arguments. Einstein himself made many contradictory statements about religion, which is why there is so much confusion today. He was also a religious apologist like you, which I personally believe sprung from his heritage as a Jew, and the age in which he lived. He lived at a time in which Jews were widely persecuted. But I digress....
Einstein has also attacked stupid ideas, the same as I did. Is he a pantheistic fanatical?
Also, do you know the source of this statement?

[Juan_Bottom]

You do understand that I can do this all day, don't you?

Just like a racist can attempt to justify his racism all day, using examples that don't justify anything and have nothing to do with his point? Yeah, I can see you attempting to justify your bigoted superiority feeling in the same manner all day too.

[Serbia]

You do understand that I can do this all day, don't you?

Just like a racist can attempt to justify his racism all day, using examples that don't justify anything and have nothing to do with his point? Yeah, I can see you attempting to justify your bigoted superiority feeling in the same manner all day too.

Yes, I am so very butthurt. Which is why you see me flaming you, resorting to name-calling, questioning your intelligence... you know, all the things you do to Christians when you feel threatened/butthurt/just plain mad.

: )

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[Juan_Bottom]

Theology is a word for "shit we made up to explain why we made shit up."

ie Theologically, Purgatory must exist because we pray for the dead, even though theology tells us that prayer does them no good.

[Haggis_McMutton]

This is particularly funny since atheists in general know more about religion than religious people.

If you want to deconvert someone, you really should make them read the bible rather than the god delusion. The few cherry-picked passages that most people are familiar with don't do it justice.

[Haggis_McMutton]

religion's staying power is due to its beneficial impact on society (which is why i feel that atheism is a more dangerous belief than young earth creationism). this concerns the cultural aspect of religion.

religion is just a very efficient meme that has implanted itself deeply in our collective minds. It's effectiveness as a meme says nothing to how beneficial or detrimental it is.

then how can you explain the hundreds of different religions that developed independently among different civilizations across the globe? religion as a concept wasn't started by just one person.

furthermore, what makes religion "very efficient" as a meme? there are other worldviews that give even more personal satisfaction (e.g. solipsism) but they aren't nearly as popular.

The reason it is so common is also one of the reasons it is so efficient. It helps assauge some of our deepest fears, fears which are a byproduct of developing higher thinking.
Suddenly you can create scenarios in your mind and you can have abstract thoughts and death starts being something you worry about. You evolve the desire to explain and understand things, which gives you an edge, but then what about the unexplainable? It seems natural that a meme will appear to fill that gap in the same way that species evolve to fill niches in nature.

Also, it's not just a matter of personal satisfaction, it's also cultural/social pressure and fighting competition. And if there ever was a meme that fought against competition ... hoooly shit.

furthermore, why should we be concerned about the truth of an idea in the cultural domain? what is more important is the actual impact it has.

Is this just a very fancy way of saying "Sure WE can handle the truth, but what about the great unwashed masses? How will we keep them in line without the threats and rewards of religion.?"

maybe... except your idea of "the truth" (atheism) is just another system of beliefs (which in recent years has been shown to have just as much memetic potential as religion, if not more).

organized religion isn't really for me, but i understand the beneficial impact it has on many people's lives and therefore i support it. this is a step that i feel a lot of modern atheists don't take. "i don't like organized religion so it must be bad for society, let's eliminate it". yeah, no.

Le sigh. you keep trying to draw deep lines where there are shallow ones at best.
My idea of truth is that a personal god is very unlikely, science has a pretty good track record, and I'd rather take reason over faith. Do you disagree with any of that?
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by memetic potential here. Not all memes are bad. The meme that we evolved from apes, for instance, is a pretty good one. I'd hope it has a "high memetic potential".
Also, Also, I'm pretty sure the reason there seems to be a lotof atheism proselitizing going on is because it's just the atheist's turn to have a social revolution. Once we actually stop being the most distrusted minority and basically unelectable to office I imagine things will cool down.

Anyway, eliminating religion just cause I don't like it is wrong. Keeping religion just because some people use it as a crux is also wrong. Maybe the difference between us is fundamentally one of optimism vs. pessimism. Ultimately I am optimistic about humanity's potential (Carl Sagan will do that to you). I think we can get rid of the divine safety net at some point and realise we're playing for keeps.

[john9blue]

then how can you explain the hundreds of different religions that developed independently among different civilizations across the globe? religion as a concept wasn't started by just one person.

furthermore, what makes religion "very efficient" as a meme? there are other worldviews that give even more personal satisfaction (e.g. solipsism) but they aren't nearly as popular.

The reason it is so common is also one of the reasons it is so efficient. It helps assauge some of our deepest fears, fears which are a byproduct of developing higher thinking.
Suddenly you can create scenarios in your mind and you can have abstract thoughts and death starts being something you worry about. You evolve the desire to explain and understand things, which gives you an edge, but then what about the unexplainable? It seems natural that a meme will appear to fill that gap in the same way that species evolve to fill niches in nature.

Also, it's not just a matter of personal satisfaction, it's also cultural/social pressure and fighting competition. And if there ever was a meme that fought against competition ... hoooly shit.

i agree, but i still don't see how this implies that religion is bad...

maybe... except your idea of "the truth" (atheism) is just another system of beliefs (which in recent years has been shown to have just as much memetic potential as religion, if not more).

organized religion isn't really for me, but i understand the beneficial impact it has on many people's lives and therefore i support it. this is a step that i feel a lot of modern atheists don't take. "i don't like organized religion so it must be bad for society, let's eliminate it". yeah, no.

Le sigh. you keep trying to draw deep lines where there are shallow ones at best.
My idea of truth is that a personal god is very unlikely, science has a pretty good track record, and I'd rather take reason over faith. Do you disagree with any of that?
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by memetic potential here. Not all memes are bad. The meme that we evolved from apes, for instance, is a pretty good one. I'd hope it has a "high memetic potential".
Also, Also, I'm pretty sure the reason there seems to be a lotof atheism proselitizing going on is because it's just the atheist's turn to have a social revolution. Once we actually stop being the most distrusted minority and basically unelectable to office I imagine things will cool down.

Anyway, eliminating religion just cause I don't like it is wrong. Keeping religion just because some people use it as a crux is also wrong. Maybe the difference between us is fundamentally one of optimism vs. pessimism. Ultimately I am optimistic about humanity's potential (Carl Sagan will do that to you). I think we can get rid of the divine safety net at some point and realise we're playing for keeps.

i don't disagree with any of that, given a strict definition of "personal god"

not only are "not all memes bad", but i'd argue that the most successful memes tend to be the most beneficial. makes sense, right? religion as a concept is one of the most successful memes in human history. atheism is also beneficial, but i would argue that it's more beneficial on an individual level than a cultural level (and not for every individual).

if people need religion as a crux, why would you remove it? the fact that it helps people get through life is a GOOD THING.

also, i don't think the removal of religion will help us realize we're "playing for keeps". who is more likely to preserve humanity's future at all costs: someone who thinks humans were designed specially in god's image, or someone who thinks that there are hundreds of other intelligent species out there and humans aren't that important in the grand scheme of things? (note that this is concerned with religion only, and not the radical right's disregard for pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, that's a whole different story lol)

[PLAYER57832]

@player:

you seem to have two major problems with YECs:

- you think that them forcing others to accept their YEC beliefs (e.g. by teaching them in schools) is wrong
- you think that them believing in YEC is wrong

i agree that the first one is wrong. but why is the second one wrong?

Let me back up, because the debate you see and the debates that are actually being waged are different. (And yes, to answer this fully will take more than a couple of sentences.)

People do have the right to believe whatever they wish... as long as they accept it is belief. That goes for believing in God, believing in no God or believing in spaghetti monsters. The problem comes when it is posed as fact or truth. There are actually people who are not Christians who believe the Earth is young. They are very rare today, but exist. I disagree with them, but don't have a specific issue with their ideas. The problem I have with the specific young earth creationist movement brougth back more or less by Dr Morris is that it is based on complete lies. Saying that I think the Earth might be only 6000 years old (or 250,000 or whatever) is a belief. I disagree with that belief, but it is a belief. However, to say that there is proof, that those who disagree are lying, as the Creation Science institute very much does when there is no real and true validity to those accusations is wrong. It is wrong in science AND it is wrong in Christianity. Christ teaches us to seek truth, not deny it.

I can forgive some folks, and for the record, Dr Morris is in this group, who just simply believe so strongly in their ideas that they will flat out ignore evidence, convince themselves they are correct. People can be misguided in many ways and this is just one. However, there is a large segment of folks published by the Creation Science institute, attempting to be published by accepted journals (but failing with a couple of noted exceptions... namely they may get pubished in a journal that really has nothing at all to do with evolution, etc.) and who spend a great deal of time flat out attacking science on many fronts. They go well beyond anything I can accept is legitimate. A number of them pretty much have to know they are flat out lying. At best, they are extremely misguided about what evolution and science puts forward... but only at best. I don't say that lightly. I went through every document I could find for a year and came up with absolutely NOTHING that was in any way legitimate.

There are many places where science has no answer, where science might have erred. However, the process to challenge that is to conduct tests, publish data, etc. Creationists don't do that. They tried and failed.. miserably. So, instead they work on convincing parents to teach their kids only creationism. Too many parents go along. In that I lay a lot of blame on the scientific community, but the truth is that science is very difficult. Even being an expert in many areas does not mean you truly understand it all.. by a long stretch. So, it is not that difficult for someone who knows how to speak academically, etc to convince large numbers of people they know what they are saying. Ironically, the fact that Christians by and large tend to want to give people the benefit of the doubt, etc. makes them even more subject to this.

@
if you're willing to condemn YECs for believing that the earth is a few thousand years old, are you also willing to condemn native americans for believing that plants are spiritual beings?

The first can be proven. The second is a belief. That makes a very, very big difference.

Second, I don't think you really understand native American beliefs. (but that's a completely different topic, so I will leave it at that).

@ when i was talking about the marketplace of ideas, i had the philosophical/scientific domain in mind. that's the "academic" i mentioned. in this domain YEC does not have much of an impact at all.

This is very much untrue. Or rather, it is true at the highest academic levels. You don't, yet see graduate studies in young earth "science", though the Creation Science Institute has tried to issue some in Texas. HOWEVER, if you look at elementary and high schools, the impact is very serious indeed. Creationism does not have to be actually taught for it to have a huge impact. Right now, many schools "deal with" this by basically not dealing with it. Kids are not being taught evolution, etc because schools are afraid of controversy, lawsuits.

[PLAYER57832]

Ya'll kept trying to tie Christianity into Creationism to help paint me as a bigot.

Are you completely ignorant of the Christian Bible? Do you not know that it opens with a Creation story? It is essentially the basis for the religion. The basis in that, since God created the world and all that is in it, he owns the world, and all that it is in it, and makes the rules. (overly simplistic description) I know many Christians for whom the literal 6 day creation story is as critical to their religion as Jesus Christ dying for their sins. Your complete and utter dismissal of these people as being retarded, and beneath you, is bigoted. But obviously you wear the badge proudly.

Gotta step in here because those people who base their belief on the 6 day creation are really building their house on sand. The foundation of Christianity is Christ. Genesis says that God created the Earth, but the length of the day, etc are not defined. Remember, we define a day as a rotation of the Earth. That might mirror some aspect of God's existance or it could be that the use of the term day is simply a way of making the story understandable for humans -- particularly the non-scientific early Jews.

[Symmetry]

if people need religion as a crux, why would you remove it? the fact that it helps people get through life is a GOOD THING.

also, i don't think the removal of religion will help us realize we're "playing for keeps". who is more likely to preserve humanity's future at all costs: someone who thinks humans were designed specially in god's image, or someone who thinks that there are hundreds of other intelligent species out there and humans aren't that important in the grand scheme of things? (note that this is concerned with religion only, and not the radical right's disregard for pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, that's a whole different story lol)

You make some fair points, but this part doesn't really stand up, at least in terms of the way you phrase it. I'm guessing you meant crutch, rather than crux, although "crux" would have been more interesting.

Now say, for the sake of comparison, that you know a drug addict. Say, addicted to an opiate. They get through life on that crutch. Function well, get by. Would you suggest that they get off said opiate? Even if it meant a more complicated life?

[PLAYER57832]

Now say, for the sake of comparison, that you know a drug addict. Say, addicted to an opiate. They get through life on that crutch. Function well, get by. Would you suggest that they get off said opiate? Even if it meant a more complicated life?

For many this is not esoteric debate. Opiates are administered by doctors to allow people to function well who might otherwise not be able to do so. It is medicine. It is when it interferes with life and causes problems that it becomes a true addiction.

(put it another way.. many people are "addicted" pretty heavily to insuline).

And, in a way, I think that actually answers your question. Humans are not just logical, mechanical beings. What many philosophers would say fundamentally distinguishes us from animals is our ability to imagine/dream and form religions. Religious belief is very much a part of who we are. Remove it, and you no longer have much humanity. (but I absolutely include atheistic thinking in this, along with perhaps other alternatives to either atheism or theism of which I cannot imagine right now).

[Night Strike]

Ya'll kept trying to tie Christianity into Creationism to help paint me as a bigot.

Are you completely ignorant of the Christian Bible? Do you not know that it opens with a Creation story? It is essentially the basis for the religion. The basis in that, since God created the world and all that is in it, he owns the world, and all that it is in it, and makes the rules. (overly simplistic description) I know many Christians for whom the literal 6 day creation story is as critical to their religion as Jesus Christ dying for their sins. Your complete and utter dismissal of these people as being retarded, and beneath you, is bigoted. But obviously you wear the badge proudly.

Gotta step in here because those people who base their belief on the 6 day creation are really building their house on sand. The foundation of Christianity is Christ. Genesis says that God created the Earth, but the length of the day, etc are not defined. Remember, we define a day as a rotation of the Earth. That might mirror some aspect of God's existance or it could be that the use of the term day is simply a way of making the story understandable for humans -- particularly the non-scientific early Jews.

It actually says "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day" (exchanging first with second, third, etc.), which pretty clearly indicates a single day and not some undefined period of time. That phrases used are pretty explicit about the units of time during creation.

[PLAYER57832]

Ya'll kept trying to tie Christianity into Creationism to help paint me as a bigot.

Are you completely ignorant of the Christian Bible? Do you not know that it opens with a Creation story? It is essentially the basis for the religion. The basis in that, since God created the world and all that is in it, he owns the world, and all that it is in it, and makes the rules. (overly simplistic description) I know many Christians for whom the literal 6 day creation story is as critical to their religion as Jesus Christ dying for their sins. Your complete and utter dismissal of these people as being retarded, and beneath you, is bigoted. But obviously you wear the badge proudly.

Gotta step in here because those people who base their belief on the 6 day creation are really building their house on sand. The foundation of Christianity is Christ. Genesis says that God created the Earth, but the length of the day, etc are not defined. Remember, we define a day as a rotation of the Earth. That might mirror some aspect of God's existance or it could be that the use of the term day is simply a way of making the story understandable for humans -- particularly the non-scientific early Jews.

It actually says "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day" (exchanging first with second, third, etc.), which pretty clearly indicates a single day and not some undefined period of time. That phrases used are pretty explicit about the units of time during creation.

I see, and you know exactly how long God's day is? How, exactly... because the Bible does not say.

And, by-the-way, the word "day" can be used specifically or generally in both Hebrew and English, as can the words morning and night. ( ...in this day and age... or in the evening of our lives... etc., etc.)

[Night Strike]

I see, and you know exactly how long God's day is? How, exactly... because the Bible does not say.

And, by-the-way, the word "day" can be used specifically or generally in both Hebrew and English, as can the words morning and night. ( ...in this day and age... or in the evening of our lives... etc., etc.)

Considering all 3 of those terms are used in one sentence (morning, evening, and day), it clearly refers to a single day. And considering that Moses was writing this passage to describe what God had done during creation, of course he would put it in plain language that the readers could understand. He wouldn't have used nebulous terms with ambiguous meanings.

[Symmetry]

I see, and you know exactly how long God's day is? How, exactly... because the Bible does not say.

And, by-the-way, the word "day" can be used specifically or generally in both Hebrew and English, as can the words morning and night. ( ...in this day and age... or in the evening of our lives... etc., etc.)

Considering all 3 of those terms are used in one sentence (morning, evening, and day), it clearly refers to a single day. And considering that Moses was writing this passage to describe what God had done during creation, of course he would put it in plain language that the readers could understand. He wouldn't have used nebulous terms with ambiguous meanings.

I'm guessing that you believe that Genesis was written by Moses, but even then there is ambiguity. It's kind of a standard criticism of the text, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict one another on the order of creation. Surely that's ambiguous?

[Juan_Bottom]

Yes, I am so very butthurt. Which is why you see me flaming you, resorting to name-calling, questioning your intelligence... you know, all the things you do to Christians when you feel threatened/butthurt/just plain mad.

: )

We've noticed that Natty and pimpdave have both voiced their support for everything that I've said. Though Natty doesn't like the language. But you're only attacking me... What's more, your posts don't address our points whatsoever; they're arguments of emotion. So I see two options. One, you're trolling for someone else's enjoyment, and your own. Or two, you're butthurt and I'm torturing you by dragging this out instead of ignoring you. So what is it? You don't care what you're white bigoted friends say? But a Mexican can't speak his mind? Are you trolling me? Or are you just butthurt?

[john9blue]

@player:

you seem to have two major problems with YECs:

- you think that them forcing others to accept their YEC beliefs (e.g. by teaching them in schools) is wrong
- you think that them believing in YEC is wrong

i agree that the first one is wrong. but why is the second one wrong?

Let me back up, because the debate you see and the debates that are actually being waged are different. (And yes, to answer this fully will take more than a couple of sentences.)

People do have the right to believe whatever they wish... as long as they accept it is belief. That goes for believing in God, believing in no God or believing in spaghetti monsters. The problem comes when it is posed as fact or truth. There are actually people who are not Christians who believe the Earth is young. They are very rare today, but exist. I disagree with them, but don't have a specific issue with their ideas. The problem I have with the specific young earth creationist movement brougth back more or less by Dr Morris is that it is based on complete lies. Saying that I think the Earth might be only 6000 years old (or 250,000 or whatever) is a belief. I disagree with that belief, but it is a belief. However, to say that there is proof, that those who disagree are lying, as the Creation Science institute very much does when there is no real and true validity to those accusations is wrong. It is wrong in science AND it is wrong in Christianity. Christ teaches us to seek truth, not deny it.

I can forgive some folks, and for the record, Dr Morris is in this group, who just simply believe so strongly in their ideas that they will flat out ignore evidence, convince themselves they are correct. People can be misguided in many ways and this is just one. However, there is a large segment of folks published by the Creation Science institute, attempting to be published by accepted journals (but failing with a couple of noted exceptions... namely they may get pubished in a journal that really has nothing at all to do with evolution, etc.) and who spend a great deal of time flat out attacking science on many fronts. They go well beyond anything I can accept is legitimate. A number of them pretty much have to know they are flat out lying. At best, they are extremely misguided about what evolution and science puts forward... but only at best. I don't say that lightly. I went through every document I could find for a year and came up with absolutely NOTHING that was in any way legitimate.

There are many places where science has no answer, where science might have erred. However, the process to challenge that is to conduct tests, publish data, etc. Creationists don't do that. They tried and failed.. miserably. So, instead they work on convincing parents to teach their kids only creationism. Too many parents go along. In that I lay a lot of blame on the scientific community, but the truth is that science is very difficult. Even being an expert in many areas does not mean you truly understand it all.. by a long stretch. So, it is not that difficult for someone who knows how to speak academically, etc to convince large numbers of people they know what they are saying. Ironically, the fact that Christians by and large tend to want to give people the benefit of the doubt, etc. makes them even more subject to this.

what i can gather from this post is that your primary beef with the YEC movement is that they claim that their opponents have malicious intent or are lying (as opposed to other beliefs such as native american animism whose adherents do not claim that disbelievers of their theory have malicious intent).

you are a person who frequently insists that her opponents (whether they be YECs, pro-life advocates, proponents of heavy capitalism, disbelievers in global warming, etc.) are bad people with malicious intent. so your criticism of YECs in this post seems quite hypocritical.

your other beef with YECs is that they don't follow the scientific method, and yet attempt to make their beliefs part of mainstream science. this falls under the first category of my earlier post, so i agree that it is wrong.

You make some fair points, but this part doesn't really stand up, at least in terms of the way you phrase it. I'm guessing you meant crutch, rather than crux, although "crux" would have been more interesting.

Now say, for the sake of comparison, that you know a drug addict. Say, addicted to an opiate. They get through life on that crutch. Function well, get by. Would you suggest that they get off said opiate? Even if it meant a more complicated life?

haggis originally used the word "crux" and i repeated it just thinking about the context in which it was used. i had a brain fart i guess.

player gave a good response, but i will also say that being addicted to drugs generally decreases one's quality of life and is not comparable to religion (which increases one's QOL except in rare cases)

We've noticed that Natty and pimpdave have both voiced their support for everything that I've said.

this is... possibly the worst way in the world to convince someone that you are correct...

[PLAYER57832]

I see, and you know exactly how long God's day is? How, exactly... because the Bible does not say.

And, by-the-way, the word "day" can be used specifically or generally in both Hebrew and English, as can the words morning and night. ( ...in this day and age... or in the evening of our lives... etc., etc.)

Considering all 3 of those terms are used in one sentence (morning, evening, and day), it clearly refers to a single day. And considering that Moses was writing this passage to describe what God had done during creation, of course he would put it in plain language that the readers could understand. He wouldn't have used nebulous terms with ambiguous meanings.

Your interpretation disagrees with a good many scholars of the Bible and ancient Jewish texts. It is only in modern times that some people have decided this is "clear". Before that, even the most scientific minds had no concept that the Earth could be billions of years old.

[PLAYER57832]

what i can gather from this post is that your primary beef with the YEC movement is that they claim that their opponents have malicious intent or are lying (as opposed to other beliefs such as native american animism whose adherents do not claim that disbelievers of their theory have malicious intent).

No.

If you want to see what the Morris, et all think about Evolution just read their website. They make it perfectly clear they consider it anti-Christian and repeat over and over that evolution was created to refute Christianity, etc. So its not just my belief or claim, it is very much what they themselves say.

The rest is similarly verified and presented. However, to see it as lying you have to also know science. And, sadly, even many people who loosely study science, who accept evolution don't take the time to critique much of anything in the way it needs to be done.

you are a person who frequently insists that her opponents (whether they be YECs, pro-life advocates, proponents of heavy capitalism, disbelievers in global warming, etc.) are bad people with malicious intent. so your criticism of YECs in this post seems quite hypocritical.

Hypocritical to think that people ought to at least study what they believe? That they need to verify facts before presenting them?

your other beef with YECs is that they don't follow the scientific method, and yet attempt to make their beliefs part of mainstream science. this falls under the first category of my earlier post, so i agree that it is wrong.

I distinguish heavily between the IRC/Dr Morris ilk and the many, many who simply believe that someone who puts something up on a website and seems to be scientific is speaking truth. I also very much distinguish between those who simply have faith. And it goes beyond their just not following the scientific method. Its that they claim they do real science.. and are flat out not.

I respect, though disagree with people who say "I believe the Earth is less than 200 thousand years old .. no matter what the science says". I disdain and get angry with people who claim that scientific truth is being denied and that the evidence shows that the earth is young.

I think you share that line.

[tkr4lf]

What's the context of what this is from?

I have no clue.

You should find out before you use it. Hint Hint.
Einstein infamously flattered American Christians in a hopeless attempt to get them to stop the Nazis pogrom of killing Jews. He had gone so far as to say that Christianity was the only thing that could stop Fascism.... but the Christians did not act.

You are right, I should have made sure to know more about the quote before I posted it. But to be fair, it wasn't meant for anybody specifically, or to make any point other than what I understood the quote to be saying, which is that our society far values logic/rationality over intuition, which isn't necessarily right. Both have their place, and one shouldn't be more important than the other. They are both tools we can use to figure out our world.

Alone this quotation is saying that Einstein would infer or dream up with an idea, and then use rationality to flesh it out. I went over this a few times to make sure that I wasn't misinterpreting it. And this makes sense to me because Einstein daydreamed his theories into being.

What? How do you get that from his quote? He didn't say anything about himself, or how he came up with his theories.

It's saying that logic/reasoning is a faithful tool for humanity, and that intuition is a sacred gift to humanity (yeah, Einstein believed in god, I guess you're going to deduct 20 points from his IQ now?). He then goes on to comment on how our society honors the tool, but has forgotten the gift. Honestly, I don't see how in the hell you could get anything else out of that quote. It's a comment on society, and how we use and honor logic, but completely forget about intuition and/or outright dismiss it.

He told everything about how he came up with his ideas. His explanation of gravity was from a daydream that he developed a test for. He always daydreamed his ideas first. As you will see I am very knowledgeable about Einstein, so therefor I'm certain that I have the context right.

That's cool if Einstein said that that is how he came up with his ideas. But the quote says nothing about that, which is what I was saying. If you have more knowledge about this quote, like where it came from and the context surrounding the quote, then fair enough. But taken by itself, the quote says nothing about what you have said here.

When I posted it, I had no intention to be supporting religion with it. I see no way that the quote does support religion. Intuition does not equal religion.

But, you seem to know more about it than I do, so...

Edit: Upon further viewing of sourced quotes from Einstein, he basically believed that god is nature/reality/our universe.

He was a Pantheist, the same as I am. And you're not doing the description justice at all.

Yeah, it probably doesn't do it justice. That's why I said basically.

Edit 2: Haha, just found this one by Einstein as well. Figured Juan would like it...

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres.

Jesus Christ TK get your shit together man.
You're stumbling all around yourself in this thread, and this is why I recommend that you check out some literature on what you profess. Right now you're behaving like a musician who cannot read sheet music. To the untrained ear you sound fantastic. But to a fellow musician you're just a string banger. But you show spirit and interest so I think that with some reading you can become a powerful Atheist orate here. But that's for later.

I don't really see how I'm stumbling all around myself in this thread. With these last few posts, sure. I should have checked what I thought were facts before posting them. I admit that. But everything else in this thread has been me questioning/calling you out on your methods. Again, that's my only problem here. I'm not arguing the merits of religion or atheism or anything else with you, simply the merits of your methods of debate.

There is nothing wrong with calling people out, whether it be for their intolerance or for their ideas. But there is a way to do it. Calling people names isn't the way to go. It simply puts people on the defensive, instead of opening their minds to hearing your message. I have recently made the same mistake that you are making, by calling certain people out on their atrocious spelling/grammar. Calling them retards did nothing to help my cause. It simply put them on the defensive, and then the whole thing resorted into basically a flamefest, which is not conducive to debate at all.

As for becoming a powerful atheist orate, I have no such desire. I'm a libertarian at heart, and as such I believe that as long as you're causing no direct harm to others, then you can do/say/believe whatever you would like to. I have no desire to convert anybody or change anybody's mind. As I've said before, the only time I usually even bring up my beliefs is if somebody directly asks me, or if some religious fanatic starts preaching to me or around me.

As for the literature, perhaps I could give some of it a try. Here pretty soon, I will be gone from here for a while and will have plenty of free time to sit around and read. Do you have any recommendations? Authors, specific titles, etc., are all fine.

You're mis-interpretting Einstein just the same as you fail to understand or respond to my arguments. Einstein himself made many contradictory statements about religion, which is why there is so much confusion today. He was also a religious apologist like you, which I personally believe sprung from his heritage as a Jew, and the age in which he lived. He lived at a time in which Jews were widely persecuted. But I digress....

I may be misinterpreting what Einstein said, but as you yourself have said, he has many contradictory statements, so perhaps it is understandable. As for failing to understand you, no, I don't think so. I have failed to respond to some of what you have posted, but that is because, like I said, my only issue is your methods. I don't really wish to debate anything else. I just take issue with the intolerance that is shown. As an atheist, I'm sure you take issue with the massive intolerance shown by the religious fanatic types, such as the Westboro Baptist people. To take issue with that, but then turn around and be just as intolerant, is massively hypocritical. As a fellow atheist, I felt I should call you out on it. I feel like the militant ones give us atheists as a whole a bad name, just like the fanatical christians give the christians as a whole a bad name.

I also don't think that I'm a religious apologist. I take issue with a lot of things religion has caused and continues to cause, but I still believe they have a right to believe whatever they would like to. Debating people about their religious beliefs is fine, but it should be done respectfully.

Einstein has also attacked stupid ideas, the same as I did. Is he a pantheistic fanatical?
Also, do you know the source of this statement?

Obviously I don't know as much about Einstein as you seem to, but I'm willing to assume that when he did attack what he considered to be stupid ideas, he did so respectfully and without resorting to name calling and belittling. More than likely he attacked the idea, not the person. Assuming I am correct, and he was reasonable about attacking what he considered to be stupid ideas, then no, I wouldn't call him fanatical. If I am incorrect, and he did belittle people and call them names, if he did attack the person instead of the idea, then yes, I would call him fanatical.

As for that quote, the only source I could find for it is this:
The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214.

But I don't really see what it matters, his intentions are quite clear with that quote. He clearly says that the intolerance of fanatical atheists is just as bad as the intolerance of religious fanatics. The part about being creatures who cannot hear the music of the spheres I don't really understand, but from what I can gather that terminology is part of his "religious" beliefs.

[tkr4lf]

Hey, some good has come out of this for me. I have recognized my own massive hypocrisy regarding intolerance/name calling. It's not right for me to call you out on it when I have recently done it myself. So I will apologize to the people involved in my own affair.

As I said earlier, there is a way to call people out. Name calling and belittling is not that way. Not if you want your message to be received.

[Haggis_McMutton]

The reason it is so common is also one of the reasons it is so efficient. It helps assauge some of our deepest fears, fears which are a byproduct of developing higher thinking.
Suddenly you can create scenarios in your mind and you can have abstract thoughts and death starts being something you worry about. You evolve the desire to explain and understand things, which gives you an edge, but then what about the unexplainable? It seems natural that a meme will appear to fill that gap in the same way that species evolve to fill niches in nature.

Also, it's not just a matter of personal satisfaction, it's also cultural/social pressure and fighting competition. And if there ever was a meme that fought against competition ... hoooly shit.

i agree, but i still don't see how this implies that religion is bad...

You were making the point that religion's popularity is somehow correlated to how beneficial it is for society, I was just disputing that.

not only are "not all memes bad", but i'd argue that the most successful memes tend to be the most beneficial. makes sense, right? religion as a concept is one of the most successful memes in human history. atheism is also beneficial, but i would argue that it's more beneficial on an individual level than a cultural level (and not for every individual).

See, this is what I'm arguing against. popularity has nothing to do with benefit to society. It's just competing memes, some are more successful than others. As long as they don't actually kill off the host, the meme's reproduction and survival is much more important than the well-being of it's host, much less the whole of society.

if people need religion as a crux, why would you remove it? the fact that it helps people get through life is a GOOD THING.

also, i don't think the removal of religion will help us realize we're "playing for keeps". who is more likely to preserve humanity's future at all costs: someone who thinks humans were designed specially in god's image, or someone who thinks that there are hundreds of other intelligent species out there and humans aren't that important in the grand scheme of things? (note that this is concerned with religion only, and not the radical right's disregard for pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, that's a whole different story lol)

I'm not saying you're supposed to explain to the grieving mother how her son is now worm food or anything.
I just think we should strive for a society where people don't need that crutch.
We've been pretty clearly moving towards more and more rational beliefs. First there was the magic stage (the spirits in the rock), then the mythic one(human like superbeings, often with violent mood swings), then the monotheistic one. Why would you want to stagnate at this point? Let's proceed to reason already.

As for preservation, I wouldn't be too worried about people deciding they can f*ck up and die off out of unselfish reasoning.
I'm more worried about people thinking this life and this earth don't matter quite so much. After all, it is just the warm up for what's to come.

How can you truly appreciate this life when you think it's a piece of shit in comparison to what follows?

[daddy1gringo]

Hey, some good has come out of this for me. I have recognized my own massive hypocrisy regarding intolerance/name calling. It's not right for me to call you out on it when I have recently done it myself. So I will apologize to the people involved in my own affair.

As I said earlier, there is a way to call people out. Name calling and belittling is not that way. Not if you want your message to be received.

Would that everybody on this forum came to that revelation.

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm not a hypocrite though.