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?

[smileyeagle1021]

It doesn't bother me that people have religious beliefs, as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves. As soon as they state their beliefs as true, then they open themselves up to ridicule. They also accept the burden of proof, and since the vast majority of religious beliefs can't be demonstrated, they can be dismissed as false.

To quote Mark Morford (a devout and vocal athiest)

To suggest that the scientific method, peer-reviewed research, et al, while deeply precious to the advancement of the species, is the only path to valid human knowledge? I find this is almost exactly as packed with total shimmering BS as believing there's a hoary grandfather squatting on a gilded throne in the Carina Nebula surrounded by winged toddlers, all watching you make stupid choices and masturbate to Danish fetish porn.

original article

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. There are some things we just can't explain, something for which I am eternally greatufl. Life would be quite boring without at least a few unanswered questions.
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.

[Gravekeeper]

Even if that quote is accurately attributed

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

It is difficult to figure out what Einstein actually believed, based on his writings.

He talked quite a bit about religion, God, Jesus and the like.

"If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity." - Albert Einstein, Mein Weltbild.

Einstein was effectively agnotistic with, much to my surprise, the occasional Buddhist like quip. He rejected western concepts of God, but was open to teachings that would advance the good of humanity as a whole. He was for understanding and the liberation from self, while opposing the egotism of self. Which is a Buddhist like viewpoint. He believed there was worth in the teachings of great moral leaders such as Jesus, Buddha and Gandhi, but also believed that such teachings had been hopelessly skewed and exploited by humanity.

He also believed that if every religion in the world were to actually adhere to the values of own its beliefs, there would be no conflict between religions or between religion and science to begin with. He's probably right. >.>

But yes, he spoke extensively about god, religion and science. Its actually quite fascinating and I have to agree with him on a lot of points. Now I have to dig up more Einstein essays...

Einstein was very knowledgeable about his field: physics, but he was no more knowledgeable about gods than any other human being.

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.

[Ghel]

I don't really find it that difficult to have enough respect for my fellow man to not laugh in his face because I think his beliefs are silly. All I request is that my fellow man have the courtesy to do the same.

See, here's another place where we differ. I totally expect to be laughed at if I say something stupid, silly, or ridiculous.

I see we have totally different senses of humor. I like George Carlin's "Religion is Bullshit" bit. I like Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death" bit. I see nothing wrong with showing the humor in religion. Here's a belief I find completely hilarious: "the creator of the universe sacrificed himself to himself to save his creations from a punishment he inflicted on them for breaking a rule that his creations could not have possibly understood before they broke it." Absurd.

[Andara Bledin]

For all intents and purposes, the claim that leprechauns exist is false. The only difference between a belief in leprechauns and a belief in a god is the number of believers.

An inability for a person to discern a difference does not mean that there isn't one and that it doesn't have a measurable effect. Plus, your assessment of the differences falls far short of actuality.

The beliefs color the person's worldview, causing them to act differently than they would without the belief.

My beliefs, and Gravekeeper's as well if I'm not mistaken, both call for us to be respectful to others. But the beliefs themselves have no power outside of that which we choose to give them.

One should not blame the beliefs for the actions of the people. People are the ones that make the choices, both in what actions they take, and what beliefs they ascribe to.

That doesn't mean that anyone is justified in believing something to be true until it has been demonstrated to be true. Saying something is a neat idea is a long way from saying that it is true.

I'm as justified believing in God as you are in disbelieving in God. Neither of us has any greater claim.

However, I have no objection to anyone's stance on the matter, regardless of how ridiculous their ideas may seem to me. It is only their actions that I take more than an academic interest in.

Well, I must admit that it's hard not to laugh when somebody says something akin to "The universe-creating pixies forbid me from eating strawberries on Tuesdays."

I don't really find it that difficult to have enough respect for my fellow man to not laugh in his face because I think his beliefs are silly. All I request is that my fellow man have the courtesy to do the same.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

While I do not believe in some big guy in the sky, just because it cannot be demonstrated yet does not mean it can be dismissed outright as false. It just means that it's unknown.

If you want to withhold judgement, that's fine with me. But I'm not going to bother withholding judgement just because leprechauns cannot be demonstrated to exist yet. I'm 99% certain that leprechauns don't exist, so I'm going to live my life as if they don't. For all intents and purposes, the claim that leprechauns exist is false. The only difference between a belief in leprechauns and a belief in a god is the number of believers.

Really, the beliefs themselves do no harm.

I disagree. The beliefs color the person's worldview, causing them to act differently than they would without the belief.

As our capabilities have grown, more and more that was previously thought or known to be false is showing as true, or at least possible.

That doesn't mean that anyone is justified in believing something to be true until it has been demonstrated to be true. Saying something is a neat idea is a long way from saying that it is true.

Well, at least now you're admitting that you ridicule the people instead of trying to claim you only ridicule their beliefs.

Well, I must admit that it's hard not to laugh when somebody says something akin to "The universe-creating pixies forbid me from eating strawberries on Tuesdays."

[Andara Bledin]

As soon as they state their beliefs as true, then they open themselves up to ridicule.

Well, at least now you're admitting that you ridicule the people instead of trying to claim you only ridicule their beliefs.

^-.-^

[ExRetailDrone]

...since the vast majority of religious beliefs can't be demonstrated, they can be dismissed as false.

I have no idea why I'm jumping into this thread, but this line just struck a nerve with me.

While I do not believe in some big guy in the sky, just because it cannot be demonstrated yet does not mean it can be dismissed outright as false. It just means that it's unknown.

I have not believed in a deity, per se, for a very long time, but I do not find those ideas ridiculous. They're just not for me. And when people take them to the extreme, then I have a problem with those individuals, but not the beliefs outright. Really, the beliefs themselves do no harm. It's when they are interpreted by certain people so those people feel they have a reason to do the things they would do anyway, but the blame still falls on the people involved, not the beliefs they hold.

I hold some pretty unusual beliefs and thoughts, but I definitely know that most people will not find them to fit in their own lives, and that's ok. I definitely do not feel that I should be ridiculed for them, since they are used for my own self-development and understanding of the universe around me and nothing more. Can they be proven? No, not yet. Perhaps they will never be proven as long as humans are around, but that says more about the limit on our scientific capabilities. As our capabilities have grown, more and more that was previously thought or known to be false is showing as true, or at least possible. I place religious and other belief systems in this category. Unknown.

[Ghel]

"The bigotry of the non-believer is, for me, nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer." - Albert Einstein

Even if that quote is accurately attributed, I would have to disagree, again, with Einstein. But that doesn't really matter. It is difficult to figure out what Einstein actually believed, based on his writings. And what he believed should have little bearing on what others believe. Einstein was very knowledgeable about his field: physics, but he was no more knowledgeable about gods than any other human being.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm going to have to side with Einstein.

"The bigotry of the non-believer is, for me, nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer." - Albert Einstein

<3 Einstein.

[Ghel]

So, they can have their religious beliefs, as long as they don't try to convert you, but you should be able to mock them for believing silly things?

It doesn't bother me that people have religious beliefs, as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves. As soon as they state their beliefs as true, then they open themselves up to ridicule. They also accept the burden of proof, and since the vast majority of religious beliefs can't be demonstrated, they can be dismissed as false.

[Boozy]

Mod Note:

No more discussion about who may or may not be arrogant please. Get back on topic or we'll be handing out infractions and closing the thread.

We're getting tired of having to watch this thread so closely. If you're enjoying the debate, keep it going by obeying the rules.

[Andara Bledin]

Are you accusing me of being proud or arrogant?

I don't know why you're asking this since I've already stated as much to you directly just last November.

Are you trying to make a link between humility and respect?

What's so great about humility, anyway?

Being humble includes showing respect as well as not being full of false pride and pretension.

Not only is it applicable, but its positives seem rather self-evident.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

So, they can have their religious beliefs, as long as they don't try to convert you, but you should be able to mock them for believing silly things?

[Ghel]

Would that more would act with some humility.

I've learned my lesson about making sure I post complete quotes. Perhaps you should learn this lesson, too. He're the entire quote:

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

Aside from the statement Einstein's making here that he doesn't believe in a personal God (which rules out him being a follower of the Abrahamic religions), he seems to be addressing two different points. The first is the "crusading spirit of the professional atheist" and the second is the "humility corresponding to the weakness of the our intellectual understanding of nature". I disagree with him that these are mutually exclusive. One can be humbled before nature (or our low level of knowlege about nature) and still crusade against religion's intrusion into our lives.

But that's really beside the point. I don't see what humilty has to do with anything. Are you accusing me of being proud or arrogant? Even if that were true (and I don't think it is), so what? What does attitude have to do with this discussion? Are you trying to make a link between humility and respect? Or perhaps contrast humility and ridicule? What's so great about humility, anyway?