Do you like it when poeple argue about theism/atheism ??

Do you like it when poeple argue about theism/atheism ??

  • Total voters
    87
I love to argue, but I hate arguing when I know that no opinions will be changed. That's the whole point of an argument...persuade the other party to believe in your view. When arguing religion, this is impossible (as I mentioned in that other atheism thread going on). And that just annoys the hell out of me, because while I love arguing I hate obstinance.

So voted no.
 
If we just shot all the theists in the world, we wouldn't be having this problem. Nor, for that matter, various cultures, several technological advancements, a good deal of humanity, and more wars. However, at least we would be without scary people knocking on your door, ranting about how jesus loves you and if you don't believe them you'll burn for all eternity.
 
I'll tell you what I detest- belitting of someone for their beliefs - This goes for both sides in this, yet it's more prevelent on the atheist side on these forums.

Which seems to go hand in hand with these arguements. It's pointless, and simply serves to get people's backs up.
 
?†nema said:
Im sorry to tell you this,but all this bugging Uriel proves you have nothing better to do then sit in front of a PC all day and complain.Uriel certainly is one of the people that does no harm,there is no need to educate him in this matter,he is happy in what he believes and thats all that counts.
Click to expand...

He's also wrong in regards to his very own beliefs on almost every single level. Mecha is merely pointing this out. Oh wow, you told somebody to get a life on the internet. You must be a really super-cool dude who doesn't care about anything, right? If people can't take criticism from him, then they should stop replying. Discussion is a two-way street, you twit.

Any way, I do enjoy arguing about atheism and theism. I find it entertaining and (shock!) informative. Granted, one eventually reaches the point of just repeating the same thing over and over again, but new arguments allow me to actually think and inevitably further validate my positions on the subject.
I would be lying if I said I didn't derive a certain level of satisfaction when arguing with fundies. As part of a minority in the United States that faces widespread social prejudice reaching all the way to a government level and having personally received physical threats for being godless (online and off), I appreciate opportunities to point out how fallacious and retarded theism is. I don't expect my words to change hearts and minds, as I can settle with just making the other person angry. It's venting, and it's childish, but I never claimed to be the pinnacle of maturity.

That is not to say I don't like theists as people. I have plenty of friends who believe in a god of some sort and I'll leave it be unless they feel like bringing the discussion up. There is no such thing as an entirely rational person, myself included. Just because I think belief in god is intellectual dishonesty, doesn't mean I think you as a person are some kind of mental midget.
 
Let's argue religion on the internet! That'll get us all somewhere.
 
ComradeBadger said:
I'll tell you what I detest- belitting of someone for their beliefs - This goes for both sides in this, yet it's more prevelent on the atheist side on these forums.

Which seems to go hand in hand with these arguements. It's pointless, and simply serves to get people's backs up.
Click to expand...

Nail on head, couldn't put it better myself.
 
Absinthe said:
He's also wrong in regards to his very own beliefs on almost every single level. Mecha is merely pointing this out. Oh wow, you told somebody to get a life on the internet. You must be a really super-cool dude who doesn't care about anything, right? If people can't take criticism from him, then they should stop replying. Discussion is a two-way street, you twit.

Any way, I do enjoy arguing about atheism and theism. I find it entertaining and (shock!) informative. Granted, one eventually reaches the point of just repeating the same thing over and over again, but new arguments allow me to actually think and inevitably further validate my positions on the subject.
I would be lying if I said I didn't derive a certain level of satisfaction when arguing with fundies. As part of a minority in the United States that faces widespread social prejudice reaching all the way to a government level and having personally received physical threats for being godless (online and off), I appreciate opportunities to point out how fallacious and retarded theism is. I don't expect my words to change hearts and minds, as I can settle with just making the other person angry. It's venting, and it's childish, but I never claimed to be the pinnacle of maturity.

That is not to say I don't like theists as people. I have plenty of friends who believe in a god of some sort and I'll leave it be unless they feel like bringing the discussion up. There is no such thing as an entirely rational person, myself included. Just because I think belief in god is intellectual dishonesty, doesn't mean I think you as a person are some kind of mental midget.
Click to expand...




I agree with you,Mecha looks like he is just trying to annoy Uriel.
 
I hate the argument, to be honest. It's just people boiling down to insulting each other, and both sides taking more and more extreme viewpoints, and straw-manning the other side.

-Angry Lawyer
 
To be honest, I really enjoy the argument.
Mecha's ownage has inspired me to do some reading, I thoroughly enjoyed Richard Dawkings new book 'The God Delusion' and now I'm reading Sam Harris 'The end of faith'. To anyone who's read it, I agree with what he's saying most of the time, but he fails to address the point that Radical Muslims in a large majority tend to only exist in areas of conflict, in fact what he says seems very pro-Israel which I don't agree with.
 
ComradeBadger said:
It's odd, in the UK, religious people are very much in the minority...
Click to expand...

Brrr, there's quite a sizeable chunk of my age group (19) in the southwest that are christian, go to church every sunday etc. I once got invited upstairs and started making out with this christian girl, thought I was going to get lucky until my head hit her pillow. Stuck to her desk at eye-level in front of me was a prayer-list D: the horror
 
Solaris said:
To be honest, I really enjoy the argument.
Mecha's ownage has inspired me to do some reading, I thoroughly enjoyed Richard Dawkings new book 'The God Delusion' and now I'm reading Sam Harris 'The end of faith'. To anyone who's read it, I agree with what he's saying most of the time, but he fails to address the point that Radical Muslims in a large majority tend to only exist in areas of conflict, in fact what he says seems very pro-Israel which I don't agree with.
Click to expand...

There's conflict in Europe? :O
*runs for the shelters
 
I'm all about freethinking and logic and reason, but some people just take it too far. I don't care what people worship or believe in, it's there business. They just need to realize to keep it to themselves and stop trying to spread it around or "save" people. It's comforting that some do it out of actually wanting to "save" us, but if we already said no, then let it be.
 
Solaris said:
Did you know that Einstein was a theist ?? Does that make him not so intelligent next to you?
Click to expand...

Lier.
He wasn't.
Click to expand...

Solaris, if we are to believe the Einstein article on Wikipedia:


Einstein said:
I came though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve.
Click to expand...

So at least he was a theist at some point.

Einstein said:
I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.
Click to expand...

At least he wasn't a religion basher.

Einstein said:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Click to expand...

So maybe he wasn't a theist after all, but read this:

Wikipedia said:
In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
Click to expand...

And let's not forget his famous quote:

Eistein said:
"God does not play dice"
Click to expand...

So it appears that while Einstein wasn't religious throughout most of his life, he was a theist at least in his own way. He certainly wasn't an atheist.
 
To be honest, many of Einstein's references to theism can easily be read as hyperbole. At the most, Einstein may have been a deist, so every believer in a personal god that conjures his god-belief as part of their case is an idiot. It even works against them to an extent.

Besides, people are intelligent in spite of their theism. Not because of it.
 
People tend to get irrational when arguing about things they're passionate for so I'll say no, I don't like it and I expect all of you to stop.
 
Infact, thanks to the insightful knowledge quantum physics has provided, we can safely say that God DOES play dice :)
 
Ode^to^Joe said:
Solaris, if we are to believe the Einstein article on Wikipedia:




So at least he was a theist at some point.



At least he wasn't a religion basher.



So maybe he wasn't a theist after all, but read this:



And let's not forget his famous quote:



So it appears that while Einstein wasn't religious throughout most of his life, he was a theist at least in his own way. He certainly wasn't an atheist.
Click to expand...



Your point? Einstein may have been insanely brilliant, but he was also a kooky motherf*cker :p
 
Einstein was likely a Deist anyway so he's not talking about anyone's particular God.
 
He's not talking about any God ffs.

He's talking about the beauty of the universe but you wouldn't know that from the selective quotations and downright lies being posted about the great man.
 
Now we're on the subject of Einstein, does anybody actually know and can "prove"/"source"/"linkg" whether or not the guy had a religion or was an atheist?
As far as i can remember reading he was Jewish, and was extremely moderate.
 
Ome_Vince said:
Now we're on the subject of Einstein, does anybody actually know and can "prove"/"source"/"linkg" whether or not the guy had a religion or was an atheist?
As far as i can remember reading he was Jewish, and was extremely moderate.
Click to expand...

Jewish in religion or by ethnicity?
 
Dunno, can't find much conclusive on Wiki, though its hard to since I guess such information would only be listed (as in matter) if this person was pro-religious or fanatical atheist. His youth and history seem to be mixed as he was Jewish and went to a Catholic school. Weird..

Though in 1940 he seems to have written a paper called "Science and Religion"

source

He published a paper in Nature in 1940 entitled Science and Religion which gave his considered views on the subject.[40]

In this he says that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation...In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects."

He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." However "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies"... "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." However he makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted...by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

[edit] Other Quotations on religion and God

I came — though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve.[41]

I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.[42]

A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew.[43]

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[44]

As an adult, he called his religion a "cosmic religious sense".[45]

In The World As I See It he wrote:

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man.

For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.

But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.[46]

In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
Click to expand...

In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
Click to expand...

After reading this stuff on Wiki I'd think the chances of him being Atheist are slim. Though its still hard to say with these cookoos:p
 
In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
Click to expand...

Deism in a nutshell.
 
Deism is effectively the least strict form of atheism or, alternately, the most rational form of theism.

It straddles the line between the two directly.

Atheism is primarily the belief that even if a god a does exist, it is inherently unknowable and thus irrelevant to any aspect of life.

Deism just erases the "even if" from that previous sentence.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Atheism is primarily the belief that even if a god a does exist, it is inherently unknowable and thus irrelevant to any aspect of life.
Click to expand...

I thought it was simply a disbelief in any God. Are you just reading between the lines, or is that a concrete view? (or both?).

EDIT: The definition in the quote is quite literally agnosticism, at the very least the definition is a crossover.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Agnosticism (neither is this outdated nor inaccurate)
 
Saying that deism is effectively the least strict form of atheism is like saying that agnosticism is effectively the least strict form of theism. It doesn't make sense. Deism is either a form of theism or a form of atheism. It can't be both.

Let me explain: either you are theist or you are not. There is no third choice. If you are not a theist then you are an atheist.

Now, to explain this further, keep in mind that within the realm of theists, you have deists and not deists. The first subgroup of theists comprises people like Einstein, whose belief is based on rational foundations. The latter subgroup includes religious people, whose beliefs are hardly based on reason - they are based on faith. -- It is important to realize that "religion" and "theism" are not the same thing.

Also, within the realm of atheists, you have agnostics and not agnostics. The first subgroup of atheists comprises "open minded" people, who have reasoned that it is impossible to answer metaphysical questions. Since they "do not believe", they are atheists. The latter subgroup of atheists comprises what most of us would call straight atheists !!

I wish I could make a graphic to illustrate these classifications because a lot of people seem to think (and this doesn't have anything to with what the previous poster said) that there are three main categories: theist, atheist and agnostic. Not really. If you are an agnostic, then you are, by definition, an atheist. Similarly, if you are a deist, you are a theist.

The fact that Einstein was a deist, does not contradict in any way my initial claim that he was a theist.
 
Joe, what I was trying to get across is that Deism is absolutely the least strict form of theism. You cannot be any less theistic without becoming an atheist.

Okay?

To that extent, being a deist is closer to atheism than it is to most forms of theism. Deists acknowledge that there is no relevant god, but believe in an irrelevant one.

It is far removed from christian or islamic theism, which posit that god has a direct impact on the earth and humanity at large, because all claims of such impact must be falsifiable to be rational.
Claiming that something has an impact, but being unable to measure any impact, is not as logical as the deistic viewpoint.
Einstein concluded from this that the vast majority of theists must be wrong.

So using Einstein to support all theism is flawed because the huge majority of people follow the christian style, which Einstein actively campaigned against.
It is flat-out irresponsible to use him as an example of why theism as a whole is unimpeachable. That betrays a complete lack of respect for his beliefs.


Alright, I'm getting rather tired of repeating this, so here is the most simple explanation possible.

Atheism is the state of not believing in a god. That's the absolute basic element of being an Atheist.
There are multiple branches of Atheism, that elaborate on that basic point.
One of those branches of Atheism is called Strong Atheism. Strong Atheism is when you flat-out believe there is no god.

Most of you are confusing Strong Atheism with Atheism in general.

Okay?

And keep in mind that all people are atheists, to a large degree. You're all atheists when it comes to Thor, and Jupiter and an infinite pantheon of gods both imagined and not yet imagined.
 
Ode^to^Joe said:
Also, within the realm of atheists, you have agnostics and not agnostics. The first subgroup of atheists comprises "open minded" people, who have reasoned that it is impossible to answer metaphysical questions. Since they "do not believe", they are atheists. The latter subgroup of atheists comprises what most of us would call straight atheists !!
Click to expand...

If you have "reasoned that it is impossible to answer metaphysical questions" and are open-minded to the issue you are agnostic. Atheism is the strict "disbelief of God(s)," (or, less commonly, the belief that there is no God).

Agnosticism seems to me an extension of Atheism, but IMO they shouldn't be classified as the same thing. One (agnosticism) has a trait of the other (Atheism), but it does not make it the other, strictly. I suppose you could say those "open-minded" individuals are atheist in a sense, but above all they are agnostics. That's my view anyway.
 
Einstein was not a deist. A deistic God is not a personal God (which he denied believing in) but it is an intelligence. And he also clearly states he doesn't believe in an intelligent force behind the universe:

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or
anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic.
What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we
can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill
a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a
genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with
mysticism.
Click to expand...


And he's a 'non-believer' as he states here, aka an atheist:
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat
new kind of religion.
Click to expand...

Dawkins in The God Delusion:
The one thing all his theistic critics got right was that Einstein
was not one of them. He was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion
that he was a theist. So, was he a deist, like Voltaire and Diderot?
Or a pantheist, like Spinoza, whose philosophy he admired: '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'?
Let's remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a
supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating
the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and
influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic
belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He
answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world
by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and
knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist,
too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities
were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the
first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly
has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in
a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural
synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the
lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in
that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or
confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene
with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the
deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than
the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the
universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down
theism.
There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like
'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or
'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' are pantheistic,
not deistic, and certainly not theistic. 'God does not play dice'
should be translated as 'Randomness does not lie at the heart of all
things.' 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' means
'Could the universe have begun in any other way?' Einstein was
using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen
Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip
Click to expand...

So Einstein was a pantheist, which is 'sexed-up atheism'.

Anyway, how exactly is any of this relevant? Is it a popularity contest? What if Einstein was a theist? Does that make the theistic view any more true? Is truth a democracy these days? I think it's kind of sad that theists try to strengthen their position with 'hey, this smart person shared these ideas, we must be right!'. Einstein was merely human, so was the deeply religious Isaac Newton, who was one of the most brilliant minds ever, but one who also believed the orbits of the planets was regulated by God.
 
So Einstein was a pantheist, which is 'sexed-up atheism'."
Click to expand...

According to Dawkins, that's what pantheism means. According to m-w.com, this is what pantheism means:

m-w.com said:
Main Entry: pan?the?ism
Pronunciation: 'pan(t)-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French panth?isme, from panth?iste pantheist, from English pantheist, from pan- + Greek theos god
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)
Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia:

Wikipedia said:
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'.
Click to expand...

Look, I don't care what Dawkins said. Pantheism, according to the sources cited above, and according to my understanding of the meaning of the word "theism", is a form of theism. The problem, I think, is that many of us confuse the term "theism" with terms like "religion, christianity, judaism, islam". Those are not the same terms. They have different meanings. You can be a theist and still disapprove of religion.

I think it's kind of sad that theists try to strengthen their position with 'hey, this smart person shared these ideas, we must be right!'."
Click to expand...

That's more or less the premise of my argument. You will find people way more intelligent than you on both sides of the table, so "intelligence" should not have any bearing on these discussions.
 
Oh, and considering the whole "we are atheists to a large degree" is false. Atheism is the doctrine that there is no deity, I don't see how this could be misconstrued.
 
PvtRyan said:
Einstein was not a deist. A deistic God is not a personal God (which he denied believing in) but it is an intelligence. And he also clearly states he doesn't believe in an intelligent force behind the universe:




And he's a 'non-believer' as he states here, aka an atheist:


Dawkins in The God Delusion:


So Einstein was a pantheist, which is 'sexed-up atheism'.

Anyway, how exactly is any of this relevant? Is it a popularity contest? What if Einstein was a theist? Does that make the theistic view any more true? Is truth a democracy these days? I think it's kind of sad that theists try to strengthen their position with 'hey, this smart person shared these ideas, we must be right!'. Einstein was merely human, so was the deeply religious Isaac Newton, who was one of the most brilliant minds ever, but one who also believed the orbits of the planets was regulated by God.
Click to expand...

Source plz?

Also, in the case of Einstein, it seems to be pretty weird :p. He grew up coming from a semi-Jewish family going to a Catholic school.
Then he writes papers and such defending religion, and later on answers to a Rabi he basically believes but not as described by modern day religion.
Weird..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lizardizzle
  • Poll
A proposition: ValveTime Half-Life 1 co-op event
Replies
5
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
B
Barking Dog Studios' work for Valve
Replies
0
Views
12K
Barnz
B
Back
Top