"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." Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”G.S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great (Macaulay, New York 1936) p.186; Jammer, p.48.

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.” Einstein to an unidentified addressee dated 7th August 1941. Einstein archive reel 54-927; Jammer p.97

"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views." Einstein in a conversation with Hubertus zu Löwenstein, in Löwenstein’s book Towards the Further Shore (London Victor Gollancz 1968), p.156; Jammer, p.97


“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?” Carl Sagan in a letter to Robert Pope, of Windsor, Ontario, Oct. 2, 1996

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-what-did-he-believe-part-1/

Dawkins says in "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer" his first chapter of "The God Delusion" that he believes in the god of Einstein, nature. Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinozza, which was, nature, meaning he was a Pantheist.

Harris gave 6 reasons why he's not an Atheist in "The Problem with Atheism" in summary,

#1. The problem is that the concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions, for two reasons:

First, these differences make all religions look contingent, and therefore silly. Consider the unique features of Mormonism.

The second reason to be attentive to the differences among the world’s religions is that these differences are actually a matter of life and death.

#2. Atheism is too blunt an instrument to use at moments like this.

#3. Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism.

#4. Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.

#5. Instead of doing this, consider what would happen if we simply used words like “reason” and “evidence.” What is the argument against reason?

#6. The last problem with atheism I’d like to talk about relates to the some of the experiences that lie at the core of many religious traditions, though perhaps not all, and which are testified to, with greater or lesser clarity in the world’s “spiritual” and “mystical” literature. Those of you who have read The End of Faith, know that I don’t entirely line up with Dan, Richard, and Christopher in my treatment of these things.My concern is that atheism can easily become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities in principle. I don’t know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, “not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.” But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as “atheists,” tend to represent while advocating atheism. As “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of reason, we know that mystery is going to be with us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely upon to explain everything else. This may be a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem for human life and for human solidarity. It does not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a barrier to human happiness.
We are faced, however, with the challenge of communicating this view to others. We are faced with the monumental task of persuading a myth-infatuated world that love and curiosity are sufficient, and that we need not console or frighten ourselves or our children with Iron Age fairy tales. I don’t think there is a more important intellectual struggle to win; it has to be fought from a hundred sides, all at once, and continuously; but it seems to me that there is no reason for us to fight in well-ordered ranks, like the red coats of Atheism.
Finally, I think it’s useful to envision what victory will look like. Again, the analogy with racism seems instructive to me. What will victory against racism look like, should that happy day ever dawn? It certainly won’t be a world in which a majority of people profess that they are “nonracist.” Most likely, it will be a world in which the very concept of separate races has lost its meaning.
We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a world in which people cease to praise one another for pretending to know things they do not know. This is certainly a future worth fighting for. It may be the only future compatible with our long-term survival as a species. But the only path between now and then, that I can see, is for us to be rigorously honest in the present. It seems to me that intellectual honesty is now, and will always be, deeper and more durable, and more easily spread, than “atheism.”

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-problem-with-atheism



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 10:16PM by koriwhore.

Most of that is talking about "strong" atheism, which is not the whole of atheism.

They are also thinking of Atheism as a movement, not atheism as a pure concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity "

They are looking at subset definitions of atheism, not atheism as a whole, in the broadest sense.

The most inclusive definition of atheism is simply " atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist" the quotes you use go well beyond the most inclusive definition of atheism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 10:25PM by MJ.

and all give great reasons for rejecting the Atheist label for good reason, not just because identifying yourself as an Atheist is the worst thing you could do for your love life

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/24/all-in-the-family-not-for-atheists/

Or that Americans trust Atheists about as much as they trust rapists.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/the_numbers_are_in_america_still_distrusts_atheists_and_muslims_partner/

No, you gave out of context quotes that do not apply to the full scope of atheism.

And again, rejecting the "label" does not mean you are not an atheist.

Rejecting the label may not reflect the actual truth.

May guilty people in prison reject the label of "guilty" even thou they are guilty. People reject labels that are true all the time. It does not change the truth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 10:53PM by MJ.

. . . which disgraces the depth of his intelligence.

Smarten up, try cross-sourcing and get back to us when you have actually done some legwork on the guy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 11:16PM by steve benson.

Sometimes I do think I am a glutton for punishment, beyond that, I really do not know why.

--Carl Sagan:

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."

("In the Valley of the Shadow", "Parade" magazine, 10 March 1996)


--Carl Sagan:

“Do you understand how--assuming either of us ever did say, ‘The universe can be explained without postulating God’--this could be understood as dogmatic? I often talk about the ‘God hypothesis’ as something I’d be fully willing to accept if there were compelling evidence; unfortunately, there is nothing approaching compelling evidence. That attitude, it seems to me, is undogmatic.”

(Carl Sagan to Stephen Jay Gould, 18 December 1989)


--"David Grinspoon, a planetary scientist whose father was Sagan’s best friend, and who referred to Sagan as'“Uncle Carl,' tells me [Joel Achenbach, with the 'Washington Post'] by e-mail":

“In his adult life, he [Sagan] was very close to being an atheist. I personally had several conversations with him about religion, belief, god, and yes I agree he was darn close. It’s really semantics at this level of distinction. He was certainly not a theist. And I suppose I can relate because I personally don’t call myself an atheist, although if you probed what I believe, it would be indistinguishable from many who do use that term.”

(David Grinspoon, email to Achenbach)


--"I [Achenbach] e-mailed the person who would know Sagan’s views better than anyone: I specifically asked her about the quote in my 1996 story (“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God”). Druyan responded:

“Carl meant exactly what he said. He used words with great care. He did not know if there was a god. It is my understanding that to be an atheist is to take the position that it is known that there is no god or equivalent. Carl was comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ but not ‘atheist.’”

(Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow, email to Achenbach)


--Joel Achenbach, "Washington Post":

"Here’s a definition of 'agnosticism' from Merriam-Webster: 'Agnosticism may mean no more than the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence, or it may constitute a rejection of traditional Christian tenets.' The same online dictionary says of 'atheism,' 'Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial.'

"By these definitions, we should call Sagan an agnostic. And yet, to my ear, 'agnostic' doesn’t quite capture the skepticism that Sagan brought to the issue. I want a word with a little more spin on it.

"Surf around the Web and you’ll find other parsings of 'atheist' and 'agnostic,' including one at about.com that talks about the concept of an 'agnostic atheist.' You might also want to check out the commentary Penn Jillette did for the NPR 'This I Believe' series, in which he [Sagan] begins, 'I believe there is no God” (he describes that as 'beyond atheism')."

(the above excerpted from "Carl Sagan Denied Being an Atheist. So, What Did He Believe? [Part 1]," by Joel Achenbach, "Washington Post," 10 July 2014, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-what-did-he-believe-part-1/)
__________


You need to do better on your homework; you know, dig deeper before you dig yourself a hole.

Grade: D



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 11:56PM by steve benson.

So we're still defining god by the anthropomorphic tradition? Why is that exactly? Seems to me that's one of those definitions we (humans collectively) have clung to because it's 'always been that way'. Even those who self identify as hard core atheist cling to it. It's the only way they can be absolutely sure there is no god. If you take away the human attributes is god still god?

Therefore, by those definitional terms, an "a-theist" can accurately be described as a person having no belief in God.

Now, of course, you can try, if you wish, to speak for certain types of atheists (and I suspect you are not one), but you're on shaky ground when you start out on a faulty premise. Saying that one has no belief in God is not necessarily saying (contrary to your assertion), that all "hard-core" atheists are sure there is no God. There are different kinds, and degrees, of atheism.

Try thinking before speaking. And studying wouldn't be a bad option, either. :)



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 11:53PM by steve benson.

I'm only thinking for myself, and making observations of what I've experienced in my circle of atheist friends. I myself wear the label but realized that it's because I continue to use anthropomorphic definition. I can never know with 1000% certainty any more than the theist can. All the best scientific evidence in the world points towards no so I chose that for me. Mormonism gave me a REALLY bad taste in my mouth for throwing around the words 'I KNOW' as lightly as they do.

At the same time I can't look at the known universe and how absolutely stunning it is and not be in awe of it. I've accepted that the universe doesn't care about me anymore than we care about fleas on a dog. In my eyes our existence is precious, but it's not forever. In life that I see something sacred. In life, I see some thing that should be honored. I don't see anything wrong with that. Because of that view I've been called religious, and guess what. I hated that label as much as I hated the atheist label for so long because it was forced on me.

Atheism talks about belief, if you do not believe in God, you are an atheist.

Agnostic is about knowledge for 100% certainty. If you do not KNOW there is a god or not, you are agnostic.

You can be an agnostic atheist or and agnostic theist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

I am an agnostic atheist because I do not know for 100% certain there is not a god, but I think the probability that there is a God is so incredibly remote that I am an atheist that sometimes talks as if I know there is not god. I'll takes my chances. Even if there is a God, the chances that I pick the right one are very remote.

neither you or Steve answered my question at all. for something to have the god label are human like qualities (anthropomorphic) a requirement or we free to redefine what god is. Is god still god once you take away love, consciousness, judgement, forgiveness and everything else humans imagine god is. Or are we stuck defining god as a super being/spirit/consciousness that is aware of everything around it? if so why?

No, human like qualities are not required. But from an atheist perspective, gods are made up, thus likely made to have the human characteristics valued by the people making up the god. Why make up the god otherwise?

Made up gods can be:

All powerful, think Christian God

Limited power, thin Zeus.

God(s) are often "human", think pharaohs or Jesus.

God(s) often have human characteristics but more spiritual in nature, think Zeus.

Some Gods are animal spirits.

Deists and pantheists may believe an interpretation of their gods that have no human attributes. The deist god may well be powerful enough to start the universe but have no idea of what happened from there on out.

People can, and obviously have, made up all sorts of fictional gods. The problem for the theist is that none of these versions are supported by empirical evidence, so there is no reason to accept any of them and there is no evidence that we should believe in one (or more) of the made up gods over the others.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2015 06:55PM by MJ.

anonrit3n0w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So we're still defining god by the anthropomorphic
> tradition? Why is that exactly?

Most atheists don't "define god" at all. It's the ones who believe in various kinds of "gods" that do. Not us.
We just point out that there's no evidence for ANY of the definitions/descriptions, so we see no reason to "believe" any of them.

Of course, some of the "definitions" border on (or reach) the absurd...for example, calling nature "god." It's nature. It's not a "god." There's no reasonable purpose to call it "god," other than perhaps to "fit in" with cultures who crap on anyone who doesn't have some kind of belief in a "god."

Where the hell is Tal Bachman and the New Atheist Chorus when you need 'em?

Richard Feynman on God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4

It's about they way you think and what you want. It's a question that can't reasonably be answered so there's no right or wrong position.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a question that can't reasonably be answered
> so there's no right or wrong position.

Ah, the middle ground logical fallacy.

Just because it can not "reasonably be answered", whatever that means, does not mean the two positions are equally possible.

I think it can reasonably be answered that the the idea of a creationist God that started it *ALL* is not possible when held to the standard of "reasonable doubt". Nobody can explain how a God can create itself so it is reasonable to assume god can not create itself, thus God could not have created it *ALL* because god is part of ALL.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2015 06:52PM by MJ.

I like it when people call Einstein or Dawkins or the like believers. Saves me the trouble of reading what they have to say since it's 99% likely to be of the crackpot variety.

Of course, one can never be 100% sure, but I'll take my chances. There is other information with a higher chance of being informative.

Wow, for quoting Einstein, Dawkins, Harris and Sagan, all of whom didn't have a hell of a lot of nice things to say about Atheists?

Any wonder the 1.6% of Americans who are Atheist are the most mistrusted and disliked people in America, including rapists?

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/Atheists-Trusted-Less-Than-Rapists.htm

I'm right here, thingsIthink.

Different people have different notions about what the term "atheist" means, or should mean, and maybe, different feelings about being lumped in with others who identify as atheists.

Einstein, for his part, once wrote this:

"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the centre of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men".

And this precise understanding of religiosity is affirmed - claimed - by many self-identifying Buddhists, Taoists, Jews, and Christians (and presumably those of other faiths, too). Einstein knew that perfectly well, and that might explain why he didn't feel comfortable describing himself as an atheist, even though he might have qualified by some definitions. He might also have felt put off by the dogmatism of some self-described atheists, who go further than saying, "I can't find evidence for God" (which Sagan said), to "there is no God" (which Sagan didn't say).

By the way, for those interested, that Einstein quote is one I happened to find last night reading through Ronald Dworkin's interesting little book, "Religion Without God" (see pages 3-7). Dworkin writes that Einstein's view

"...is, in one important sense, an endorsement of the supernatural. The beauty and sublimity he said we could reach only as a feeble reflection are not part of nature; they are something *beyond* nature that cannot be grasped even by finally understanding the most fundamental of physical laws. It was Einstein's faith that some transcendental and objective value permeates the universe, value that is neither a natural phenomenon nor a subjective reaction to natural phenomena. That is what led him to insist on his own religiosity" (see pages 3-7).

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...that might explain
> why he didn't feel comfortable describing himself
> as an atheist, even though he might have qualified
> by some definitions. He might also have felt put
> off by the dogmatism of some self-described
> atheists, who go further than saying, "I can't
> find evidence for God" (which Sagan said), to
> "there is no God" (which Sagan didn't say).

I would also consider the time and culture he said it in; even more than today (where most believers don't trust atheists and consider them evil), saying you were an atheist *at that time* in the US would have made him a pariah, hurt his lobbying for a state of Israel, and possibly jeopardized his academic tenure. Peer pressure, for lack of a better term. Several biographies of Einstein have pointed that out.


> Dworkin
> writes that Einstein's view
>
> "...is, in one important sense, an endorsement of
> the supernatural. The beauty and sublimity he said
> we could reach only as a feeble reflection are not
> part of nature; they are something *beyond* nature
> that cannot be grasped even by finally
> understanding the most fundamental of physical
> laws. It was Einstein's faith that some
> transcendental and objective value permeates the
> universe, value that is neither a natural
> phenomenon nor a subjective reaction to natural
> phenomena. That is what led him to insist on his
> own religiosity" (see pages 3-7).

...and that's where it goes too far, and appears to be yet another attempt to "claim" Einstein as among those who believe in something supernatural. That conclusion goes against numerous other Einstein statements, and he NEVER described his personal awe as "supernatural," nor did he express any "faith" in any kind of "transcendental and objective value (that) permeates the universe."

I have been trying to find a way to live a spiritual and even religious life without a belief in God. I am okay with not 'knowing" if there is, or isn't, a God. The reviews for "Religion Without God" are very compelling. Thank you for the reference, Tal.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2015 07:59PM by Sapphire.

gudgawdalmitey people, give it a rest.

Much less respond.

Give yourself a rest.

Dawkins, Harris and Hawkins claim they are biological robots with no free will. I think they are staunch atheists...

Many atheists want to have it both ways and say things like they love nature or they love the wonders of this world but they are fooling themselves because you are either a biological robot or you aren't...

I on the other hand do not believe in any god but I do believe that consciousness may indeed survive physical death and it doesn't matter to me what others believe, really. I never accepted Mormonism as a child. My parents were members so I was forced to attend church but for me, my beliefs did not come out of my youth.

rgg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dawkins, Harris and Hawkins claim they are
> biological robots with no free will.

And that's the kind of dishonest straw-man that earns well-deserved criticism.

They claim no such thing.

“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/.../granddesign.ht..
Georgia State University

p 32 pg 1 "It seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion."
- Stephen Hawkins

There are many many more. And I don't want to debate you. You always try and debate people. If you reread my post I gave my POV already. If you want to be an atheists I don't care. And If I want to believe that consciousness may survive bodily death what does that matter to you?

I don't care what you want to believe.
The Dawkins quote is cherry-picking, and out of context.
You may have a point with Hawking (at least spell his name right), but since I can't follow up with a "p32 p1 (no book)" reference, I can't say.

I didn't say anything about your "beliefs." I pointed out that you were being dishonest. Being dishonest is not a good way to defend your beliefs.

Kolob:

Einstein's writings on ethics indicate a very strong - indeed, sometimes dogmatic - sense of right and wrong, so much so, that he actually does give the impression of believing in something like natural law.

That is relevant here because natural law, as it was understood traditionally by philosophers and theologians (including Martin Luther King) is something mysterious. It amounts to the Tao, an inviolable moral law permeating the universe, knowable not through scientific experiments but through intuition.

So it is only many of Einstein's writings themselves (not, as MJ mistakenly asserts, non-contextual quotations) which leave unbiased readers with the feeling that he had something of the mystic in him (and so what if he did?).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2015 08:25PM by Tal Bachman.

"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the centre of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men". Einstein

In my words:

-- Our dull faculties can only comprehend the impenetrable highest wisdom and most radiant beauty in their most primitive form. --

What's left of religion for Einstein other than his knowledge that our dull senses can barely comprehend the beauty and wisdom of the universe?

I don't see anything about understanding or gaining knowledge through intuition. His statement doesn't seem to be much more than saying we don't know much about the universe.