“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Albert Einstein

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

Are there so many more fanatical atheists amongst ExMormons because they're like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle?

I'm wondering what the criteria would be? Throwing bombs at churches? Spitting at ministers? Dressing in a red devil's outfit?

Yes. Those things would define a fanatical atheist agenda. I don't see anything even close to that by a mile here.

"Mock them! (believers) Ridicule them! In public!
Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.

Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.

I want to end now on what my colleagues from the Richard Dawkins Foundation said. I am an outsider but we have been well-staffed in America and we’re going to spread the word along with our colleagues in other organizations throughout the length and breadth of this land. This land which is the fountainhead, the birthplace of secularism in the world, as I said before. Don’t let that tradition down. Thank you very much"
-Richard Dawkins Keynote Address at the Reason Rally March 24, 2012 on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

Einstein would have hated Richard Dawkins



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2015 09:14AM by koriwhore.

I see where Einstein says he doesn't "share" the crusading spirit and that he "prefers" an attitude of humility.

Do you have any quotes to suggest Einstein would hate Dawkins? After all, if Einstein doesn't hate religion then why would he hate Dawkins? Hating Dawkins - would that be in accord with Einstein's attitude of humility?

By the way, I like your quotes and questions.

koriwhore Wrote:
> Einstein would have hated Richard Dawkins

So now you're an authority on what long dead people would have thought had they been around today?

Seriously, don't you see how ridiculous this is getting?

it seems like everything you post this one great straw argument. Did someone make fun of you for using the term atheist or something? You really shouldn't care so much what other people think

When only 1.6% of the general public is Atheist, why does it seem like here, the only reasonable identification for ExMo's is Atheism and anything else, like Einstein's agnosticism, is just cowardly, dishonest, or idiotic?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2015 09:38AM by koriwhore.

Maybe you feel that way about yourself and thats why you are so obsessed. Maybe you think being athiest is cowardly and dishonest. I havent seen people here saying anything you are claiming.

"Just trying to figure out why such a high percentage of ExMo's are Atheist"

No you're not. You start all these threads to insult atheists and then pretend to be "just asking".
Seems about as annoying as a mormon trying to convert someone from christianity, to me.

Kolobian is right, why does it bother you so? Aw, you aren't part of what looks like a majority at first glance? It's just old regular posters who made friends over the years and tend to hang out here. I'm sure there are plenty of sites with religious cliques dominating, why does this one site with a noticeable group of atheists stick in your craw so badly?
Might as well go to a site with a large following of gay people and beg them to reconsider the straight life. That's how offensively pushy you come across.

I honestly haven't felt that as I read here. I see mostly a lot of support and understanding from atheists to theists and vice versa. There is more of an overwhelming feeling of goodwill on this board as far as I can see. Of course, I don't read every post.

I like the challenging questions some atheists ask, but that's all they seem to be for the most part--just an intention to make one examine things closely and they are usually posed on the posts that are specifically about atheism like this one you have started.

I would not compare this board to atheists in the world who are going about their business with their minds on other things. In real life no one is having these conversations, so you don't know how really riled everyone could get if they were to actually sit down and examine their feelings in a concentrated way like we are doing here.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When only 1.6% of the general public is Atheist,
> why does it seem like here, the only reasonable
> identification for ExMo's is Atheism and anything
> else, like Einstein's agnosticism, is just
> cowardly, dishonest, or idiotic?

I challenge you to go search for posts that say anything about being other than an atheist is "cowardly, dishonest, or idiotic." Fair warning: I've already done that search. Guess what? The ONLY posts I found saying that are YOURS. Not any from any atheists.

Belief in claimed supernatural things that have no supporting evidence is irrational. It's not mean to say so, it's not calling anyone cowardly or dishonest or idiotic. It's just stating a fact. You can be irrational if you want to. I don't want to.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2015 02:56PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I don't understand the fixation on Albert Einstein. He was a really good physicist, but other than that a regular guy. Certainly not a saint. His view of reality steered physics in the direction the powers that be wanted it to go, and that is why he's famous.

Why not quote the local bar tender? He's just as qualified to comment on theism.

>> I don't understand the fixation on Albert Einstein. <<

Wasn’t Einstein the guy who discovered the theory of religiosity?

[E]nthusiasm = ([m]yths x [c]onverts)^2

Define "fanatical atheist."

I suspect you would subjectively define it as anyone who doesn't agree with you who is an atheist. I could be wrong, of course, but that's the impression you give.

I'm really quite curious why you keep harping on Einstein's supposed "beliefs" or lack thereof -- they guy has been dead 50+ years, and was no more an "authority" on religion than the guy who works at 7-11 is.

By the way, there's no music. If you think otherwise (which clearly isn't an original thought, but parroting of Einstein), then show evidence for it. Since you can't...I'll continue to appreciate and learn about the properties of matter and energy in our universe without pretending there's something magical or supernatural about them.

There is music. I've heard the sound resonating through the universe, perhaps from the Big Bang, is a B-flat 57 octaves below middle C. Layer in the overtones, and you got the recipe for music.

It seems to me if you're appreciating the properties of matter and energy, you've got the bases covered. I don't think Einstein was saying anything other than that.

It seems to me if religious people followed Koriwhore's admonition of be kind, atheists would have little to say in return, but the intolerant don't get to run roughshod over reason without some pushback.

Asserting a general rudeness towards atheists is, to me, just a method to shut up reason so religious people can scream out God's will unimpeded.

I really don't think Dawkins is positions a response to somebody saying they believe in God. I think Dawkins arguments are a response to religious people telling everyone else how God wants them to live. And I'm thankful for people like him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2015 11:32AM by thingsithink.

And planet earth’s electromagnetic field resonates at 7.8 Hz

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

"Schumann resonances are the principal background in the electromagnetic spectrum beginning at 3 Hz and extend to 60 Hz, and appear as distinct peaks at extremely low frequencies (ELF) around 7.83 (fundamental), 14.3, 20.8, 27.3 and 33.8 Hz."


But these are drowned out by the 60 Hz spike from all the electricity running through your house. My piano tuning software picks this up quite nicely …it’s LOUD.

Now that a court has ruled that atheism is a religion, perhaps we can politely ask them to gravitate into atheist sects so we can better relate to them.

I believe the OP is responding to those who would likely gravitate toward the Westboro unBaptist Church sect.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now that a court has ruled that atheism is a
> religion, perhaps we can politely ask them to
> gravitate into atheist sects so we can better
> relate to them.

Another religious straw-man.
US courts have *not* ruled that "atheism is a religion." They have ruled that the 1st amendment protections of freedom of religion apply to belief *and* a lack of belief -- to atheists as well as the religious. That's not the same thing.

>
> I believe the OP is responding to those who would
> likely gravitate toward the Westboro unBaptist
> Church sect.

He appears repeatedly to be claiming that the atheists on this board demean anyone who's not an atheist. That's false.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Another religious straw-man.
> US courts have *not* ruled that "atheism is a
> religion." They have ruled that the 1st amendment
> protections of freedom of religion apply to belief
> *and* a lack of belief -- to atheists as well as
> the religious. That's not the same thing.
>

Actually, both the plaintiff in the case and the judge himself used the terms "religion" and "faith" as part of the decision:

"As humanists, we believe in the ability of mankind to transcend their differences and to reach some common ground and make the world a better place," Holden, who is currently serving time at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sheridan, Oregon, explained in an Uptown Radio interview in May. "We simply want the same thing other religious groups are provided."

In siding with the plaintiffs, Haggerty cited a 1961 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins, which referred to “Secular Humanism” as a religion in its landmark decision to prohibit state and federal governments from passing any laws that impose religious requirements on holding public office.

"The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes," Haggerty, a Bill Clinton appointee, concluded on Thursday. "Allowing followers of other faiths to join religious group meetings while denying Holden the same privilege is discrimination on the basis of religion."

The plaintiffs celebrated it as a victory to be called a religion. I understand some atheists will object.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
> "The court finds that Secular Humanism is a
> religion for Establishment Clause purposes,"
> Haggerty, a Bill Clinton appointee, concluded on
> Thursday. "Allowing followers of other faiths to
> join religious group meetings while denying Holden
> the same privilege is discrimination on the basis
> of religion."

"...is a religion *FOR ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE PURPOSES."
Not for any other purpose.


> The plaintiffs celebrated it as a victory to be
> called a religion. I understand some atheists
> will object.

The plaintiffs celebrated their constitutional rights being upheld.

By the way, humanism is not atheism.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...is a religion *FOR ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
> PURPOSES."
> Not for any other purpose.
>

Well, that's sufficient. Atheism is a religion for any and all legal definitions. I'm satisfied with that. Atheists are free to have their personal definitions, but legally, atheism is a religion according to this ruling.


>
> By the way, humanism is not atheism.


The plaintiffs specifically described their faith as atheistic:

"AHA defines as 'an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces' "

Tall Man, you're being dishonest. That's not what the court held. The court noted that the equal protection clause requires religion and non-religion to be treated equally. The court held that humanism was entitled to equal protection whether it was a religion or a non-religion. There was no finding that atheism is a religion.

I quoted directly from the case last night. You know that.

If I'm wrong, please cite the court's holding - not the plaintiff's argument.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tall Man, you're being dishonest. That's not what
> the court held. The court noted that the equal
> protection clause requires religion and
> non-religion to be treated equally. The court
> held that humanism was entitled to equal
> protection whether it was a religion or a
> non-religion. There was no finding that atheism is
> a religion.
>
> I quoted directly from the case last night. You
> know that.
>
> If I'm wrong, please cite the court's holding -
> not the plaintiff's argument.

The court ruled that atheism MUST be referred to as a "religion" or it would be provided no protection under the establishment clause. Read the wording again.

I agree that the wording is a bit tortured, and allows for non religions, but it recognizes that the freedoms cited must be granted to a _religion_. So it declares Secular Humanism to be a religion in order to grant it the freedoms.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2015 12:29PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Einstein was a great man on par with Newton and Darwin, but he was not the fountain of all wisdom. Just because he said something once does not make it scripture. Outside of physics, he was just a man like everyone else.

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Einstein was a great man on par with Newton and
> Darwin, but he was not the fountain of all wisdom.
> Just because he said something once does not make
> it scripture. Outside of physics, he was just a
> man like everyone else.

Ah yes, the old "A physicist is only a physicist when he's acting as such" excuse.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Come to think of it, "The Spheres" would be a great band name.

I like those quotes by Einstein. I don't think of myself as an atheist, as I am trying to reconstruct what I believe, but I also think I understand at least some atheists. Those who are pretty strident in mocking religious belief, to me, are actually providing an essential part of social discussion, especially on a site of ex-mormons. It is undeniable that there are theists and atheists on this board and both have their say.

Everyone should have the right to believe what they want to, and in order to make that possible, any paradigm that starts with, "there is a god...," is unfair to enforce on a free society. I think this is what motivates atheists to be publicly vocal. In reality, the bottom line is that no one knows if there is a god. No matter how many people believe that there is or what evidence they point to, it does not change the fact that no one knows. There simply is not evidence to prove there is a god in reality. So, it is not fair to insist that other people respect, or even hold to someone's (even the majority's) musings on the subject.

I think that atheists make this point more clear to believers by pointing out how outside of reality some of their statements and actions are. For example, how many times have you heard a TBM assert they know where their dead loved one is and what they are doing and that they know they will see them again? There can be no question that these TBMs do not, in reality, know any such thing! If someone said something like this outside of a religious context, most people would think they were insane. They are free to believe this and act like it, but they should not be free to insist the rest of us here in hell, I mean Utah, must live as if their beliefs are fact.

I haven't listened to or read a lot of Dawkins, but I have definitely heard him say that he is not claiming to know there is no god. Facts are facts on earth. God does not count as a fact in the way humans are able to establish facts. That is why everyone should be free to come to their beliefs on the subject and stay out of the way of everyone else doing the same.

It looks to me like he was talking about the Soviet state approach to atheism, which is punitive towards faith. I personally hate Mormonism and dislike all religion in general. I understand that I am motivated by the painful separation that the professor mentions. My feelings about religion do include anger, and I don't recommend that for anyone. I would not outlaw religion, though I wish it would f**k off and die.

Just my perspective.

I don't know atheists to would go door to door telling people to stop going to church. I don't know atheists who wear funny underwear or say chants about their lack of belief. The ones I know don't ridicule or spit at believers. They don't spray paint church statues or stained glass windows.

I've heard of atheists who want to ban manger scenes and crosses from public view. I wouldn't push for that but those who do it don't seem all that fanatical to me.

I know of an atheist club where I live. I've never attended but I have a friend who goes. She said they take turns reading quotes and ideas written by atheists and have discussions about the topics presented. They are the most activist or "fanatical" of atheists in my neighborhood and experience. They don't march or complain in public. They don't make demands or issue ultimatums. They don't care that most people might not agree with them. I would say they sound a little dull and boring.

There is also nothing wrong with honestly disagreeing with highly intelligent people.

I cannot comprehend why some continue to find fault in the that some esteemed people hold views that are different from their own.

Perhaps this is a fault of LDS indoctrination, where thought control is a virtue.

Might be a better idea for people to contemplate the views of learned people, and then, individually, determine their own view on every concept.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2015 02:17PM by deco.

Gotta agree with the OP. Although I would ad i've yet to see or find a "Moderate" Atheist.

I'm an astronomer. Yes, I can hear it. Read the books, too -- the Mysterium Cosmographicum and Harmonices Mundi. I can "hear" the Music of the Spheres -- meaning I can appreciate the awe and mystery of the Wonders of the Heavens. Because I don't believe in the supernatural does not mean I am unmoved by the beauty of Nature or the apparent order within the randomness of the Universe.