It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Albert Einstein said about Atheists

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Prezbo369

Did you even watch the video? He clearly states that "whether if you believe the origin of God is an unanswerable question, then save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question".


That only applies to people that believe gods exist, and it certainly doesn't apply to science. Why would someone that holds no belief in gods believe the origin of gods is unanswerable?....


The Big Bang Theory is a THEORY. Which is why it is called such. There is no undeniable evidence of its existence. Such as the Belief in God.


Yep you definitely know what you're talking about, and are not just spouting your ignorant opinion.....

Scientific Theory


Proponents of Atheism often like to sight the great minds of science to prove their beliefs, which evidently in this thread, is not the case.


Atheists hold no beliefs.....no matter how much you want them to.

Belief



Atheists hold many beliefs, the key one being that "God definitely does not exist".
Now without any evidence for or against God, atheism is as much a belief as a belief in God.

We all have values and beliefs, but the vast majority of what we believe these days doesnt have a damn thing to do with God.

I believe that we have a corrupt ruling elite in this world living on the blood sweat and tears of the ignorant masses, where is God in that equation?




posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: dismanrc



And yes I would vote for someone no matter what religion they are. And I would be proud to listen to what they say about their religion as long as I get the make the finial choose on the issue.


So why do you have a problem with the separation of church and state?



Separation of church and sate as presented in the Constitution is so that ONE particular religion can't be used to control the state. IE in the case at the time the Anglican Church which you had to be a member of to hold office in England.

It goes back to the wording "Freedom OF religion" not "Freedom FROM religion".

If someone from ANY religion donates something to the public to be displayed it should be. If you disagree with what is on display you should have every right to donate something that represents your views to be displayed. Should government itself pay money for the item? No Should government pay money for the up keep and maintenance of the donated item? Yes, just as it does with any artwork or other donated item.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy




Erm, no we dont.


Are you telling me that there no scientific proof that the universe is expanding due a big explosion, that occurred at some point in our distant past?



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OneManArmy




Erm, no we dont.


Are you telling me that there no scientific proof that the universe is expanding due a big explosion, that occurred at some point in our distant past?


Evidence, yes.
Proof, no.

There is evidence that the universe isnt even expanding at all, but is gaining mass.


So in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times dimmer surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.

But that is not what observations show, as demonstrated by this new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D.

The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.

Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.


Source

Link To Study

So there you go, nothing is "proven" at all.
Nothing in science is truly definitive. It just takes people like Copernicus, Galileo, Tesla and Einstein to come along and rock the boat from time to time.
Science = The never ending pursuit of "truth".
Sadly what is truth today is often laughable in 200-300 years time.
edit on 20152America/Chicago02pm2pmTue, 03 Feb 2015 12:49:16 -06000215 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

edit on 20152America/Chicago02pm2pmTue, 03 Feb 2015 12:52:26 -06000215 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

I fought with myself over whether or not to post the word "proof" or "evidence". I decided on "proof" as a word describing a platform of agreement. Do scientists "agree" that there was a big explosion that propelled the universe into expansion?



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OneManArmy

I fought with myself over whether or not to post the word "proof" or "evidence". I decided on "proof" as a word describing a platform of agreement. Do scientists "agree" that there was a big explosion that propelled the universe into expansion?



No they dont agree at all. Thats what makes humanity so golden, we dont all think the same things or take at face value what we are told to believe.

If we did then take things at face value, then nobody would ever invent or discover anything.
edit on 20152America/Chicago02pm2pmTue, 03 Feb 2015 12:53:45 -06000215 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: dismanrc

Ah yes just the other day there was another trying to rebrand atheism as a belief system. Falsely labeling atheism as a belief/religion is quite the conspiracy. There has been a push by religious groups to label and redefine atheism for quite a while and it is agenda driven. Some consciously know what they are attempting some do not but the entire premise is advocated from an offshoot of the Wedge strategy authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The manifesto's goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values. The leaked document became widely known in the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case where ID was being snuck into schools. Since then most groups have tried to downplay the Wedge Document but offshoots of the strategy have included rebranding atheism as a religion along with attempts to label evolution as its doctrine. The purpose is to label certain sciences as religious doctrine with hopes to have them removed from the curriculum.


Lot of talk but have you disputed one of the things i said?
Nope, not one.
I have no problems with atheist, as i said they have the same right to their beliefs as everyone else.
The old saying is "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, squawks like a duck and swims like a duck. Its probably a duck."
Atheism fits the definition of a religion. In many cases you can even list atheism as your preferred religion on government forms.
BUT if we do consider atheism as a religion then they are on equal footing just like everybody else and would be seen as pushing their "religion" just like all the ones they cry against.
A belief system is a belief system no matter what you call it.
So why is atheism NOT a belief system?


Just like Walter Isaacson who wrote Einsteins biography you are fabricating things to inflate your faith. Undoubtedly Isacson made up Einsteins quotes on faith just as you made up your own definition of atheism.

There is only one religion Albert Einstein has gone on record to endorse and that is Buddhism which if people were to believe your definition of Atheism would mean that many Buddhist hold two religions.



The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Immortality? There are two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and is thus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conserve the memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only one true immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of the cosmos itself. There is no other.
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in Madalyn Murray O'Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists (1982) vol. ii., p. 29


Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position, but let's think critically for a moment about the implications if atheism was defined as a religion. That would require the change of definition from a lack of belief in deities to a (belief that deities don't exist) which would mean that Christians and Muslims as well as any other group that claims other deities don't exist would hold at least two religions. One religion for the belief in their gods and another religion for their belief that other gods don't exist.

Silly huh?

I already pointed out that this whole push to label Atheism as a religion is part of a conspiracy thought up by religious groups so they can gain further control in the government. Since you seem to have no problem fabricating definitions and keep pushing that narrative I have to say it is interesting to meet a willing conspirator such as yourself.


edit on 3-2-2015 by Grimpachi because:




posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: lonesomerimbaud



The fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after a hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres."


An interesting and very intellectually thought out comment, there are some people on YouTube that this really does apply to for sure, less to ATS members, the really fanatical ones have already been banned.

edit on 3-2-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   
"Just like Walter Isaacson who wrote Einsteins biography you are fabricating things to inflate your faith. Undoubtedly Isacson made up Einsteins quotes on faith just as you made up your own definition of atheism."




Except I have not put forth a faith in fact I plainly have said I don't now which religion is correct. And by what I stated I'm including Atheism as a religion. I do this because I believe that it has just as much right to be a belief system as another.

I made up no definition of Atheism , in fact I never posted a definition of Atheism I used the definition of religion. Another user posted the atheism definition, and i replied the that.


No one has yet refuted my 4 points on why atheism should be considered a religion.

I have gotten a roundabout circle on why believing in something does not mean you believe in something, but that's it.


I have also talked about Buddhism. It is not a faith based religion, there is no gods or GOD in it. It is the human strive to gain Nirvana. But it is still considered a religion. In fact you could be of any faith and still practice Buddhism. My friend that is a Buddhism monk was also a deacon in his baptist church. We had many talks about this and I could find no issues in it. In fact Buddha was a follower of the Indian gods. One is a matter of faith the other is striving for human perfection.



Could it also be that Atheist don't want Atheism labeled as a religion because they would lose all "high ground"? This would place them as just another believer group pushing their agenda?



]edit on 4-2-2015 by dismanrc because: quoting system not working right

edit on 4-2-2015 by dismanrc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

It's just that your not paying attention. No one has taken your 4 points seriously because they make no sense, but for giggle I will analyse it.




Atheist have all of these:
- defiantly a large number of followers.
- A core belief that there is no God.
- A very hard drive to remove all other belief systems (IE religions) from public use.
- the sign of the atom or @ is commonly know as their "cross"





- defiantly a large number of followers.


What exactly are we following? Followers of what?


- A core belief that there is no God.

We already covered that lack of belief is not a belief and disbelief is not a belief. Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in deities. Look it up.

- A very hard drive to remove all other belief systems (IE religions) from public use.

That certainly doesn't apply to all atheists in fact few are like that.

- the sign of the atom or @ is commonly know as their "cross"

So are you saying that a symbol that defines an aspect of your life defines a religion I would have to say it is a good thing that isn't the only prerequisite to make something a religion. Just imagine all the football, surfing, fishing, and military religions to name but a few.

So your four points are not points at all even if you stretched it to the limit they don't work.

Playing fast and loose with defining religions would repercussions such as your belief that atheism is a belief would become a belief system so if you believe in a god not you are stuck with three religions attached to you.

Your belief in a god. Religion 1
Your lack of belief in other gods. Religion 2
Your belief that atheism is a religion. Religion 3

Just how many religions do you need and which one are you going to devote the most effort to? Keep the faith bro.


Yeah, that's sarcasm.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Been doing some reading on Disbelief.

atheism.about.com...

"What is Disbelief? Disbelief can be defined broadly as simply not believing or the absence of belief and narrowly as the rejection of belief. The broader sense of disbelief applies when someone lacks the mental attitude that some proposition is true for any reason — including ignorance of the proposition. The narrower sense applies when someone is aware of the proposition but is unable to form the mental attitude that it is true, for example not understanding it or not having enough evidence to accept it. By implication, a person who disbelieves in the narrower sense also disbelieves in the broader sense. " Austin Cline



myweb.facstaff.wwu.edu...

Seems kind of circular thinking. If you think something is right do you not believe it is right?

Austin Cline states two modes of disbelieving:

1. Broad: lacks the mental attitude (including ignorance of the proposition) that something is true
2. Narrow: unable to form the mental attitude that it is true, for example not understanding it or not having enough evidence to accept it.

OK I can support both of these in theory.

So if atheist don't care, are ignorant of the idea, don't understand or have enough evidence of God or gods; why is there such a push against religion by so many? Why does having a cross (or any other religious symbol) that has been there for years even matter? It would seem to me after reading some of the articles I have today that a true atheist would do one of two things. 1. Ask for more information so that they could analysis the ideas better. 2. Just ignore the religious items as being irrelevant to them. (They don't spend a lot of time chasing down Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and dragons right?)




edit on 4-2-2015 by dismanrc because: removed item



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

Hitchens says it better than I.




posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I don't know what happens after death because I have never died, but until God shows me proof of his existence then I will continue to not believe in a God.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

Atheists wouldn't give a damn, if religious groups would simply keep their religion "in the church". Unfortunately they don't, they never have, especially the abrahamic religions. This is the main friction point between atheists and theists imho.

Feel free to believe whatever you want, just don't bother others with it, please.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc




Austin Cline states two modes of disbelieving:

1. Broad: lacks the mental attitude (including ignorance of the proposition) that something is true
2. Narrow: unable to form the mental attitude that it is true, for example not understanding it or not having enough evidence to accept it.


Do these two modes of disbelief apply to Bible stories too?

For example, do I lack, or have an inability to form the mental attitude, including ignorance of the proposition of talking snakes, magic trees, virgins giving birth to gods, men rising from the dead, etc.?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc

Seems kind of circular thinking. If you think something is right do you not believe it is right?


People can’t have religious “believes”; they have religious beliefs. If you have it, it’s a belief; if you do it, you believe.


Just ignore the religious items as being irrelevant to them. (They don't spend a lot of time chasing down Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and dragons right?)


Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and dragons are not religious and so have no followers attempting to impose their religion on others...



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
Do scientists "agree" that there was a big explosion that propelled the universe into expansion?


No. I recently watched the film 'The Theory of Everything' and in it (the actor playing) Stephen Hawkings, who introduced the theory of the big bang - the beginning of time, has changed his mind - he said the universe is boundless, no beginning and no end. There was even mention of God.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Wrong he didn't come up with the big bang theory
George Lamaitre did...If I remember correctly.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74
Yes, you are correct.
Funny that he was a Catholic Priest given the thread - he was also a cosmologist.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: windword
Do scientists "agree" that there was a big explosion that propelled the universe into expansion?


No. I recently watched the film 'The Theory of Everything' and in it (the actor playing) Stephen Hawkings, who introduced the theory of the big bang - the beginning of time, has changed his mind - he said the universe is boundless, no beginning and no end. There was even mention of God.


he didnt introduce the big bang theory, and he is an atheist. although its not his atheism that leads myself and many others to respect his work.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join