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: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
Yes I have already been corrected thank you.
Has he actually said that he is an Atheist?




posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Have either of you seen the film 'The Theory of Everything'?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes.
You will even like the source for it.

www.christianpost.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

"I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science," he told the BBC in 2007. "The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."

It all depends on what the word 'God' means - until God is actually known, who could know what the word refers to? Maybe scientists would be the ones who look deep enough into reality to discover it but can't actually speak what it is.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
What do you think this Einstein quote means?
'The field is the sole governing agency of the particle'.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind,"

He is an atheist his comment about God was just to show he doesn't know why the universe exists and that God doesn't do anyhing If he did exist.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Itisnowagain

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind,"

He is an atheist his comment about God was just to show he doesn't know why the universe exists and that God doesn't do anyhing If he did exist.

If he does not know why or how the universe exists then surely that is beyond the reach of the human mind?
The fact that this is happening at all is a total mystery. Maybe realizing the mystery is God realization.

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



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TzarChasm
Yes I have already been corrected thank you.
Has he actually said that he is an Atheist?



www.nbcnews.com...

unless nbc is part of the conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Itisnowagain

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind,"

He is an atheist his comment about God was just to show he doesn't know why the universe exists and that God doesn't do anyhing If he did exist.

If he does not know why or how the universe exists then surely that is beyond the reach of the human mind?
The fact that this is happening at all is a total mystery. Maybe seeing the mystery is God realization.


lightning and volcanoes used to be total mysteries. why the sky is blue used to be a total mystery.

have faith in science. it pays better.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: dismanrc

Hitchens says it better than I.





OK that's a valid BELIEF, but why just religion? What about the looney's that want humans all to die to save the planet? What about the people that use any cause to gain power and control people?

This also bring me back to my idea. He wants to end the threat that religion causes, which mean he BELIEVES there is an issue. Which could be seen as a belief system. Which would allow you this to be classify this as a religion.

Which leads me back to the reading I did yesterday on the word disbelief. Which was page after page of saying disbelief is NOT the opposite of belief.

Which also leads me back to the statement of IF atheism is ever classified as a religion then it looses all the "high ground" in the debate. Which is a very good reason to fight against this happening from their view.

Lastly I would like to say I standup and support anyone's right to believe this if they so choose. I also support any of you that present this view.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
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.?



If you choose to YES.

You may choose to disbelieve if you want to.

Just as a though. There could be another explanation of all of these. "any significantly advanced technology could very well look like magic to someone that does not know." Don't remember where this quote came from but it is food for though isn't it?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc
If you choose to YES.

You may choose to disbelieve if you want to.


Unless you're indoctrinated or brainwashed nobody chooses to believe or disbelieve. You're either convinced by evidence/reason etc or you're not.

Of course this is different to religious belief, which we are told is a gift from a god, or not as the case may be.


Just as a though. There could be another explanation of all of these. "any significantly advanced technology could very well look like magic to someone that does not know." Don't remember where this quote came from but it is food for though isn't it?


You are forgetting Unicorns though.....and talking animals have featured in many other myths and legends long before the bible appeared. We give animals human aspects all the time, same with our cars and lots of other stuff, it's in our nature.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

Some crazy looneys are not the problem. Looneys gathering millions of ignorant followers believing their crap are one.

One way to prevent or contain this, is to educate the followers, fight the ignorance.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc
OK that's a valid BELIEF, but why just religion? What about the looney's that want humans all to die to save the planet? What about the people that use any cause to gain power and control people?


Well this discussion is about religion, so it doesn't help to attempt to shift the focus to another group. You shouldn't have to do that if your thought you position was valid.


This also bring me back to my idea. He wants to end the threat that religion causes, which mean he BELIEVES there is an issue. Which could be seen as a belief system. Which would allow you this to be classify this as a religion.


I believe Budweiser tastes like pee, in your world is that also a belief system?

lol

You're still unable or unwilling to differentiate between the two words belief and believe. It's a very poor tactic to bring others down to your level.


Which leads me back to the reading I did yesterday on the word disbelief. Which was page after page of saying disbelief is NOT the opposite of belief.


Reading religious forums no doubt, however in reality and the rest of the word disbelief is the lack of belief, the absence of belief. Religion has faith (belief in something not seen or able to be proved) and is therefore a belief. Atheism has no faith, therefore no belief, which sets it apart from religion and makes it a philosophy.


Which also leads me back to the statement of IF atheism is ever classified as a religion then it looses all the "high ground" in the debate. Which is a very good reason to fight against this happening from their view.


Only in the hopes and dreams of folk such as yourself could atheism be described as a religion, then yeah sure there would be a level playing field as atheists would then have to have have a belief in something for which there is no evidence or even evidence to the contrary, which is an obviously ridiculous position.

However as I'm sure you're aware, atheism is the lack of belief, it's the direct opposite of holding a belief, a faith. And so with that taken into account this is never going to be a level playing field.


Lastly I would like to say I standup and support anyone's right to believe this if they so choose. I also support any of you that present this view.


Apart from when you're attempting to convince them they're in a religion right?......
edit on 5-2-2015 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc




Just as a though. There could be another explanation of all of these. "any significantly advanced technology could very well look like magic to someone that does not know." Don't remember where this quote came from but it is food for though isn't it?




Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke


If life on our planet was seeded by an advanced technological society, and THAT is the history that they gave us through the Bible, then these beings ARE NOT GODS, and they're evil liars and deserve our irreverence and disobedience.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Im not religious, but I will say that a belief that there is a God is exactly the same as a belief that their isnt.
There is nothing to prove the existence or lack of existence. Hence Gnosticism.

Atheism is a firm BELIEF that no God exists.
You can go around the houses, but the fact remains that Atheism isnt a lack of belief, it relies heavily on the belief that God doesnt exist.
Gnosticism is a lack of belief. Due to lack of evidence.
Atheism starts from a position of "God does not exist". Thats a belief.
Belief and faith are two different things.
As a belief and a "belief system" are two different things.

edit on 20152America/Chicago02pm2pmThu, 05 Feb 2015 12:58:49 -06000215 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

I suggest you look up the meaning of Gnosticism and Atheism on both counts you are wrong.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy




Gnosticism is a lack of belief. Due to lack of evidence.


Gnosis is about "knowing".


Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (in the nominative case γνῶσις f.). In Christian, Islamic, or Jewish mysticism, mystery religions and Gnosticism gnosis generally signifies a spiritual knowledge or "religion of knowledge", in the sense of mystical enlightenment or "insight".




Atheism starts from a position of "God does not exist". Thats a belief.


Nope. Atheism is the rejection of any certain presentation of God. For example, if you say that GOD is this or that, and I say, "I don't believe that to be true", that is a rejection of your definition of God. It's all about the definition of God and its rejection.

Personally, I reject all religious definitions of God, and see God as being the totality of the Universe and all that that entails, no more, no less. I reject any idea of a personal God or any God that supposedly exists outside of the Universe.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Do you relate to Spinoza's God like Einstein?



I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

-- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.




Stenger: To Einstein, 'God' is 'Nature' (Spinoza's God)
"Both deism and traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic theism must also be contrasted with pantheism, the notion attributed to Baruch Spinoza (d. 1677) that the deity is associated with the order of nature or the universe itself. This also crudely summarizes the Hindu view and that of many indigenous religions around the world. When modern scientists such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking mention 'God' in their writings, this is what they seem to mean: that God is Nature."
-- Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001), chapter 3



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I suppose. I have read Spinoza and agreed with what I read. I don't really like the word "believe", though. If I have to address the existence of a "god" then the universe being that "god" does the trick for me.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join