Atheism discussion

[Guest]

This might be totally off topic, but it still fits the category of this athiest discussion...BTW I am a Christian, and I am not posting this to bash any of your beliefs at all, so delete this if you will, but you will regret it if you do. Just plead with me here and read the story in the spoiler, it looks long but it is actually pretty short once you start to get into it. It might change the way you think about life, or how science affects living things.

again, please read this....

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!"

He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that," the student relpies.

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says.

He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil ?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.

"Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks.

"Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. Th ere is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold;

otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is wh a t makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a

word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still sm iling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the process, the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the col d that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

That young man's name - Albert Einstein.

His statements are true

This is a fine example of a straw man argument. The "professor" is supposed to represent science and reason, but because this is a fictitious story used to promote religion, he of course misses the point completely and is made to look a fool.

Here's a few areas where he gets it wrong:

Firstly he enters into an irrelevant argument about good and evil. Absolute morality is a religious concept and is strictly one for theologians to confuse themselves with.

A much better argument would simply be to state that a belief (which is a particularly strong form of opinion) must be based on strong evidence in order to be reasonable. Since we lack any evidence for the existence of god there is no reason to believe. End of story.

The professor alludes to this reasoning in woefully inaccurate statements ("science says your God doesn't exist", and the simplistic association of evidence with sensory perception). He even invokes faith as a reason to believe in scientifically established knowledge. Science is all about extending knowledge. Faith is all about believing what you don't know. Science need not and should not be taken on faith because we can always test any scientific principle. We can test that the professor has a brain, although there is already plenty of evidence to suggest that he does, since all human beings do and he could not carry on the conversation (however misguidedly) without one. Confusing that which we directly observe with that which we know is an all-too-common form of religious befuddlement, intended to put faith on a par with reason.

Oh and then we end with an appeal to authority (which, though irrelevant, is quite probably total BS anyway). Lovely.

Convincing if you really want to be convinced*

*EDIT, no, on consideration it's not even that. Apart from the intent to undermine reason, it serves no purpose at all and makes no argument whatsover to suggest that the Christian God is any more likely to exist then Santa Claus.

[Guest]

octopuppy: seward wasn't saying that's what his belief was, but that some people that think they are atheist and are actually theist

about my friend, yeah, noted I wasn't planning on starting any debates (I think he's more our side of the fence than the other)

Jrod: I've seen that story, and it's utter BS. Einstein was an atheist his whole life. He said the quote "God doesn't play dice with the universe", and it's often twisted out of context by theist, but for him, 'god' was another term for nature basically. Einstein was in all aspects an atheist.

The thing is, the claims in the story are actually false. It's true that there is no such existing, tangible concept as cold or darkness (they are words representing the absence of heat or light), the professor should have known this. But it's used to lay the groundwork for "good and evil", of which NEITHER are existing, tangible concepts. So one could be the absence of the other or they could be anything you want to be. While heat exists and light exists, and cold & darkness their absences, neither good nor evil actually exist as a tangible concept, so they are relative to each other in any way you want. The professor in the story is obviously shaped to be an idiot, so don't think that represents all atheists. Since I read your story, you should read something like the God Delusion and tell us what you think

edit: another thing was that they couldn't see the professor's brain so according to his own thing they couldn't accept the brain's existence. The thing is, there is heaps of evidence for the existence of brains, and brains within all human beings, and for a brain within the professor himself (maybe he got an MRI done at one time, or just that the professor exhibits mental activity, which is controlled by his brain, so by inference)... while there is NO evidence for the student's (who is not einstein) god. Evidence is more than the 5 senses, in fact the 5 senses themselves, without much helping them, can be unreliable

First of all, I could care less if this was einstein who said these things or not, they are backed up by scientific proof....i could care less if this was coming from my dogs mouth if there was scientific proof. This story is NOT proof that there is a God, but it is proof that it takes faith to believe in other concepts of life (i.e. darkness, evil, his brain(which by the way, the MRI machine was not invented till 1977. Even if he somehow did get this MRI(???), the professor did not state that he had seen his brain, which by the theory he came up with, proved that he had no brain.)) So I am not saying that this story proves there is a God, but it DOES prove that their are believed physical facits of life, which in fact dont exist. Also, "this student"(for your sake) is not implying that good or evil exists, he is contrasting the belief of God, to the belief of those words/the profesors brain, which by theory(of that time period, and particular predicament) dont exist themselves. Also, what would give you the notion to believe in evolution? Evolution is not credible without the "missing link", which has not been found yet, so it is therefore not true. Or, let me rephrase that, "scientifically proven".

So my arguement boils down to this. By believing in evolution, you are actually creating a paradox, because evolution is not proven and in order to believe in that you are using faith, and if you are using faith, you have to believe in God.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Jrod_Writer13

[Guest]

And on the topic that Einstein was an atheist(which was not proven/nor supported specifically), here is proof that he was in fact a theist. This is historically documented and it IS proven as it appeared in The Saturday Evening Post in 1929.

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"

"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

"You accept the historical Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." 7

And what is your response to that?.....BTW i am not trying to be rude...just arguing beliefs:0

[Guest]

First of all, I could care less if this was einstein who said these things or not, they are backed up by scientific proof....i could care less if this was coming from my dogs mouth if there was scientific proof. This story is NOT proof that there is a God, but it is proof that it takes faith to believe in other concepts of life (i.e. darkness, evil, his brain(which by the way, the MRI machine was not invented till 1977. Even if he somehow did get this MRI(???), the professor did not state that he had seen his brain, which by the theory he came up with, proved that he had no brain.)) So I am not saying that this story proves there is a God, but it DOES prove that their are believed physical facits of life, which in fact dont exist.

Oh man, this is confused. Not sure I should even bother, oh well, I've started now. Firstly, a straw man story proves precisely nothing. And physical facets of life which don't exist? Huh? Existing is kind of a prerequisite for being physical.

I can see you're confused about belief. In your previous post you mentioned not wanting to bash our (athiest's) beliefs. Atheism, as I've stated I don't know how many times, is just a lack of belief. It's what happens when you look at religion and think "you must be kidding, why would I believe that?". I and many athiests distinguish between "belief", in a religious sense (which is effectively considering something to be a virtual certainty, despite in this case, lack of evidence), and "opinion" or "acceptance", which is how I would refer to my attitude to scientific knowledge. I may accept X to be true if scientific evidence supports it, but I do not "believe" X in the religious sense, since my acceptance is based only on evidence and if the evidence should cease to support X my acceptance of X would also cease. No faith required, no belief involved. And there's the difference. People who value reason do not cling to cherished beliefs.

Also, "this student"(for your sake) is not implying that good or evil exists, he is contrasting the belief of God, to the belief of those words/the profesors brain, which by theory(of that time period, and particular predicament) dont exist themselves. Also, what would give you the notion to believe in evolution? Evolution is not credible without the "missing link", which has not been found yet, so it is therefore not true. Or, let me rephrase that, "scientifically proven".

So my arguement boils down to this. By believing in evolution, you are actually creating a paradox, because evolution is not proven and in order to believe in that you are using faith, and if you are using faith, you have to believe in God.

No scientific principle is ever proven. It may be supported by huge amounts of mutually agreeing evidence from various sources (as evolution is), but as soon as a single piece of reliable evidence is found to contradict that principle, it no longer stands in its present form. If you search for ADParker's posts on that subject he goes into it in more depth. Evolution is the only credible explanation of how living beings came to be in their present form. There are no other plausible theories on the subject, and since an overwhelmingly huge mountain of data supports evolution, it is unlikely that there will ever be any.

[Izzy]

1. May I have a link to your reference?

2. Receiving instruction from biblical books in no way confirms/should suggest that someone is theist. Parents control their children, and if my mom wanted me to go to church and do all that stuff, I'd have to because I'm being told to. I would not whatsoever believe in the things I am learning.

3. Einstein here (assuming the quote is actually from him this time) is only saying that Jesus existed as a historical figure. Although his remains have never been found(be it because his grave was robbed or they "mysteriously lifted up to heaven), I've not researched his existence enough to decide whether he actually existed or not. I believe it could have been very likely that a long time ago some long-haired dude decided to go around spreading his ideas. This does not show he is the son of God, nor does it suggest that he's a holy being.

4. I love debates, argue as long as you want. ;D

*edit* I didn't quote or anything, so just so you guys know, this is in response to Jrod's post, #178.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Izzy

[Guest]

And on the topic that Einstein was an atheist(which was not proven/nor supported specifically), here is proof that he was in fact a theist. This is historically documented and it IS proven as it appeared in The Saturday Evening Post in 1929.

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"

"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

"You accept the historical Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." 7

And what is your response to that? .....BTW i am not trying to be rude...just arguing beliefs:0

I also think that Jesus existed. What does that have to do with being an atheist?

[Guest]

Oh man, this is confused. Not sure I should even bother, oh well, I've started now. Firstly, a straw man story proves precisely nothing. And physical facets of life which don't exist? Huh? Existing is kind of a prerequisite for being physical.

I can see you're confused about belief. In your previous post you mentioned not wanting to bash our (athiest's) beliefs. Atheism, as I've stated I don't know how many times, is just a lack of belief. It's what happens when you look at religion and think "you must be kidding, why would I believe that?". I and many athiests distinguish between "belief", in a religious sense (which is effectively considering something to be a virtual certainty, despite in this case, lack of evidence), and "opinion" or "acceptance", which is how I would refer to my attitude to scientific knowledge. I may accept X to be true if scientific evidence supports it, but I do not "believe" X in the religious sense, since my acceptance is based only on evidence and if the evidence should cease to support X my acceptance of X would also cease. No faith required, no belief involved. And there's the difference. People who value reason do not cling to cherished beliefs.

No scientific principle is ever proven. It may be supported by huge amounts of mutually agreeing evidence from various sources (as evolution is), but as soon as a single piece of reliable evidence is found to contradict that principle, it no longer stands in its present form. If you search for ADParker's posts on that subject he goes into it in more depth. Evolution is the only credible explanation of how living beings came to be in their present form. There are no other plausible theories on the subject, and since an overwhelmingly huge mountain of data supports evolution, it is unlikely that there will ever be any.

Wait....so are you saying that nothing is ever proven? Youre saying that 2 + 2 does not truly equal four, and that there is just a large amount of mutual agreeing evidence that suports it? Idk who told you that one, but that is false. A proven theory is in fact proven, and there can be no flaw if it is proven. Tell me, at which point(as you described something will be found to contradict that principal) will 2 + 2 not equal 4? If you have something that contradicts that please tell me...

[Guest]

IQ tests mean nothing. There is no real way to express someone's intelligence.... there are tons of definitions, theories, tests, etc, we learned about them in Psychology recently, but no single one is correct.

An "IQ Test" is actually a test called the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, which gives you a "mental age", then you divide by your "chronological age" to get your Intelligence Quotient, or IQ. The Stanford-Binet test is just another test. It is not comprehensive. You need would a test with an infinite number of questions to accurately measure intelligence

I agree 100%(just on this post )......for example, you could have college profesor over here with an IQ of 120, and a janitor over here with an IQ of 145. Does that make the janitor smarter? Absolutely not. BTW...you are way too smart for your own good...

Actually unreality (since it was brought up): the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale is only one of the measures used, the most common and popular, but there are a few others.

And they no longer do the simplistic method of comparing your "mental-age" score to your physical age - now they use more complicated measures based on the relative scores of your peers (age group - 5 or so years range) and plot it on a graph (Bell curve) and calculate it from there.

But yeah; the IQ test measures your "Intelligence Quotient" (whatever the hel that is) not your "true" intelligence, it's a rough guide is all. Oh and back to the source of all this (Mr. world's smartest man ) A high IQ doesn't mean one will use it well.

Jrod_Writer13: The Professor (IQ 120) and Janitor (IQ 140). Who is smarter? [Me! I beat both of 'em, and I'm a postman - Only playing ] Could be either. Also depends on what one means by "Smarter" The Professor may have a lesser IQ but have utilised what he has more efficiently. Or perhaps not; the Janitor might, for whatever reasons, have concluded that that position is the best for him, and perhaps it is.

Actually reminded me of a true story; without looking up the details: There was this paper submitted to some peer review science journal from this guy from some university. It was reviewed and published, and ended up being a revolution on the science of ice-ages or some-such. The author got all the praise and whatnot. Anyway it was soon revealed that this gentleman wasn't a professor at the university (as was assumed) or even a student, but the campus janitor, who had never attended university, and learned all he had by reading books in the university library in his down time!

[Guest]

Wait....so are you saying that nothing is ever proven? Youre saying that 2 + 2 does not truly equal four, and that there is just a large amount of mutual agreeing evidence that suports it? Idk who told you that one, but that is false. A proven theory is in fact proven, and there can be no flaw if it is proven. Tell me, at which point(as you described something will be found to contradict that principal) will 2 + 2 not equal 4? If you have something that contradicts that please tell me...

A mathematical theory may be proven provided you accept the underlying logical structures. I was referring to the physical sciences there. Since physical matters were the topic under discussion I forgot to clarify that.

[Guest]

1. May I have a link to your reference?

2. Receiving instruction from biblical books in no way confirms/should suggest that someone is theist. Parents control their children, and if my mom wanted me to go to church and do all that stuff, I'd have to because I'm being told to. I would not whatsoever believe in the things I am learning.

3. Einstein here (assuming the quote is actually from him this time) is only saying that Jesus existed as a historical figure. Although his remains have never been found(be it because his grave was robbed or they "mysteriously lifted up to heaven), I've not researched his existence enough to decide whether he actually existed or not. I believe it could have been very likely that a long time ago some long-haired dude decided to go around spreading his ideas. This does not show he is the son of God, nor does it suggest that he's a holy being.

4. I love debates, argue as long as you want. ;D

*edit* I didn't quote or anything, so just so you guys know, this is in response to Jrod's post, #178.

I also think that Jesus existed. What does that have to do with being an atheist?

To both of you, since I have already given my proof, and if Einstein did in fact belief in Jesus, then he DID belief in God. God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit, are all one. There for, a man as smart as Einstein, by saying that he believed in Jesus, he knew that he was saying he believed in God. Ex...Lets say you dont believe in Jesus, and it is a fact that God/Jesus are the same....and then you are convinced to believe in Jesus and you do....then dont you believe in God?

[Guest]

To both of you, since I have already given my proof, and if Einstein did in fact belief in Jesus, then he DID belief in God.

You sure about that?:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may...cience.religion

[Izzy]

To both of you, since I have already given my proof, and if Einstein did in fact belief in Jesus, then he DID belief in God. God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit, are all one. There for, a man as smart as Einstein, by saying that he believed in Jesus, he knew that he was saying he believed in God. Ex...Lets say you dont believe in Jesus, and it is a fact that God/Jesus are the same....and then you are convinced to believe in Jesus and you do....then dont you believe in God?

Pfft. What proof? I believe that a long time ago, it was likely that a man named Jesus went around spreading his thoughts and morals. Just as a long time ago, a man named Saint Nickolaus went around giving children toys and sweets. Both these historically true figures have been given mythical properties so the children of today can continue celebrating the traditions that their ancestors did. I do not believe there is an immortal spirit, Jesus, God, Santa, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy. If you haven't noticed, there is a trend with all these characters. All were created to make humankind behave, some were just more kid-friendly than others.

[Guest]

To both of you, since I have already given my proof, and if Einstein did in fact belief in Jesus, then he DID belief in God. God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit, are all one. There for, a man as smart as Einstein, by saying that he believed in Jesus, he knew that he was saying he believed in God. Ex...Lets say you dont believe in Jesus, and it is a fact that God/Jesus are the same....and then you are convinced to believe in Jesus and you do....then dont you believe in God?

This is getting silly

[Izzy]

This is getting silly

This is getting fun! I hope I don't have to go off-line soon..

[Guest]

You sure about that?:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may...cience.religion

I read this yes...and it says that Einsein did not believe in God. But yet he said he did believe in Jesus. So maybe the problem within here is that, the all-intellectual Einstein is confused, because those two figures are interchangeble.

And to the person who said that Jesus' body was not found, therefore making him not proven existing....was Mozart not real either? His grave/body is nowhere to be found, but he was in fact a real person.

[Guest]

ThingOfTheFuture: I get what you're saying, but unfortunately segregation still exists. Did you know that Boy Scouts are anti-atheists? That's right, you have to "pledge to God" to join them. The list goes on, I'm sure. It doesn't really affect me (since I hated the boy scouts anyway, we never actually did anything ;D), but I know it affects some people

I was in the Boys Brigade, just as Christian based (no big surprise the founders of the two were friends.) But then I believed that crap back then. <_< Well except for the last couple of years - Pretty easy to enjoy the rest without giving any thought to the religious underpinning. Don't know if I could do that now though, the "militant Atheist" that I have become.

For the atheists, I have a question.... one of my good friends is going through some "religious self-examination" or something like that. Like a time where he's pondering philosophy. He doesn't say much about it openly but I can tell. His family is Christian, but like most people in my area, it's not a really big influence. I mean, he doesn't go to church or anything, and he's smart, and values reason I'm sure. The other day he said he wanted to talk with (or debate with, I can't remember) a priest about "philosophical matters", lol. Then the other day he said he liked to ponder "philosophical questions and evolution". I'm not exactly sure what he means since you can't really "ponder evolution", but I think it would be fair to say that he's grappling with religion. I kind of want to influence him, but at the same time I DON'T want to influence him. He's a cool guy and I think he would be able to break the vice that religion holds on America, but I don't know if he can do it alone. I don't want to bring the matter up either, that would just be kind of awkward. idk. Any suggestions?

Discuss it with him (sounds like he would appreciate someone to voice his concerns with.) See what his questions are and what thoughts he has on the whole deal. No need to be confrontational or anything, just talk about it. Perhaps declare you own position so that he realises where you are coming from, then giving your (clearly atheistic) arguments, just so he knows your thoughts on those same subjects. Then let him take it from there.

As for reading material; since you mention his focus on philosophy and evolution - a good one might be Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea

; Evolution explained by a Philosopher of science! With good, but subtle and open, reference to the flawed religious thinking that opposes the very idea. I especially like his description of evolution as design without a designer ("Design sans Designer" I call it.) And then perhaps his next book Breaking the Spell; the most theist friendly of the atheist books I feel - all about breaking the spell religion has over people; about it being protected from critical assessment and reasoning etc.

If you can get more on what philosophical questions he has, I might be able to suggest more. But a good book on critical thinking, any that simply discuss general (or random, doesn't matter) philosophy questions as well, never goes amiss - fun to read and help bolster the old critical thinking parts of the brain.

Reminds me; I still have that "Batman and Philosophy" book waiting to be read.

[Guest]

I read this yes...and it says that Einsein did not believe in God. But yet he said he did believe in Jesus. So maybe the problem within here is that, the all-intellectual Einstein is confused, because those two figures are interchangeble.

I don't think it's Einstein that was confused- it is you. One can believe a human existed without believing he was God's son/God or that God even exists. Believing a Jesus figure existed says nothing about one's theism.

[Guest]

I read this yes...and it says that Einsein did not believe in God. But yet he said he did believe in Jesus. So maybe the problem within here is that, the all-intellectual Einstein is confused, because those two figures are interchangeble.

That's only your opinion. David Icke thought he was the son of god for a while too. While I accept the existence of David Icke, this does not imply that I am a theist.

[Izzy]

I read this yes...and it says that Einsein did not believe in God. But yet he said he did believe in Jesus. So maybe the problem within here is that, the all-intellectual Einstein is confused, because those two figures are interchangeble.

And to the person who said that Jesus' body was not found, therefore making him not proven existing....was Mozart not real either? His grave/body is nowhere to be found, but he was in fact a real person.

You remind me of the person who was arguing for the existence of ghosts by saying China wasn't real. I'm sorry, but please tell me you realize how silly your argument is. We have quite a lot of empirical data showing Mozart existed (records dating his birth/death, his music, etc.), therefore, we can conclude without any reasonable doubt that he existed. However, we don't have any real proof of Jesus's existence, but since many have claimed to see him, we can consider he existed.

I'm not arguing Jesus' existence here; I could care less. With the things you're saying about Einstein, all it really seems we can debate is his definition of God. I highly doubt he thought of Jesus and God as one interchangeable figure. His records of being an atheist certainly don't put it that way. I think we can conclude that Einstein thought Jesus existed historically, and not as God. Also, take into consideration that atheism was generally frowned upon when Einstein was alive (heh, it still is..). Some of the things he said could have been just to look politically correct at the time.

[Guest]

My feeling on being an aetheist is that some people who claim to be a "non-believer" are in fact theist not atheist. Using this logic:

If you ask someone if they believe in god? This is a positive statement, meaning that there is a god to believe or not to believe in. The statement itself can not be answered by a tru atheist.

YOu must choose your words carefully in your response's. Implying things without realizing it is how our "society" has been trained.

Not necessarily. The question is fine really. Do you believe in god? Do you believe in Magical pixies from Proxima Centauri? Or in the Bogeyman?

No need to presume that the questioner does. And no real need to "be careful" with your reply. It does not mean that there is a god to believe in or not, simply that there is an idea of this thing, could even be an idea that you just made up on the spot, no big deal.

The way people ask it might give something away though - you can often tell (in person, not so much in text) if they do themselves, by the tone of voice.

Sure, an atheist can answer it: Do I believe in god? No I do not.

(Sorry; had to respond - you used the L word. )

that's a good point, I've never thought of that before - "Do you believe in god?" is like asking "do you accept the truth that Zeus exists?" either they accept it or not, but either way it's staged to be true. Interesting! It's kind of like that joke where you ask someone "Are you going to admit that you're [insert derogatory term of your choice here]?", regardless of yes or no, they're screwed http://brainden.com/forum/uploads/emoticons/default_tongue.png' alt=':P'>

Actually that is not a joke (well it can be of course) but an important logical point: Question of the type: "Do you still beat your wife?" are known as the Complex Question, a Logical Fallacy. They assume something (complicatring things) within the question. In this example; that you used to beat your wife. Answering with Yes or No, which is what the question format seems to ask for, would mean accepting that complicating element, assumed point, as true.

[Guest]

Evolution is not credible without the "missing link", which has not been found yet, so it is therefore not true. Or, let me rephrase that, "scientifically proven".

What missing link would make evolution credible? We've discovered so many transitional fossils that there are now Billions of Missing Links. And growing all the time.

So my arguement boils down to this. By believing in evolution, you are actually creating a paradox, because evolution is not proven and in order to believe in that you are using faith, and if you are using faith, you have to believe in God.

There is so much evidence in multiple branches of science that it takes zero faith to accept the theory of evolution. Your paradox is imaginary. Nothing is proven outside of mathematics and logic.

[Guest]

That is where some of you are lost.....it is proven in the Bible(which in fact is a book with true statements in it....whether you agree or not)that God/Jesus are one...and that "the historical Jesus, the person"(as you have referred to) states that:

"I and my father are one." - John 10:30

"He who hath seen me, hath seen my Father." -John 14:7 & 9

So by believing in the historical figure Jesus(whether Einstein likes it or not) he is believing in God, otherwise he truly does not believe in the historical figure of Jesus.

BTW...This is fun! Although, somewhat infuriating....it is still fun to debate.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Jrod_Writer13

[Izzy]

Okay, although I understand your point, I have to point out that I DO NOT believe the things written in the bible. Whatsoever. Prove to me they are facts, have them survive some hardcore empirical tests, don't falsify them, and I'll consider it. Until then, the bible saying Jesus and God are a solitary person is completely irrelevant. Either Einstein didn't realize the way the bible implied Jesus and God being one person, or he chose to ignore it, the way I do, because there is absolutely no proof to suggest it is so.

Also, when did Einstein's word become law? I agree he's a total genius and love him for all his work on the theory of relativity and several of his other accomplishments, but just because he says/thinks something doesn't make it true. Only about 7% of scientists believe in a personal god. Einstein can believe whatever he wants, but I won't accept it as fact just because he says it. Just like you're probably not accepting any of the things I'm saying. >_>

[Guest]

Okay, although I understand your point, I have to point out that I DO NOT believe the things written in the bible. Whatsoever. Prove to me they are facts, have them survive some hardcore empirical tests, don't falsify them, and I'll consider it. Until then, the bible saying Jesus and God are a solitary person is completely irrelevant. Either Einstein didn't realize the way the bible implied Jesus and God being one person, or he chose to ignore it, the way I do, because there is absolutely no proof to suggest it is so.

Also, when did Einstein's word become law? I agree he's a total genius and love him for all his work on the theory of relativity and several of his other accomplishments, but just because he says/thinks something doesn't make it true. Only about 7% of scientists believe in a personal god. Einstein can believe whatever he wants, but I won't accept it as fact just because he says it. Just like you're probably not accepting any of the things I'm saying. >_>

Lol...actually I am listening to what you are saying....and that's the problem . You just said "there is absolutely no proof....." . Didnt you just get done saying that nothing is based on proof, because "nothing" can be scientifically proven? Now you are contradicting yourself, which is the key to a flawed theory. And I didnt say what Einstein says is the law, we simply got into that by arguing if he was an athiest or a thiest. And by my points, he is neither.....he is just confused. Smart...actually very very smart....but confused.

[Izzy]

Woah, back up. I never said nothing can be scientifically proven! I've been saying that the bible hasn't been scientifically proven. Lots of things have been proven. Like evolution, the earth not being flat, gravity, etc. etc. etc.

I'm still standing behind my view of Einstein being an atheist. Atheisim, by definition, is not believing in God, not anti-theism. Einstein did not believe in God. He never accepted Jesus and God to be one person. Because of this, Einstein is an atheist.

This is rushed. Got to take a lame shower. Shall continue tomorrow!