Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

Status
Not open for further replies.
dumbest man on earth said:
At any rate, it would seem that a religion might not necessitate a "God"
Click to expand...
Hi DMOE.
I hope you are well.
Thanks for taking the time to make your post referencing the dictionary.
All I can hope is that Jan does not notice or I will never hear ( read) the end of it.
However knowing the information you have provided leaves me plenty of time to work on my defence.
Thanks again.
Alex
 
billvon said:
You do need X and Y to determine a unique point. However, "the point is at X=5" is perfectly valid; it's like telling someone you live at latitude 30 degrees.
Click to expand...
The thank you for putting it that way...that is what I was trying to say.
I think my first comment then must be correct really or do I put to fine a point on it?
In any event thanks for helping me.
Alex
 
paddoboy said:
I'm reasonably sure Einstein's religious views are generally known. Certainly he did not accept any personal god or any magical deity or sky daddy existing apart from the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
" Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1]Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[3] Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me."[6] He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups."
Click to expand...
I feel most comfortable to hold almost identical views to those of Dr Albert Einstein...and most happy to hear that he too said that he was not an atheist, given my recent redefinment of my position, we differ in so far as he preferred to call himself agnostic whereas I have chosen realist... I don't think we are far apart...I leave the door open for a god or gods as a matter of wishful thinking ..imagine a world with a god or gods managing things..I mean other than Donald or Scott...gods certainly but more like those Greek gods who seemed to suffer pretty outrageous flaws.

Great observation and thanks for making it..I like it a lot but I have been handing out so many likes I do not wish to appear favouring anyone so I tell you here..you have so many holding one back wont hurt...I don't know if it was here or someplace else someone was accused of using likes as some sort of ploy...maybe I dreamed it..too many naps these days.
Alex
 
wegs said:
Poor Jan. For as long as I've been a member on here, he has been the target of nearly everyone's fury. lol

(I'd hope for the sake of this pandemic, we could all show a bit more understanding and compassion. Then, once it's all over...go back to your mud flinging. ;) )
Click to expand...
Don’t worry about me wegs. I’m having a hootenanny of a time as usual.
These guys are heat up because they believe that darwinism, specifically macro evolution is a scientific fact, because they have been told so.
They believe those pictures that were drawn to show the evolution of the whale, was really what happened.
So I put a test to them, to explain what makes them personally accept darwinism as a scientific fact, rather than a materialistic philosophy. And the best they could do was come up with those, similar type pictures, and assertions that they were fact.
Or in Alex’s case, he admitted he believes it because the scientific method is a rigorous process, or he simply accepts what some scientists say, based on whether or not they believed in God.
It was pathetic. :D When you get the time, you should read through it, so you get a sense of what I mean.

They are mad as hell at me, because I dare to tell them that darwinism, is their religion, and their “fury” as you put it, is due to the fact that they cannot hurt me enough. They are now in, what I have dubbed “the atheist yee-haw” mode, where they absolutely refuse to have a reasonable discussion with me, about their beliefs. It really is amazing.

They, predictably, totally trash ID, the group responsible for bring to the worlds attention, the childishness, stuborn, belief of darwinism.
They do this by simply showing the wonderful complexities of the cell, and the information therein. That’s all it takes.

The cell is actually not a blob of jello. where given enough time, and the exact conditions, life spontaneously appears guys.
Sometimes I wish it were just to make them happy, and put a smile on their chubby little faces.
As if that wasn’t enough, they have dated quite a few dinosaur bones, and soft, very pliable, tissue, which based on what everyone was taught, became extinct between 65 and 200 or so million years ago, shouldn’t exist.
Has consistently shown to between 20000 to 40,000 years old.
But my darwinist chums have happily kept their head in the sand about that one, and pretend they didn’t know about it, like it was some kind of pseudoscience, or something.

So while I appreciate your pity, it is, like many a fossil, wrongly placed. We should direct it at them, and hope they can transition to the truth. This time with real intermediate data.
Now sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy the next wave of...

...Atheist Yee-Hew

It’s hoot. Not to mention great entertainment in this lock down.

I probably won’t be here for much longer.
Yes... I have watched the movie “No intelligence allowed”, and we all know what happens to whistle blowers. ;)

Hope you, and loved ones are well, and keep safe.
 
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I feel most comfortable to hold almost identical views to those of Dr Albert Einstein...
Click to expand...
Since you have proffered to hold almost identical views to those of Dr Albert Einstein...
How do your views align with the views of Dr. Albert Einstein that I provided in my Post #1333 :
https://sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm :
The following article by Albert Einstein appeared in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It has been reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pp 36 - 40. It also appears in Einstein's book The World as I See It, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.Religion and Science
..." It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people. "
https://sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

I Posted it because it was Albert Einstein's view on Religion and Science, which seemed to me to be relevant to your Post #1331, in which you repeatedly stated "Science is not however a religion as it has no God.Science is not however a religion as it has no God.".
I'm interested in what you think of his maintaining "that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research." and also his stating that "A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
That is why I Posted it, Alex.

I did not Post it as a commentary on " Einstein's religious views ", because it clearly is not.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I feel most comfortable to hold almost identical views to those of Dr Albert Einstein...
Click to expand...
Hi Alex, how are we today. Hope you’re keeping safe.

Unfortunately your views on Einstein are probably too simplistic, and black and white, to make a proper, informed judgement.

Did you manage to get back your stuff from the city yet?
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
On the bottles of holy water at the bottom of the bottle there is a direction...please open at the other end.
Alex
Click to expand...
Why does not the instruction live at the top of the bottle?

Having the instruction on the bottom means I have to turn the bottle upside down to find it :(

:)
 
Jan Ardena said:
Hi Alex, how are we today. Hope you’re keeping safe.

Unfortunately your views on Einstein are probably too simplistic, and black and white, to make a proper, informed judgement.

Did you manage to get back your stuff from the city yet?
Click to expand...

Hi Jan.
I don't know about "we" but I am reasonably ok although still recovering from shopping on Tuesaday last. There was not one single chair or seat in the shopping center which meant that I could not rest my legs, they took a beating, I have been in bed most of the time since then trying to recover, hence why I have spent so much time here. It was a good thing I could not set up my astronomy gear in retrospect as I needed the rest. Not grizzling but my legs are on fire.

I don't have my wheel chair here which is a shame as I would like to visit the dam more often but my little trip the other day was probably too much just with my walking stick. Its only times like this that I need it..I am not a cripple as I keep reminding people and myself.

On the point re astronomy I have not returned to the city to pick up the missing box of equipment rationalizing that staying here is probably the most sensible approach.

All my views are simplistic, or haven't you noticed, and I am not making a judgement merely going on what the great man was quoted as saying...black or white is appropriate now that you mention it..he either said he was an atheist or he did not.

I expect many are uncomfortable that one of the greatest minds did not appear religious.

And I know that he said god does not play dice and certainly analysing that comment is not a case of black and white.

I presume as no one has said he did not say he was not an atheist must hint at the validity of the quote.

Do you reject he said that he was not an atheist?

Do you reject that I said I am not an atheist?

That is rather simple to answer is it not?

DMOE has raised something so with you out of the way I will attempt to answer his questions I need to give it some thought which is rather novel.

Alex.
 
James R said:
I think Jan's on the record as believing in Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
A belief that a handful of mud evolved into Adam

What could be the mechanism for that?

Can we do that in this day and age? Save doing all that messy sex stuff

Geology should get a boost when they start including Centrefolds

:)
 
paddoboy said

ID and/or any form of creationism is unsupported and unevidenced.

Thought bubble

Has any holy person done the experiment of putting a handful of mud on the altar and asking God to make a Adam?

:)
 
dumbest man on earth said:
I Posted it because it was Albert Einstein's view on Religion and Science, which seemed to me to be relevant to your Post #1331,
Click to expand...

Thank you for posing your interesting questions which I will address later.

When I read your dictionary cut and paste that seemed relevant but I really did not understand how the Albert Einstein reference played ant part is my claim.

I still do not see it's relevance to be honest as the dictionary covered the matter nicely.

Then I thought there must be more to this...why did DMOE raise it in the first place and then specifically seek my comment on two specific questions.

Being suspicious I then thought this is some kind of trap, what am I missing, then I thought trap or not I will give an honest reply and see what you may have in mind.

I note that the material comes from sacred texts .com and if I wasn't so tired I would ordinarily looked there to determine the context.

But I suspect whatever is written there would be trying to claim Albert Einstein was religious and the piece that you presented was part of the fabric they were weaving to show him as religious.

If you wish to punish me for being casual you now have your chance as I am going to address your questions the best I can without additional preparation.

dumbest man on earth said:
I'm interested in what you think of his maintaining "that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research." and also his stating that "A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
Click to expand...

First of all I would like to know where he said both of these statements but my suspicions are that he may have been addressing a gathering where he was playing to the croud, perhaps trying to appear on side with religion.

Do you know the context of each of the statements?

As to statement one...a cosmic religious feeling?..what does that even mean? And how does it relate to the strongest and noblest motive? To be frank it sounds if he is making a speech with folk who have a say in funding research and that is what they want to hear...maybe it was part of his acceptance of the Noble ..I don't know but you asked and I can only say it sounds contrived and structured to impress his listener or audience.

The second statement sounds more of the same.

In the body of the quote you get more of the same I feel...the assertion that the only way folk can push on with tedious research is by having a cosmic religious feeling upon which to draw sfrength seems a wild thing to say.

I have not done tedious research but have spent years in the bush really strugling to survive with minimal income in relation to my growing hobby and going hard learn everything about astronomy and all things science, not seeing anyone for two weeks at a time, no tv or radio my only contact reading astronomy stuff on the net...I would star gaze all night and in later years photograph all night, on every night conditions permitted and sleep during the day, and if conditions were poor I would be working on building a rig or a pier or an observatory or a camera cooling unit..totally involved..no wife, no visiting friends, no Jehovah's witness, no lost tourists...on two hundred acres of dense Bush...now I was absolutely passionate to the point of being obsessive but I did not run on any "cosmic religion" I did not draw my strength from "a feeling of cosmic religion" and so from my personal experience what is being talked about I simply do not get. Further I doubt if a feeling of cosmic religion is behind every person who works hard in science or any other field for that matter.

It surprises me if indeed someone felt that way that they would mention it to anyone given if it is their way you could think they would keep it private.

Moreover the suggestion is if you are an atheist you won't have the necessary strength to work passionately..I think that notion is worthy of rejection.

Tell me what are your thoughts?

Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
When we get the receipe for Jans goo sorted we should be able to three d print humans...
Alex
Click to expand...
Ummmm

Must get a life sized 3D printer and find some old Playboy magazines

Xelasnave.1947 said:
It's for folk who just don't know zip...the instruction is on the bottom to get them to the correct end.
Alex
Click to expand...

If they don't know zip - HOW ARE THEY GOING TO KNOW TO TURN IT UPSIDE DOWN TO FIND THE INSTRUCTIONS
:)

:)
 
Beer w/Straw said:
Do you have a better explanation?
Click to expand...
The Truth.
Would you agree?

As the truth always is, we can deduce what is not the truth. And there are many elements of that explanation that are not true.
The truth, by (proper) definition , cannot have any elements of falsity. It must be absolute.
I’m also suspicious of those who invest their emotion in something that is merely regarded as “the best explanation”. That goes for any other type of religion also.
 
Jan Ardena said:
The Truth.
Would you agree?

As the truth always is, we can deduce what is not the truth. And there are many elements of that explanation that are not true.
The truth, by (proper) definition , cannot have any elements of falsity. It must be absolute.
I’m also suspicious of those who invest their emotion in something that is merely regarded as “the best explanation”. That goes for any other type of religion also.
Click to expand...
I dunno'.

You workin' hard for the truth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top