Albert Einstein

[Dave]

I noted that he said the "fanatical atheists...". I liked the quote because I know atheists whom this quote expresses what I see in them today fairly well. Sometimes people who become atheists get stuck on what is true to them by way of contrast to that which is a lie (i.e., the religion they walked away from or disagree with), rather than moving beyond it to find what is simply there for them.

Then the term "fanatical Atheist" becomes any Atheist one disagrees with. Some here may claim I am a "fanatical Atheist" but in real life the topic rarely comes up. I'd love to move past religion but they will not allow it. They keep trying to force their religion into my life. They keep trying to "rehabilitate" famous figures of the past to lend credibility to their own religious beliefs. I could happily spend the rest of my life never talking about religion.

 

I don't think he necessarily made an assumption or an error in the context of what he was pointing out. He didn't say all atheists, he said fanatical atheists. Respectfully, I notice how strong of a knee-jerk reaction you have against anyone using the words spiritual or God in describing ideas. Trust me; I know that place well for myself. I still put up defenses about its uses, but I've learned to differentiate between pop culture New Agey empty fluffy talk, and the much more philosophical/poetic uses.

What you erringly assume to be a "knee jerk" reaction is just boredom combined with frustration.

 

You also seem to be making assumptions in assigning motives behind his comments....

No more than others are.

 

I’m noting that he did say “something”, and also the word “force” to describe it. That does seem to constitute a “thing”. Now however, it seems to me he sees this principle, or binding or overarching subtle “something” as something so incomprehensible and intangible as to apply that all transcendent word “God” to it.

Oh, I see..... My assumptions are wrong and yours are right. Thanks.

[Antlerman]

I noted that he said the "fanatical atheists...". I liked the quote because I know atheists whom this quote expresses what I see in them today fairly well. Sometimes people who become atheists get stuck on what is true to them by way of contrast to that which is a lie (i.e., the religion they walked away from or disagree with), rather than moving beyond it to find what is simply there for them.

Then the term "fanatical Atheist" becomes any Atheist one disagrees with. Some here may claim I am a "fanatical Atheist" but in real life the topic rarely comes up. I'd love to move past religion but they will not allow it. They keep trying to force their religion into my life. They keep trying to "rehabilitate" famous figures of the past to lend credibility to their own religious beliefs. I could happily spend the rest of my life never talking about religion.

I don’t agree that the term fanatical atheist becomes any atheist you disagree with. Myself, I use the term “radical” atheist, or “hard-line atheist” or the best of all “fundamentalist Atheist”. I never apply that term to people just because I don’t agree with them. That would be intellectually dishonest.

 

When you look at the role their atheism plays in their lives, especially if they see things in either black or white terms and language, “this is right, that is wrong”, that puts them squarely in the camp of radicals, or hard-liners, or fundamentalists on whatever subject they latch on to. It’s not atheism that’s in question, it’s being dogmatic, radical, or “fanatical” about one’s beliefs, whether they’re on the right or left extremes of an issue.

 

When you say you’d love to move past religion but they won’t let you, how so? Don’t you know how to deal with pests getting into your home? Do you have to eradicate the cold virus, or do you learn to live with it and take appropriate measures to keep from becoming susceptible to it. Besides, you weren’t raised as a Christian, nor ever became one. This isn’t about reclaiming power for yourself coming out of an abusive relationship, so what is it for you? Why do they seem to have so much power in your life?

 

“The fools you shall always have with you”. (My version of the saying). Aren’t you giving them more power than they deserve?

 

I don't think he necessarily made an assumption or an error in the context of what he was pointing out. He didn't say all atheists, he said fanatical atheists. Respectfully, I notice how strong of a knee-jerk reaction you have against anyone using the words spiritual or God in describing ideas. Trust me; I know that place well for myself. I still put up defenses about its uses, but I've learned to differentiate between pop culture New Agey empty fluffy talk, and the much more philosophical/poetic uses.

What you erringly assume to be a "knee jerk" reaction is just boredom combined with frustration.

But you have elsewhere stated that whenever you hear someone use the term spiritual, it immediately brings to mind some dude in L.A. talking all this pop New Age language. That is what knee-jerk reaction defines. It’s when someone doesn’t step back and try to understand the context of what someone’s saying before jumping to a conclusion based on a past experience with it. I’ve seen you do this, and you’ve admitted to it yourself.

 

Knee-jerk reactions close the mind to knowledge.

 

You also seem to be making assumptions in assigning motives behind his comments....

No more than others are.

You’re not serious are you Dave? “Well they do it too,” is your response? Yes, a lot of people make a lot of errors of logic, but that doesn’t change the fact they are errors of logic. My goal is to be careful, not sloppy and wasteful with reason.

 

I’m noting that he did say “something”, and also the word “force” to describe it. That does seem to constitute a “thing”. Now however, it seems to me he sees this principle, or binding or overarching subtle “something” as something so incomprehensible and intangible as to apply that all transcendent word “God” to it.

Oh, I see..... My assumptions are wrong and yours are right. Thanks.

I’m usually pretty deliberate in my word choices to avoid a response like you gave. I can see above that in fact I did say, “it seems to me”. I did not say dogmatically what he meant. It was my opinion based on a number of factors. Your language however ascribed motives to him without qualification. You did not leave room for error. Your language was black and white, mine was not, nor do I see my thoughts as the only possibility. I left it open to discussion because I recognized the complexities of assigning personal motives to others.

 

Your welcome.

[NotBlinded]

I still put up defenses about its uses, but I've learned to differentiate between pop culture New Agey empty fluffy talk, and the much more philosophical/poetic uses.

 

And to the rest of your posts:

 

[currentchristian]

When you look at the role their atheism plays in their lives, especially if they see things in either black or white terms and language, “this is right, that is wrong”, that puts them squarely in the camp of radicals, or hard-liners, or fundamentalists on whatever subject they latch on to. It’s not atheism that’s in question, it’s being dogmatic, radical, or “fanatical” about one’s beliefs, whether they’re on the right or left extremes of an issue.

 

This is the key, Antlerman, to solving many of our national and international problems. Dogmatism about whatever the topic at hand not only closes the dogmatic one off from learning more it causes others in conversation with the dogmatic one to close themselves off as well. The result: both parties are at an impasse and no one learns.

 

So much better is to believe what one believes with as much fervor as one chooses, stating one's views as fervently as one chooses, then saying, "but that's just how I see it and I may change my mind tomorrow" -- not necessarily in these words but in some other words or in a spirit that makes that point. If we'd (the human family, I mean) all do this, we'd all learn so much more from each other, soften so many of our dagger-like views, and appreciate each other's uniqueness and unique thoughts and ideas all the more.

 

Seems to me. But I may change my mind tomorrow!

 

-CC

[Dave]

I don’t agree that the term fanatical atheist becomes any atheist you disagree with.

Then, I'm sorry. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

[Grandpa Harley]

Playing devil's advocate (I look SO lovely in purple) has anyone here met a 'fanatical' anything they agree with? Seems to me a 'fanatic' is someone who, de facto, one does NOT agree with...

[currentchristian]

Playing devil's advocate (I look SO lovely in purple) has anyone here met a 'fanatical' anything they agree with? Seems to me a 'fanatic' is someone who, de facto, one does NOT agree with...

 

I sure have.

 

There are many "fanatics" for the rights of gay people. I agree with the views of these "fanatics," but I still think the means they employ to reach ends with which I agree are "fanatical."

 

One might oppose abortion, for another example, but not at all agree with the fanatics who harass women outside the clinic and certainly not with those who would bomb the clinic.

 

 

Jerry Falwell and I agree on some fundamental Christological issues, but I still deem him "intolerant" and "fanatical."

 

So, yes, one can agree wholeheartedly with the fanatic without agreeing with his or her fanatacism.

 

Your point, however, is well taken in that we are more likely to recognize the fanaticism of those with whom we disagree than the fanaticism of those with whom we agree. Yet, fanaticism is fanaticism is fanaticism.

 

Seems to me.

 

-CC

[Antlerman]

Playing devil's advocate (I look SO lovely in purple) has anyone here met a 'fanatical' anything they agree with? Seems to me a 'fanatic' is someone who, de facto, one does NOT agree with...

I think the point is that calling someone you disagree with to be a "fanatic" is a completely empty dismissal of them -- if they don't fit the definition of a fanatic. I agree there a lot of people who aren't interested in dialog and will out of hand try to discredit someone by labeling them with a negative, like "racist", "intolerant", "fanatic," "extremist". In cases where the individual isn't any of those things, then the accuser becomes the accused, dropping their drawers before everyone for having nothing better to offer than empty name calling. It shouts, "I have nothing of substance to say. Ignore me".

 

I don't think that's what Albert Einstein was doing when he referred to "fanatical atheists". I think he was more intelligent than to stoop to name calling, and therefore think he in fact meant those atheists who are fanatical in their atheism.

 

I don't agree with CC, but he's as far from a fanatic as one could hope to be. Same thing with OM. There are a number of things I don't agree with her on, but she is one of the most fair, open-minded individuals I could hope to speak with. I'm sure there are those here who might label her "fanatic", but that would speak more about their inability to differentiate between a black and white thinkers, and those who aren't. That is to me a betrayal of their own black and white thinking they project onto everyone else. They don't know how to see the world any other way.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with CC that dialog dies when we become dogmatists.

[Grandpa Harley]

I'd agree with both of you... but it was worth getting a clarification

[Ouroboros]

I wonder... am I a Fanatic Agnostic?

[Dave]

Playing devil's advocate (I look SO lovely in purple) has anyone here met a 'fanatical' anything they agree with? Seems to me a 'fanatic' is someone who, de facto, one does NOT agree with...

The same goes for a "knee jerk reaction." If one agreed it would be labeled "knee jerk" and they wouldn't resort to the ad hominem.

[Dave]

I think the point is that calling someone you disagree with to be a "fanatic" is a completely empty dismissal of them...

The same with "knee jerk reaction."

 

I agree wholeheartedly with CC that dialog dies when we become dogmatists.

Unless they agree with your dogmatism.

[quicksand]

What is this some Argument for Spirituality based upon Authority (and by way of saying: Christian GOD is the answer)?

 

Sorry, not gonna bother to read the thread before I make this posting. I get the flavor of it already.

 

Nice try.

 

***After reading more***

 

Seriously, why should I give one iota of time or thought if Einstien believed in a "god' or not? Why? What does it matter? Because Einstien was the smartest man ever ever ever and I should respect his personal beliefs?

 

This is all nonesense talk.

 

This argument veers the same way when apologists, like yourself CC, assert that since the founding-fathers of this country were Christian (which some were and some were not) that we in turn are a Christian country and all laws should reflect the Bible.

 

It's bullshit.

 

Theoracy doesn't work just as Einstiens personal beliefs are not evidence of a god. Only god is evidence of a god. What Einstien believed, why interesting and revelant to understand the man, is not a very compelling argument for people like me who seek actual evidence of the supernatural.

[Grandpa Harley]

Based on Dawkins' observations, Einstein would have found it offensive being tarred with the Deist/Theist brush...

 

Addendum

 

Being raised in a Judaeo/Christian society (i.e. one based on a philosophy of some form of scriptural authority) on obviously appeals to the elders/wise men of the tribe for some form of validation, and both the Atheist and Theist communities are going to do it.

 

Why does is matter? Logically, no... but since when does 'culture' and 'logic' go together?

[currentchristian]

...

Seriously, why should I give one iota of time or thought if Einstien believed in a "god' or not? Why? What does it matter? Because Einstien was the smartest man ever ever ever and I should respect his personal beliefs?

 

This is all nonesense talk.

 

This argument veers the same way when apologists, like yourself CC, assert that since the founding-fathers of this country were Christian (which some were and some were not) that we in turn are a Christian country and all laws should reflect the Bible.

 

It's bullshit.

 

Theoracy doesn't work just as Einstiens personal beliefs are not evidence of a god. Only god is evidence of a god. What Einstien believed, why interesting and revelant to understand the man, is not a very compelling argument for people like me who seek actual evidence of the supernatural.

Dear Quicksand,

 

You must not have read many of my 1000+ posts. When did I ever say the Founding Fathers were Christians? You didn't hear that from me, I assure you. When did I say this nation is a Christian country? Never! Only people can be Christian, not nations, not music, not bookstores.

 

I agree with you completely that what Einstein thought about religion is immaterial to the presence or absence of a god. It has nothing to do with the matter, nothing at all. Einstein was not a theist, anyway. Maybe a Deist of some kind?? Whatever, his views have nothing to do with reality, just as your views do not and my views do not. But it is interesting to know what someone like Einstein thought about things. Don't you think?

 

-CC

[quicksand]

Dear Quicksand,

 

You must not have read many of my 1000+ posts. When did I ever say the Founding Fathers were Christians? You didn't hear that from me, I assure you. When did I say this nation is a Christian country? Never! Only people can be Christian, not nations, not music, not bookstores.

I never said you made either of these claims, CC. I just pointed out that this argument relies on the same kind of fallacy.

I agree with you completely that what Einstein thought about religion is immaterial to the presence or absence of a god. It has nothing to do with the matter, nothing at all. Einstein was not a theist, anyway. Maybe a Deist of some kind?? Whatever, his views have nothing to do with reality, just as your views do not and my views do not. But it is interesting to know what someone like Einstein thought about things. Don't you think?

 

-CC

That's cool. We agree then.

[Antlerman]

I think the point is that calling someone you disagree with to be a "fanatic" is a completely empty dismissal of them...

The same with "knee jerk reaction."

Do you honestly think I will let anyone take my words out of context and not call them on it? This is foolish to do on a forum considering I can go back to the post and check what was really said. Here, this is what I said in context:

 

I think the point is that calling someone you disagree with to be a "fanatic" is a completely empty dismissal of them -- if they don't fit the definition of a fanatic.

 

Saying someone is a fanatic or is having a knee-jerk reaction is an empty dismissal, unless the facts support that there are. In which case then, pointing out to someone they are having a knee jerk reaction is useful to the conversation. You were having knee jerk reactions based on what you admitted to. It is pertinent and not meant as a dismissal. I'm actually trying to show you something that may benefit you. Would you like me to go find what you said and show it to you? It's relatively easy since it's in writing, just like I corrected your taking my words out of context.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with CC that dialog dies when we become dogmatists.

Unless they agree with your dogmatism.

A dogmatic moderate? If I meditated on that idea long enough, it might lead to a transcendental experience, sort of like pondering the sound of one hand clapping.

 

A question for you Dave, is the world black and white to you or is it nothing but various shades of grey? How can you be dogmatic about something that is an open-ended question? Do you think people who don't see the world in black and white terms are liars, deceived, ignorant, etc?

 

BTW, your insinuating I resort to Ad Hominen attack has no substance Dave. I see this is a deflection for something that makes you uncomfortable. I rarely if every devolve into simple ad hominen attacks, especially when there is so much flesh being readily exposed to sink my teeth into.

[Dave]

What is this some Argument for Spirituality based upon Authority (and by way of saying: Christian GOD is the answer)?

That's exactly what it is.

[Dave]

Do you honestly think I will let anyone take my words out of context and not call them on it?

Yet it's fine for you to do it to me?

 

If you're dissatisfied with my replies, is it's that I stopped reading at the first insult. I have a habit of doing that. When you arrogantly claimed I had a "knee jerk reaction" to something I just quit caring what you had to say after that. If you actually had a point you should have been able to present it without the personal attack.

[Antlerman]

Do you honestly think I will let anyone take my words out of context and not call them on it?

Yet it's fine for you to do it to me?

 

If you're dissatisfied with my replies, is it's that I stopped reading at the first insult. I have a habit of doing that. When you arrogantly claimed I had a "knee jerk reaction" to something I just quit caring what you had to say after that. If you actually had a point you should have been able to present it without the personal attack.

Dave, I think anyone reading my posts would not accuse me of doing the sorts of things you seem to be concluding. I have tried to communicate my best with you, yet you seem to see what you want to for some reason. The facts don't support you. If I chose to personally attack you, you would know it, not imagine it.

 

The conclusions you leap to about me don't fit who I am, nor do I think anyone else here would support your views of me. Again, the facts don't support you. I actually was defensive of you to others in the past when everyone else was finding fault left and right with you. I never take people's opinions and make them my own, and try to be fair and open-minded. I didn't see what they were saying. Now I do. Sorry.

[Dave]

Dave, I think anyone reading my posts would not accuse me of doing the sorts of things you seem to be concluding. I have tried to communicate my best with you, yet you seem to see what you want to for some reason. The facts don't support you. If I chose to personally attack you, you would know it, not imagine it.

Claiming I had a "knee jerk response" to anything is a personal attack. I did not have to imagine it. Is a personal attack the best way to communicate with someone?

 

The conclusions you leap to about me don't fit who I am....

Neither do your conclusions about me. Did you or did you not claim I had a "knee jerk response" to spirituality? Do you honestly believe that such a statement is not a personal attack? Maybe the problem is that I expected better of you.

[Vigile]

Dave, I like you and all. I think you are intelligent and I agree with you on many issues. I see that AM is going out of his way to show that he is not making a personal attack on you, but rather addressing an issue he sees. Perhaps you are being a bit defensive?

[Dave]

Dave, I like you and all. I think you are intelligent and I agree with you on many issues. I see that AM is going out of his way to show that he is not making a personal attack on you, but rather addressing an issue he sees. Perhaps you are being a bit defensive?

Perhaps. You're one of the few around here that's been honest with me, so I'll take your words into consideration.

 

I just don't like being summarily dismissed like that. My stance on "spirituality" is, I believe, reasoned and logical. One doesn't have to agree with me on that, but to just dismiss it as a "knee jerk reaction" isn't right.

 

Now.... Einstein mentioning "fanatical atheists".... he could just as well have meant that all Atheists were fanatical in that they all made the claim there is no god. Either interpretation, all or only a certain group of atheists, is valid. Einstein is not here to clarify what he meant. Einstein may have been a genius when it comes to physics, but in dealing with people he wasn't all that great. He was in no way a perfect person.

 

If one is to hang on every word he said about gods, spirituality, or religion; then why not hang on to his views on women? Because he was a genius in physics does that mean we should all treat our wives, or women in general, as he treated his first wife?

 

Again, he was not a perfect person. He had deeply and tightly held beliefs. He had a general disdain for those that did not agree with him. It is entirely possible that when he said "fanatical atheists" he was talking about all that claim to be Atheists. Then he goes on to claim that such Atheists cannot "hear the music of the spheres." How does he know? Has he talked to every Atheist? What is this "music of the spheres"? A reference to an old myth or his belief that there is actually music out there?

 

All this is is just another attempt to assign religious or spiritual attributes to a genius in physics to lend credence to ones own religious or spiritual ideas.

[Antlerman]

Dave, I think anyone reading my posts would not accuse me of doing the sorts of things you seem to be concluding. I have tried to communicate my best with you, yet you seem to see what you want to for some reason. The facts don't support you. If I chose to personally attack you, you would know it, not imagine it.

Claiming I had a "knee jerk response" to anything is a personal attack. I did not have to imagine it. Is a personal attack the best way to communicate with someone?

Claiming you are having a knee-jerk reaction is not a personal attack. No, I don’t see it that way at all, nor was it my motive in pointing out what I see happening. Not all criticisms are attacks, you know? I view this a constructive criticism. Not everything we hear about ourselves feels good, but it's not always meant as an attack. It's not.

 

I point it out to you because of recognizing in myself when it happens. I believe I’m seeing it in you, and am pointing out to you as a potential factor that may be influencing you’re being so quick to come to conclusions as I’m seeing. Everyone is human. Do you think you never have knee-jerk reactions to anything? I do, and my rational capabilities are pretty strong. What helps make me a stronger person is in recognizing my own flaws along with my strengths.

 

I’ll support what I’m saying here by bringing this out from a different thread to show what I’m seeing as being a knee-jerk reaction, not as an attack, but to point out something you might wish to consider:

Dave, I actually don't understand this. This person you are being antagonistic towards is not expressing anything that I would find any exception with, and frankly I don't get your behavior here.

It's not him in particular but just this whole dump the god stuff but worship the bible thing.

In the San Francisco Bay Area I was always running into these self proclaimed "spiritual" people.

They were all phonies

. Their minds are so tightly closed on this spiritual stuff that they can't see anything else. They spew reams of spiritual prattle thinking it makes sense when it actually doesn't. This "collective consciousness" or whatever they call it now a days is nothing more than a god-lite.... but I guess some people need training wheels before they learn to ride on their own.

 

Please take a step back. I certainly would have no problem finding things to take you to task on if I so chose to be adversarial, but I don't see that something desirable to do. Respectfully, please consider this.

Usually I don't get adversarial until they start in with the personal attacks. Then I just give up and start with the one liners.

Maybe it was just my disgust at the facades that got in my way.

Thanks, I'll chill out on this one.

 

So what I hear in this is that rather than actually reading what this person was expressing about spirituality, based upon your exposure to the New Agers in San Francisco, you took that experience and applied it to him. That defines a knee-jerk reaction. Someone hears something that sounds like something they've had a negative experience with, and then leap to conclusions, bypassing a considered examination.

 

I do this myself sometimes on certain things. Am I "attacking" myself by pointing out a fallacy? I'm not attacking you, and frankly I think the majority of the time you are probably accusing everyone else of attacking you too, when in fact they are not. It puts people off to be accused of something like that. You might wish to take a step back and give people the benefit of the doubt before making an accusation like that.

 

I think you're very intelligent, and I respect that. But it is putting me off to see how you talk with people here. I don't see them deserving of it in the manner you're handing it out to them. I'm not sure why that is? Is it maybe something like this going on?

[Dave]

Claiming you are having a knee-jerk reaction is not a personal attack.

Then we'll just have to disagree on that. I see it as a complete dismissal of the person and their ideas.

 

No, I don’t see it that way at all, nor was it my motive in pointing out what I see happening. Not all criticisms are attacks, you know? I view this a constructive criticism. Not everything we hear about ourselves feels good, but it's not always meant as an attack. It's not......

 

Let's just drop it, I don't seem to be getting my point across very well. In my last posting I said a few things about Einstein, don't you have anything to say about that?