“I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. “ — Einstein, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, Max, Einstein and Religion (Princeton University Press, 1999) p. 97
Atheism (einsteinandreligion.com)

Obviously, Einstein isn't talking about atheists in general, only about "fanatical atheists" who apparently do exist.

Obviously, Einstein isn't talking about atheists in general, only about "fanatical atheists" who apparently do exist. — Apollodorus

Which we've been trying to concede to you over several threads.

Which we've been trying to concede to you over several threads. — tim wood

If you're "conceding" the existence of fanatical atheists then you should also concede people's right to discuss the topic. Either that, or simply announce that it's not allowed on this forum and that's that. No big deal. But it seems to me that Christians and others are being accused of "fanaticism" and other things all the time.

Well, I wonder whether there are, as you claim, atheists who are unable to accept virtuous things that are associated with Christian philosophy. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure, I think so. I think it's a reasonable inference. Cognitive science 101 says that most humans tend to dichotomize things. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad. Let's use a quick example of the televangelist Fundy. One might easily discount their entire presentation, their entire character, their friends and family, and so on due to their affliiation with a belief system. We've also seen the dangers of extremism and violence (alternatevely, Jesus was known to be a pacifist). Of course, in a free society we have every right to choose our likes and dislikes.

Regardless, if you're referring to such as the Golden Rule and virtue as a guide to living, I'm unaware of anyone, let alone any atheist, who reject them because they are associated with Christian philosophy or the belief in any personal God. They may do so because they claim to be nihilists or radical skeptics or something else, but not because they have a "grudge" against Christianity or religion. — Ciceronianus the White

Disagree, primarily from my foregoing comments. It's very normal for that to happen. Sterotypes and paradigms, etc. are what they are for reasons. Hence, one can eaily default to throwing that particular baby out with the bath water. Rightly or wrongly, that's what people do... . History, and cognitive science, teaches us that. No(?).

I think it's apparent that one doesn't have to be Christian to accept the Golden Rule or the desirability of living virtuously. — Ciceronianus the White

Absolutely Cic! No exceptions taken.

One doesn't even have to believe in a creator God; the ancient Stoics, for example, did not but managed somehow to be rather fond of virtue as a goal (in fact, the ultimate good, essential to a good life), and didn't believe in a God which created the world and would monitor the lives of humans to see if they were being nice, punishing those who would not and saving and benefiting those who did. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure, no exceptions taken. Earler in the thread, we all talked about pantheism (as we believe Einstien had a particular interest in...). Personnaly, I like Spinoza and have always said that early church history should have allowed its teachings... . Just to be consistent, that too was a mistake in the dichotomization of an otherwise treasure trove of good information. They too, are guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (I also think some of the gnostic teachings should have been more or less canonized.)

To this end, not to get too personal, but I live in a beautiful waterfront area wherein I not only thank God every day, I get a spiritual high from nature. One might say a Rocky Mt. High on the east coast :joke:

Pantheism is a good thing... .

Aww, you almost had it. The problem I have railed against you for, that just now I thought you had got but maybe you have not, is that in your arguments you confuse and conflate some with all. Some is granted. All is simply ignorant and fallacious error, which is part of why I have asked you what your native language is, because based on some of your posts it does not seem possible to me your error is due to stupidity.

in your arguments you confuse and conflate some with all. [/quote]

And in your arguments you use arguments like that to deflect attention from the issue at hand and suppress debate through ad hominems and threats.

in your arguments you confuse and conflate some with all. — tim wood

And in your arguments you use arguments like that to deflect attention from the issue at hand and suppress debate through ad hominems and threats. — Apollodorus

Geez! You really are that stupid! I am amazed! Btw, pointing out errors in reasoning in arguments is not ad hominem. For, as I am pretty sure you know, ad hominem is to the man, not the argument.

But let's try a little experiment. In my sock drawer are some white socks. Does having some white socks in the drawer mean that all the socks in the drawer are white? What say you?

I'm glad we agree about pantheism. I have a fondness for the Stoic version, which is said to have some similarities with that of Spinoza.

But it seems to me you're merely saying it's likely (based on human tendencies) that atheists "throw out the baby with the bathwater" as you put it. I thought you had actual instances in mind.

I'm glad we agree about pantheism. I have a fondness for the Stoic version, which is said to have some similarities with that of Spinoza.

But it seems to me you're merely saying it's likely (based on human tendencies) that atheists "throw out the baby with the bathwater" as you put it. I thought you had actual instances in mind. — Ciceronianus the White

:up:

Yes I did. Did the Fundy example not register?

What I actually said was this:

If you're "conceding" the existence of fanatical atheists then you should also concede people's right to discuss the topic. Either that, or simply announce that it's not allowed on this forum and that's that. No big deal. — Apollodorus

Instead of addressing my statement, you started a tirade of insults, ad hominems, threats and racist remarks. So ... what does that say about atheists?

Instead of addressing my statement, you started a tirade of insults, ad hominems, threats and racist remarks. So ... what does that say about atheists? — Apollodorus

Please specify. A tirade of insults? Ad hominems? Threats? Racist remarks? Here is your text:

Which we've been trying to concede to you over several threads.
— tim wood

If you're "conceding" the existence of fanatical atheists then you should also concede people's right to discuss the topic. Either that, or simply announce that it's not allowed on this forum and that's that. No big deal. But it seems to me that Christians and others are being accused of "fanaticism" and other things all the time. — Apollodorus

Aww, you almost had it. The problem I have railed against you for, that just now I thought you had got but maybe you have not, is that in your arguments you confuse and conflate some with all. Some is granted. All is simply ignorant and fallacious error, which is part of why I have asked you what your native language is, because based on some of your posts it does not seem possible to me your error is due to stupidity. — tim wood

And in your arguments you use arguments like that to deflect attention from the issue at hand and suppress debate through ad hominems and threats. — Apollodorus

Geez! You really are that stupid! I am amazed! Btw, pointing out errors in reasoning in arguments is not ad hominem. For, as I am pretty sure you know, ad hominem is to the man, not the argument.

But let's try a little experiment. In my sock drawer are some white socks. Does having some white socks in the drawer mean that all the socks in the drawer are white? What say you? — tim wood

So again, please specify. A tirade of insults? Ad hominems? Threats? Racist remarks?

I'm not particularly interested in trying to explain it.

I'm exploring the symbolic and allegorical dimensions of religious ideas in the light of philosophy. — Wayfarer

Well, I agree that the name 'Jupiter' is probably derived from the Indo-European root 'Sky Father'.

I was just wondering, out of curiosity, why you said that such images are couched in terms which were meaningful to peasant farmers and herdsmen in pagan agrarian societies but they "simply don't translate to modern post-industrial culture".

Is this a conclusion you have arrived at for a reason, or were you quoting from somewhere?

So again, please specify. A tirade of insults? Ad hominems? Threats? Racist remarks? — tim wood

Sure, read your own statements:

Geez! You really are that stupid! — tim wood

I’m not scared of you — praxis

All is simply ignorant and fallacious error, which is part of why I have asked you what your native language is — tim wood

So, what does that say about atheists and their "arguments" in support of atheism?

Perhaps he believes that all languages besides English are of a different ethnicity to your ethnicity, and he resents the implications that he's not stupid.

It's a hazard to mental health to interact with him, — tim wood

That's your own problem, frankly. Ignore him or report him and stay on-topic here, please.

So, what does that say about atheists and their "arguments" in support of atheism? — Apollodorus

Is anyone discussing atheist arguments? I thought the topic was about atheist irrationality (anger, fanaticism, and unfounded pride).

Yes I did. Did the Fundy example not register? — 3017amen

Well, I meant something like a quote from an atheist that indicated he/she rejected, e.g., the Golden Rule because of a rejection of Christianity or religion.

What's wrong with being an "angry atheist"? How does "anger" have anything to do with the truth-value of atheism? It's definitely a negative truth-value iff theism can be shown to be true. Maybe I'm / we're "angry", @3017 amen & @Apollodorus, because believers like you, lil trolls, merely conclude what you assume and call that fallacy "true" all the while dodging the actual issue of you demonstrating the positive truth-value of theism. Maybe I'm / we're "angry" at your sanctimonous and delusional woo-of the gaps.

So exorcize my / our "anger" and demonstrate soundly that our / my atheism is false (or incoherent) – put up, lil trolls, or STFU – if you're intellectually competent enough to do so. I / we know you're not, nevertheless you're offered a chance here and now to prove me / us wrong on that account too. Two-for-one prize, kids. I dare you to exorcize my "anger" with your soundly argued theism. :sweat:

NB: Spinoza is an acosmist (from pov of eternity and pandeist from pov of time), not a "pantheist" or "panentheist". Einstein, a far greater physicist than philosopher, is a Spinozist (who fashionably mistook / misinterpreted Spinoza's acosmism for "pantheism"), not an "agnostic".

I'm sure we could find one... You know it's kind of common sense. In other words , a-theism by definition means rejection of theism.

Whether it's founded or unfounded is the intriguing question ... . And that of course speaks to emotion versus logic... .

Okay great open up a thread , and debate me one-on-one about the existence of God. I wager you won't do it :razz:

Is anyone discussing atheist arguments? I thought the topic was about atheist irrationality (anger, fanaticism, and unfounded pride). — praxis

If "atheist irrationality" is the topic, then arguments can be analyzed as expressions of that irrationality. But it looks like some people here choose to divert the discussion away from the topic and use ad hominems in the process.

Time & place, sucker. Call it! I'm already there. Won't be the last "wager" you'll lose. :smirk:

They make all kinds of excuses when you try to make them use logic to justify their position — 3017amen

I doubt there is much chance of them using "logic". Some of them look and sound like pressure kettles on the boil ...

Awesome yay. it's a holiday weekend but I may open up a thread tomorrow morning if I get time. Actually have your buddy Baden open up a separate category and just you and me duke it out

I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your atheism, your belief system, has no logical basis. It will be based on all of the philosophical disciplines/domains. And I will also prove you will probably end up squirming, trolling, and getting back to your usual ways of attacking people.

Just like Einstein said you would :razz:

Accept?

Oh yes. True that!!!
Lol

acosmism — 180 Proof

At the briefest glance looks very Eastern.

Someone said insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. A thread that’s just a replication of this discussion will obviously lead to the same outcome: none, spinning wheels and throwing shade.
Might I suggest a change that might lead to a different outcome, a real discussion perhaps?
Start the thread, but get someone to moderate the debate. Someone whose objectivity you can both be satisfied with. Then try this discussion again.
If you both intend on using rational argumentation there should be nothing for either to fear from having a moderator hold each of you accountable to the other. That should address the problems each of you have expressed about the others discourse.
How about it fellas?

Maybe I'm / we're "angry" at your sanctimonous and delusional woo-of the gaps. — 180 Proof

Cool. So you agree that you're angry. We already knew that, but it's good to see some honesty and integrity, surprising though it might be.

So exorcize my / our "anger" and demonstrate soundly that our / my atheism is false (or incoherent) — 180 Proof

Personally, I'm not an exorcist, so I can't help you there. Quite possibly, it's too late anyway.

I don't need to "demonstrate" anything because atheism is your problem, not mine.

The point I was making was that some atheists, like yourself (not all atheists) are angry and hold some irrational grudge against religion and against people who believe, as suggested by Einstein:

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. “ — Einstein, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, Max, Einstein and Religion (Princeton University Press, 1999) p. 97
Atheism (einsteinandreligion.com)

BTW, how many are "you"? One, or many, or you don't know?

If "atheist irrationality" is the topic, then arguments can be analyzed as expressions of that irrationality. — Apollodorus

Right, that appears to be the point, sad as it is.

You made the challenge. You set up a debate thread with the mods. Lock out all comments except yours & mine. Maybe a few debate ground rules too. If you're serious, then set it up.

At the briefest glance looks very Eastern. — praxis

What can say? Acosmism. 17th century excommunicated secular Dutch-Portugese Sephardim reconceptualizes an approximately 3rd millennium BCE metaphysical-mystical dharmic idea from the Vedas which was completely unknown to Europeans until, I think, the 19th century. Genius. Not "inspired", logically derived in Euclidean fashion. :fire: