Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

Click here for more information.

Not to be bossy and I hate it when others do what I am about to do but the Einstein debate is getting boring. Einstein was not a Christian but he was also not an atheist.

This goes back to the 'religious draft' joke I made earlier. Here, let's make it easy since the million 'ex' quotes Wraith and BW are using to prove their point are not being listened to (they are absolutely correct, BTW).

The draft deal: Whichever side wants to claim Einstein can have him but there's a catch. If you want to claim Einstein, then you have to take Hitler, too. Fair? Everyone wants to snag Einstein for themselves but pass around Hitler like a hot potato.

Great. So now Einstein and Hitler were both atheists, as decided by draft. The deists still have Jefferson. The Protestants have Washington. Catholics luck out with Mother Teresa but crash an burn with a plethora of corrupt popes. Etc., etc.

reply to post by audas


What's the unknown value of the random number generator in parantheses in this equation?

2 + 2 + (?) = 4

Since you're in safeguard mode anyway, might as well check the random number generator.

I will tell you the answer in advance: It equals whatever number is necessary to have a sum of 4.

Such an elegant solution for the randomness of free will.




[edit on 24-3-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Yep Atheism is a religion. Deal with it.

If only courts could determine philosophical viewpoints. They basically had to define atheism as religion to give these atheists in this prison the ability to have some form of group meeting. That's all they allow in your prisons apparently. There are groups for all the large numbers of christians, muslims etc. And I guess this atheist guy wanted to make one.

Even the religious dude from the family association thing knows it's a decision of convenience, rather than the reality.

i'm actually amazed this case was required at all, not that many atheists in prison by all accounts

Originally posted by AshleyD
Not to be bossy and I hate it when others do what I am about to do but the Einstein debate is getting boring. Einstein was not a Christian but he was also not an atheist.

I was going to what you did myself, ash. Sometimes it's needed to get back on topic.

It's pretty obvious he was a sort of pantheist, like Spinoza. We could argue over what use defining nature as god is, but not really relevant. However, it is worth pointing out that people at the time viewed Spinozism as essentially materialistic/naturalistic and atheistic - caused a bit of a fuss at the time, heh.

Einstein said he bought into Spinozian style pantheism, and who are we to argue with that.

After 43 pages of thread...


...as anyone actually changed or moved his/her opinion on something?

Im curious.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
After 43 pages of thread...


...as anyone actually changed or moved his/her opinion on something?

Im curious.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

I did. I moved on to a different thread. Oh, wait, that wasn't what you meant is it? 42!! Not that either?

I gave the answer way back on page one. I'll stick to it. The other stuff made my head hurt.


spelling edit

[edit on 3/24/2008 by bobafett1972]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by wytworm

 

I could say the same to you and it would be as useful.

Well I think that was the point. That was said to one of the christians on the board. And I think you'll find I'm not exactly "status quo" on anything, and that includes "mainstream" belief systems of various kinds. I just go where the research leads me and if there's a conflict and no resolution for it, I file it as potentially false data. Evolution falls under that category as does Atheism, but only because we have 6000 years of history and artifacts to corroborate a great deal of what the various ancient texts declare.

No offense but there is nothing particularly un-status quo in your posts. Its been said a billion times before and will be again. There is nothing extraordinary in this thread but the hubris levels.

reply to post by Skyfloating

...has anyone actually changed or moved his/her opinion on something?

No one ever does on these types of threads. It isn't really the point.

reply to post by Skyfloating


My opinion wasn't really changed on anything (Surprise, surprise. I'm a stubborn one.). But I did learn a lot of new things so that's always cool. I kept getting booted out of the topic so I didn't reply much but I did read everything. Many people on both sides brought up some really good arguments and I made a new ATS friend. Also got to meet Gigtronix who seems pretty cool. Kind of restored my faith in atheists. I kid, I kid. Sort of...

[edit on 3/24/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by bobafett1972


Never changing one´s position...not even for games-sake or devils advocates sake or learning sake...must really be miserably dull

Originally posted by AshleyD

My opinion wasn't really changed on anything (Surprise, surprise. I'm a stubborn one.). But I did learn a lot of new things so that's always cool. I kept getting booted out of the topic so I didn't reply much but I did read everything. Many people on both sides brought up some really good arguments and I made a new ATS friend. Also got to meet Gigtronix who seems pretty cool. Kind of restored my faith in atheists.

I kid, I kid. Sort of...

OK...that sounds a bit more mellow-minded

There is nothing extraordinary in this thread but the hubris levels.

That's okay, I was never extraordinary, just odd.

If you've read my "perfect program" analogy, perhaps this question will make sense: So what program are you running?

Originally posted by melatonin
Bible morals are pretty arbitrary. hence we see these 'objective' morals evolving over time. From stoning women to not stoning women.

That's interesting, could you share with us the passage which advocates the stoning of women? I'm sure the Bible is just full of such commandments, eh?

Or are they just historical accounts? Maybe unbiased at that? Written by mortal men who lived during a time of such law... The testament of Christ remains comfortably absent of any suggestions to stone women... no such change in morals has ever been demonstrated.

Again, I find that atheists do in fact airbrush history, and the ideology of religions... Often. In this regard, the religous extremist and the atheist are the same. They might have a concept of scripture, but it is the wrong concept.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]

reply to post by undo

If you've read my "perfect program" analogy, perhaps this question will make sense: So what program are you running?

Glanced at it. Not enough to comment.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
After 43 pages of thread...

...as anyone actually changed or moved his/her opinion on something?

Im curious.

Absolutely... Melatonin helped to see how down right reasonable some atheists can be. Even toward faith. He is an outspoken atheist but has kid in a religious based school I believe he said.

That and the basis of personal morality being largely due to our parents...

I've gotten so used to unreasonable attacks from the militant atheists around here that I lost some perspective on humanity.

I still think Dawkins is a radical. I still stand by the assertion of the OP.

But my social stance is more relaxed on Atheists in general and their morality.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
...as anyone actually changed or moved his/her opinion on something?

Im curious.

Yup, Asty is a pedant- a man after my own heart - and Liverpool really need to grow some hairies when they play the mancs.

Not what your asking though, no?

The thread was based on juicy fallacies and misrepresentations. So I lost a little bit of respect for a few people who have tried to run with the idea, but whammy earned some back by being quite honest in places. I also think I learned that he is apparently having chemo, if true, my best wishes are winging your way.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Absolutely... Melatonin helped to see how down right reasonable some atheists can be. Even toward faith. He is an outspoken atheist but has kid in a religious based school I believe he said.

Not any more, it was when he was in primary school. I do think all kids should be exposed to various viewpoints and allowed to develop their own little minds. He still has RE classes now though. It's normal in the UK. They are just not indoctinating lessons, more comparative - to help foster understanding.

I think it's important to allow them to be inquisitive well-rounded little people.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Mel has school aged kids!?! I thought he was maybe 18/19 years old! Ok, I can be nice to him now then. I always respect people more who have kids for some reason. It's another one of my biases.

All this time I thought Mel was a Welsh college boy living in his mom's basement or something.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


That sounds good. Im glad things can soften up between reasonable people.

In fact, I feel that christians who are able to expose themselves to alternate viewpoinst are stronger in their faith, not weaker.