#1. I dont think calling yourself an atheist is stupid.
Hawking called himself an atheist for Christ's sake.
#2. I don't think calling yourself a Christian is stupid. Francis Collins won a Nobel Prize for mapping the human genome and he is a Christian for Crists sake.
#3. Lots of people smarter than anybody here believe in god (little 'g')like Einstein. Even Hawking said he believed in Einstein's god. So did Richard Dawkins in his first Chapter of The God Delusion. Micio Kaku believes in Einsteins god, only one who plays dice with the universe, but thos dice play strings, the music of the spheres, that resonate through the 11 dimensions of hyperspace.
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2217916,2218297,quote=1#REPLY

Five smart scientists all in one post!

What's the record?

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Five smart scientists
Not just "smart scientists," Geniuses. Einstein is the epitome of a Genius. He believed in a particular, non personal god. Much like a Zen Buddhist worships nature.
> all in one post!
Sagan, Hawking, Dawkins and Kaku all believed in Einstein's god, only one that played dice every chance it got, only the dice are loaded in favor of order rather than chaos,
Which matters,
Rather than anti-matters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2019 08:14PM by schrodingerscat.

I really don't care about the religious beliefs of very smart people. They have all kinds of beliefs. I don't count their personal religious beliefs as being any more or less important than my own beliefs.

People who have a great deal of expertise and/or celebrity in one area seem to make the mistake of thinking that their opinions are important in every area. They are not. I don't worship at the cult of celebrity.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't worship at the
> cult of celebrity.

I don't, either. It blows my mind that anyone's vote could be influenced by a celebrity's political endorsement.

I think the point to mentioning smart theists isn't an appeal to authority but that there are smart religious people too regardless of what some atheists think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2019 11:07PM by bona dea.

I think pretty much every smart atheist who posts on this site used to be a smart religious person!

Agreed. Another problem is that some ex Mo atheists judge all religions by Mormonism and the worst of the Bible thumping fundies. Others have become as intolerant as the 'all knowing' as the worst Mormons. Before everyone starts yelling at me, notice I said some, not all.It is a small minority here. If you aren't doing it, I am not referring to you.

Man oh man, I hope nothing I've said amounted to an assertion that believing in ghawd and being intelligent were mutually exclusive!

...well, there are exceptions, but it works both ways! There are some dumbass atheists, too.

You are cool,EOD.

The argument from authority is strong in this thread.

I don't look to smart people to do my thinking for me and I certainly don't respect the opinions of those who appeal to this supposed authority.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't look to smart people to do my thinking for
> me and I certainly don't respect the opinions of
> those who appeal to this supposed authority.

I enjoy reconciling the answers the greatest geniuses who ever lived gave to the most important question of life, according to Hawking, who wrote a book on that subject.
I agree with him 99.9%.
The only thing I don't agree with that he had to say in his final book was related to viruses. But when it comes to the big questions, I like to at least reference books I've read by sapient homo sapiens.

I do respect experts but I still make up my own mind. I think there is a difference between automatically agreeing with someone who has an education and giving weight to experts in a field who have devoted their lives to their work. They know more than the average guy, but they aren't infallible,esp if they are talking about an unrelated field where they have no real expertise. Use your head, evaluate, but don't be anti intellectual either by rejecting experts because they don't agree with you.

The Church of Evangelical Pantheists.

No requirements except for the suspension of independent thought.

Prophet Einstein would be proud of all of these people taking his words and twisting them to mean something else.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Prophet Einstein would be proud of all of these
> people taking his words and twisting them to mean
> something else.

Einstein would probably feel the same way Jesus would if he saw what people have done to him and his teachings.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Church of Evangelical Pantheists.
>
> No requirements except for the suspension of
> independent thought.
>
> Prophet Einstein would be proud of all of these
> people taking his words and twisting them to mean
> something else.
"
The fanatical atheists 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 traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein

This thread is a perfect object lesson of the quote above.

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson; "Whaaaaat?"

Here is a smart mormon physicist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne

who is no longer mormon.


Wonder if he won the Nobel Prize before or after his mormon daze?

Advanced DNA code coming into existence from a non-intelligent natural source? Not very likely.

It's very likely if you read actual evolutionary biology textbooks which explain what we observe in genetics and the support from fossil records.

Explain how you are fine with a complicated intelligent being somehow existing out of nowhere. By your own criteria, wouldn't your intelligent source need a more intelligent source to create it too?

I could recommend many books on evolution but something tells me you wouldn't read them based on your need to support your preconceived conclusion. The amount of evidence for evolution you reject is astounding.

I'm not sure what country you are from, but I see science education is not any better than it is here in the USA.

Good reply, Dagny.

If someone thinks viruses can't come about by nature because they are too complicated, then say it can only come from God, who is all knowing and all powerful, then they should have explain where God came from.

Is God's creator omnipotent^10?
Omniscience^10?
Etc^10?

And then, who created Uber-God, the creator of regular God? Uber-God Omnipotent^100?

Looks like complexity going backwards.

Roman Bokovinoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Advanced DNA code coming into existence from a
> non-intelligent natural source? Not very likely.

Are viruses a non-intelligent natural source? They carry DNA inside of them, even though they are not technically alive, since they cannot reproduce on their own, as far as we know, they can only reproduce by infecting their hosts, reprogramming their DNA and forcing them to produce exact copies of themselves.

And I'll include fact checking my own knowledge--and education--on the subject.

I reacted strongly to your statement because I knew viruses are associated more with RNA than DNA (there's a missing oxygen molecule in DNA; both are considered "nucleic acids").

There are both RNA and DNA viruses (I learned something). Whether they "constitute life" is above my pay grade, and I'm of the view they exist in the gray area between the two (insert Big Cabbie speech on the perils of "dichotomous," i.e. black-and-white thinking).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_classification

Getting back to the larger topic of this thread, atheist vs. agnostic vs. theist "classification," I've brought up that I grew up an atheist in Salt Lake City. Obviously enough has happened in my experiences and worldview that I've changed it considerably.

I prefer "being a believer" these days; I find it useful...

Cue up John Prine: "To believe in this living is just a hard way to go."

Appeals to authority without God feels like playing dice.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Appeals to authority without God feels like
> playing dice.

Is appealing to authority to give answers to questions given by the greatest scientific minds that ever existed?
Got a better source?

We all are.

You don't need to cite authority figures to justify yourself.

I do know that some exmormans have had their self esteem damaged from being in a domineering cult that requires members to accept leaders as mouthpieces for God. Sometimes it's necessary to look to others for validation if we're in a precarious and new situation. But we don't need to justify our opinions because they can change as we age and no one has a right to say we're wrong because our opinions are our own and we have a right to them even if they don't make sense to others.

Anyone smart enough to leave the mormon church and find RfM is plenty smart enough to independently form opinions without looking to anyone else to justify them.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We all are.
>
> You don't need to cite authority figures to
> justify yourself.
>
> I do know that some exmormans have had their self
> esteem damaged from being in a domineering cult
> that requires members to accept leaders as
> mouthpieces for God. Sometimes it's necessary to
> look to others for validation if we're in a
> precarious and new situation. But we don't need to
> justify our opinions because they can change as we
> age and no one has a right to say we're wrong
> because our opinions are our own and we have a
> right to them even if they don't make sense to
> others.
>
> Anyone smart enough to leave the mormon church and
> find RfM is plenty smart enough to independently
> form opinions without looking to anyone else to
> justify them.
I've got my own opinions, which I have expressed here quite clearly.
I just admire certain people I consider to be geniuses (I am not alone) and I like their answers to life's important questions. I like my answers to those questions to be consistent with the thinkers I consider to be wise men (and women).

We don't know that all those scientists believed in god. We know they said they did.

We do not know exactly what they mean by that, though in some cases we know what they say they meant by that. And regardless of what they meant by 'god', we only know they said they believed. We do not know if that was true, or simply 'virtue signaling', or an answer catering to social expectations.

"Ignore what they say. Watch what they do."

"Einstein's god" is not a personal god, or even a self-aware god. It's more like nature or mechanics of the universe, which does not demand oblation. And how could it? It is thoughtless, passionless, lacking in ego (it's a force and not a personality). It's unaware. Unaware of us, unaware of itself, unaware of its creation. Calling it god is a stretch to me when we have better descriptors.

BTW, I'm an atheist, and I'm probably stupid, but the two are not related.

or that it had a mind to know. but the figurative is literal to shrodinger scat.

William Law Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Einstein's god" is not a personal god, or even a
> self-aware god. It's more like nature or mechanics
> of the universe, which does not demand oblation.
> And how could it? It is thoughtless, passionless,
> lacking in ego (it's a force and not a
> personality). It's unaware. Unaware of us, unaware
> of itself, unaware of its creation. Calling it god
> is a stretch to me when we have better
> descriptors.
>
> BTW, I'm an atheist, and I'm probably stupid, but
> the two are not related.

Einstein called it God.
So did Sagan.
So did Hawking.
So does Kaku.
So do I.

That's okay if you do.

I don't call it that. And I don't worship it, either.

William Law Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Einstein's god" is not a personal god, or even a
> self-aware god. It's more like nature or mechanics
> of the universe, which does not demand oblation.
> And how could it? It is thoughtless, passionless,
> lacking in ego (it's a force and not a
> personality). It's unaware. Unaware of us, unaware
> of itself, unaware of its creation. Calling it god
> is a stretch to me when we have better
> descriptors.
>
> BTW, I'm an atheist, and I'm probably stupid, but
> the two are not related.

Who said anything about requiring oblation? The God of Einstein is a lot like the Tao, the way of nature., at least to my way of thinking

Nature is awesome, but it doesn't require devotion as most people's belief of god does.

I understand why people might attribute the name to nature--it's the most powerful longest "living" thing there is. But, to me, I can't see it that way. I can't twist the word "god" to fit my understanding of nature. But, I can appreciate a good, civil discussion on it.

William Law Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nature is awesome, but it doesn't require devotion
> as most people's belief of god does.

Like Buddhists, Taoists, Confuscists, Shintos, Indians, aboriginals and every other Pantheist religion throughout history, that Mono theistic patriarchal religions co-opted and codified to control the masses?

> I understand why people might attribute the name
> to nature--it's the most powerful longest "living"
> thing there is. But, to me, I can't see it that
> way. I can't twist the word "god" to fit my
> understanding of nature.
You think Einstein twisted the word god? (and Sagan, Hawking and Kaku)
But, I can appreciate a
> good, civil discussion on it.
Bottom line for me is we live in a vast mystery, which is a mystery to all of us. Einstein said that mystery was the source of all great art and science. The vast majority of the universe is a vast mystery. 95% of it is dark matter/energy.
That leaves a lot of room for people to call that mystery god or Logos or naure or Tao, or Dark Matter/Energy, but all of those names are really inadequate for describing what remains a vast mystery.
All we know is that we exist, despite all of the chaos in the world, there is order, predictability. At least on a large scale and probability even on a quantum scale. And as long as we exist, order exists. The natural order tends towards life, or has over the past 13.8billion years or so.

Buddhists, Taoists, and Confucians were/are not pantheists.

Buddhists believe sentient life is all divine, but that does not include plants or inanimate objects. Buddhism views the universe as an illusion, not as real let alone a manifestation of God.

Taoism posited the existence of universal truth but had no God and rejected scientific inquiry as a perversion of human nature. Laozi and Zhuangzi condemned education in their day and would have considered advanced theoretical physics as lacking in redeeming moral value. They would have pointed to the nuclear bomb and modern war as proof that science is a disaster.

Confucianism was a social philosophy, a political philosophy. It had no room for God and in fact viewed the natural balance as a reflection of human political organization. Bad government caused natural disasters. So it was the opposite of pantheism: it wasn't God that informed the universe but rather human behavior.

On the other hand, we could define Taoism and Confucianism as Blueberry Pancakes. If one were to go to IHOP, there would be Blueberry Pancakes on the menu and we could therefore conclude that Confucianism and Taoism are true. The fact that they were bitterly feuding rivals wouldn't bother us in the world of Blueberry Pancakes: we could state that they comprised an identical world view and no one could stop us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2019 08:52PM by Lot's Wife.

Yes, I do believe they twisted the word god. In my opinion, no one is a expert on god, not even theologians. Experts on religious belief and practice, but not on god. How could they know? The have no more access to god then the rest of us.

As for mysteries. There are mysteries, but I don't think they should be relegated to the supernatural realm. A mystery is something that isn't understood, and when something isn't understood, it should be found out and explained. Like in science.

When it comes to people who are excel in one thing, I don't take their word for other areas of living. I respect Einstein for what he did in physics, as for anything else, I don't think he's all knowing. For example, I would never emulate his treatment of women, such as his wives and mistresses. As for Sagan, I respect his popularization of science and promotion of skepticism. Kaku is just boring and pompous.

I can't make an appeal to authority. Brad Pitt and Tim Robbins are both atheists, but I don't care and don't take their word for anything other than acting.

Not even Tom Robbins?

:-(

Oh Oh spaghetti-O!

So you don't think anything is divine including nature. I do.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that, but I agree with Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins, Kaku and Sagan and the Dalai Lama. So that's fine.

Neither you nor your geniuses have actually established that nature is divine.

I hear a lot of assertions from you and your geniuses; but assertions, even those by geniuses, are meaningless if not backed up by evidence.

Assertions without facts or evidence are just opinions, and a genius' mere opinion has no more validity than my own.

It really is stpid.

HH =)

U R smrt. ;)

Saying he believed in God? Is there a publication, is there a recording?

There are publications: letters and such.

But Einstein used the word God as a metaphor for the complexity and beauty of the universe. He said belief in a conscious entity was absurd.

All the people Kori quotes used it that way.

This means something written by the hand of Einstein or recorded in his voice. It does not mean a telegram someone claimed to have had or an interview published by someone.

I think anyone who has been interviewed about a complex subject has been dismayed when the person who does the interview actually publishes what they thought they understood or what the wanted to understand.

Also, it would have to be later in his life to know what he finally concluded.

I'm sure people could find quotes from me when I was a Mormon, and then when I was a Christian, and then when I was a theist and use that to validate whatever they wanted if I were famous.

My views changed and evolved as I studied over time. At this point it would require a lot of study, and not just cherry picking quotes to conclude I am indeed an atheist at this point.

Also you have to consider if they were considerate of theistic sensibilities and purposely used the word god when it was not really needed to throw them a bone. Hawking did that in an earlier book and it came back to bite him.

The last book that Mark Twain wrote reveals a lot about his views. It takes a good biographer to fairly present how the famous person's studies and views evolve. Even then, we can't be sure what anyone thought privately.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, it would have to be later in his life to
> know what he finally concluded.
>
> I'm sure people could find quotes from me when I
> was a Mormon, and then when I was a Christian, and
> then when I was a theist and use that to validate
> whatever they wanted if I were famous.
>
> My views changed and evolved as I studied over
> time. At this point it would require a lot of
> study, and not just cherry picking quotes to
> conclude I am indeed an atheist at this point.
>
> Also you have to consider if they were considerate
> of theistic sensibilities and purposely used the
> word god when it was not really needed to throw
> them a bone. Hawking did that in an earlier book
> and it came back to bite him.
>
> The last book that Mark Twain wrote reveals a lot
> about his views. It takes a good biographer to
> fairly present how the famous person's studies and
> views evolve. Even then, we can't be sure what
> anyone thought privately.

He famously said, "I want to know the mind of God. The rest is just details." And "God does not play dice with the universe."
What do you think he meant when he used the word, god?
I think he meant Spinoza's god, which is a lot like the Stoic god, Logos, divine reason permeating and animating the universe.
And a lot like Lau Tzu's god, Tao, the way of nature.
And Sagan's god. "The imbodiment of the immutable laws governing the universe."
But that is just my opinion.
I could be completely wrong, but I agree with the people I consider to be the wisest of the wise men.
So if I am wrong. So is Einstein. Hawking. Sagan, Epicurous, Aurelius. Lao Tzu and Buddha.

We know what you think. You've made that abundantly clear. They use the word to mean things that already have words and so do you. Fantastic.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We know what you think. You've made that
> abundantly clear. They use the word to mean things
> that already have words and so do you. Fantastic.
Great. I'm happy to be in agreement with wise men and disagreement with fools.

You are cherry picking the ones who have said something that you can take to mean what you want. These are often statements taken out of context, are contradicted by other statements, and/or were meant as metaphors. This has been pointed out to you many, many times. You are combining confirmation bias with appeals to authority.

You also dismiss as "fools" all the Nobel Laureates who are Christian (see list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Nobel_laureates), note the list contains Physicists, Chemists, Doctors, and more. According to you, they are all "fools" because they have different opinions than you.

You also presumably dismiss as fools the list of Nobel Laureates who identify as atheist, agnostic, freethinker or otherwise nonreligious (see list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonreligious_Nobel_laureates, all with foot notes, many showing statements where they expressly state they are atheists) These are also very, very "wise" men, who I'd be willing to bet most of whom don't claim "God is Nature".

My personal favorite, as it relates to your comment, is Erwin Schrödinger, who according to the footnotes, "...often called himself an atheist, as did Schrodinger..." and "In terms of religion, Schrodinger fits in the atheist camp..."

People who have said things you agree with are "wise" people who don't, no matter their qualifications, are "fools". This why people keep pointing out to you that your appeals to authority are pointless. There are plenty of really smart people who have different views than you and you arbitrarily dismiss them, without any real argument to back up why, except they don't agree with you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2019 02:01PM by Finally Free!.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are cherry picking the ones who have said
> something that you can take to mean what you want.
> These are often statements taken out of context,
> are contradicted by other statements, and/or were
> meant as metaphors. This has been pointed out to
> you many, many times. You are combining
> confirmation bias with appeals to authority.
>
> You also dismiss as "fools" all the Nobel
> Laureates who are Christian (see list at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_No
> bel_laureates), note the list contains Physicists,
> Chemists, Doctors, and more. According to you,
> they are all "fools" because they have different
> opinions than you.
>
> You also presumably dismiss as fools the list of
> Nobel Laureates who identify as atheist, agnostic,
> freethinker or otherwise nonreligious (see list at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonreligious
> _Nobel_laureates, all with foot notes, many
> showing statements where they expressly state they
> are atheists) These are also very, very "wise"
> men, who I'd be willing to bet most of whom don't
> claim "God is Nature".
>
> My personal favorite, as it relates to your
> comment, is Erwin Schrödinger, who according to
> the footnotes, "...often called himself an
> atheist, as did Schrodinger..." and "In terms of
> religion, Schrodinger fits in the atheist
> camp..."
>
> People who have said things you agree with are
> "wise" people who don't, no matter their
> qualifications, are "fools". This why people keep
> pointing out to you that your appeals to authority
> are pointless. There are plenty of really smart
> people who have different views than you and you
> arbitrarily dismiss them, without any real
> argument to back up why, except they don't agree
> with you.

All the above completely fails to answer my question to you, what do you think Einstein was talking about when he used the word "God" if not "the laws that govern nature" ?

The post I'm replying to doesn't ask that question. What you're doing is called redirection. You don't want to respond to my post, which was a comment on your post, so you're yelling "Look over there!"

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are cherry picking the ones who have said
> something that you can take to mean what you want.

Bullshit.

Einstein was perfectly clear that he was not an atheist and believed in the god of Spinoza.
Sagan, Hawking and Kaku did too.

https://youtu.be/Hi6yPJvCFU0

How many days before you post this argument again? And what do you expect to achieve?

Einstein didn't believe in a personal God,but he also categorically denied being an atheist.He is hard to categorize but he was neither a traditional theist or an atheist.