We don't believe in a creator God. But if you want to believe in a god, it's not a problem for me.

My point was to highlight the difference between dialogue based on mutual respect, and a position that requires one to attack an opponent's intelligence or understanding. I feel that the 2 quotes well illustrate the 2 positions.

Buddhists don't proselytize. We're not interested in converting you. If you want to know about Buddhism, you have to ask for teachings. If someone attacks your intelligence, unless you do something really stupid like rob a bank or play with fire, it's rarely about you. Rather it's about them projecting their opinions onto you. So just smile and don't pay them any attention.

In 37 years working for the Federal Government, I never talked about my religious beliefs. I would not attempt to convert anyone. That is all part of mutual respect, and doing to others......

and not talking about something that is so important?

not spiritual advisor.

"whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth"

I know when I first solved the equation (as it were) of religion I was angry. Very angry. It hit me like a ton of bricks, I had been hoodwinked all my life! WTF?!? It's a sense of betrayal that burns. Of course I soon figured out that of course those who had misled me knew no different and had been misled themselves.

As the years go by that feeling has long ago disappeared. I really don't care what anyone believes (or doesn't believe). I think society wins when we all agree to respect everyone's right to believe what they wish. Where things tend to get sticky is where people confuse this with expecting everyone to also respect what it is they believe. That is not part of the deal.

we will not make absolute pronouncements.


And mutual respect involves not imposing beliefs on others.

And we all deal with it. There are simply more theists in both categories.

I guess I"m an American Transcendentalist.

I was a feral kid who spent most of my childhood exploring redwood forests. To whom do I send my thanks?


i thank You God for most this amazing
day:for the leaping greenly spirits of trees
and a blue true dream of sky;and for everything
which is natural which is infinite which is yes

(i who have died am alive again today,
and this is the sun’s birthday;this is the birth
day of life and of love and wings:and of the gay
great happening illimitably earth)

how should tasting touching hearing seeing
breathing any—lifted from the no
of all nothing—human merely being
doubt unimaginable You?

(now the ears of my ears awake and
now the eyes of my eyes are opened)

(e.e. pretty much summed up my faith)

I like that. I would suggest thanking whoever or whatever you feel deserves the thanks.

without needing someone/something to thank. It's a great deal like luck. You can be brimful of your awareness of it--the luck, say, of not being born poor in subSahara Africa, without assigning an agent as responsible for that luck. I don't think you need to be religious to experience gratitude.

You like one view, but not the other. I have a view that is different from both. I'm perfectly happy to accept that others see things differently. Both men you quoted are entitled to their views. Neither asked for your opinion or mine.

I recognize that i am no Bertrand Russell, nor Albert Einstein. I believe I will simply leave them to their views without comment.

One was aware of his limitations.

Last edited Sat Nov 10, 2018, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Nor with Einstein, apparently. Russell was a philosopher. Einstein was a physicist and mathematician. From time to time, Einstein spoke of philosophy, but that was not his focus. Russell spoke of physics rarely, because that was not his focus.

Both offer valuable insights, but must be studied in light of their specialties.

You have mischaracterized both men. I suggest further study.

There is no need for further study.

Not much critical thinking going on and a whole bunch of delusion, denial and willful ignorance.

I see a lot of "You believe as you wish," but the religious often vote based on their beliefs. I see it no different than telling a delusion/denial-riddled substance dependent person to "carry on," as if it didn't effect me and everyone else.

If humanity is ever to break the bonds of religion; education, critical thought, open-mindedness, fearlessness and courage will be necessary.

What’s interesting here is when one calls out myths as mythology they are deemed intolerant for daring to question the validity of religious belief. Funny how religionists feel they should be free to promote their mythology without any dissenting viewpoints while hiding behind the false veil of tolerance.

Do you recognize your own limitations?

Which is also true for you, but not for Russell.

Just sayin'

Russel is often quoted on religion by those who share his intolerant attitude.

...and claims the child rapist Muhammad was a champion of womens’ rights.

I get that you feel the need to libel atheists like Russel based on a ridiculous interpretation of what intolerance actually is, but where it gets really funny is when you use such half-fast reasoning to further libel non-believers in this group by the lamest association.

I suppose the silver lining is at least this time you are more honest in your personal attacks by actually using the word intolerant, but I’m pretty sure the irony of doing so is lost on you.

Meanwhile the next time you are wondering why there’s a “choir” united against you, it might be worth considering it has nothing to do with your beliefs and everything to do with your lack of character and integrity demonstrated by your previous post.

Stay within the bounds of your gif(t).

And then follow it up with how everyone else just doesn't understand. That was a real knee slapper.

Russell is?

Just take a glance at his wiki.
Here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell


Hint: one of if not the greatest modern philosophers. Also one of the greatest mathematicians.

Take a peek at his “disciples” under the section “influenced”.

as smart as Bertrand Russell? The very idea!

to cast shade upon The Right Honourable Earl Russell.

the light from Nobel Laureate Russell. In fact, that shadow goes completely unnoticed without very close inspection.

I didn't look that closely.

Based on your response, should I place you with Russell?

in categories. You are not good at it.

Every time you repeat the nonesense that atheism is an unprovable position, you simply prove yourself wrong all over again. You know, just like the time you claimed deism was just another form of theism despite your own posted definition stating otherwise.

A fool finds it easy to ridicule genius.

Unless you are calling Einstein a fool. Or unless you are calling Russell infallible.

Both are brilliant thinkers, with different perspectives on many things. Both are well worth reading and studying. Einstein for his insights into physics and mathematics, and Russell for his insights into philosophy.

Neither is a fool. Neither is infallible. You have misunderstood my post, as usual. I am a disciple of nobody. I learn from almost everybody, but I think for myself. I am neither a fool, nor infallible. I am simply myself.

And the fully predictable response that when anyone calls bullshit on the nonsensical editorial they MUST be contradicting the subject(s) quoted.

All else falls short.

While pretending otherwise.

It simply indicates that you misunderstood something.

It's seldom good advice, and often insulting.

Because if so, I agree.

I haven’t seen such brilliance since primary school.

In spades.

If someone feels the need to lie to support his position, how strong is that position?

... right after referencing a definition that says the opposite.

In other words, when one continues to insist up is down after acknowledging incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, credibility on other things begins to suffer.

to those who died for their religion or lack of religion.

Last edited Sat Nov 10, 2018, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Tolerance means someone else is allowed to express an opinion. That's all. It doesn't mean you have to like it, agree with it, find it admirable or shut up about it.

but because he made so many such pronouncements, there is/was a public factor to consider.

Any expression of an opinion that Gil doesn't like, agree with, or find admirable.

One can only imagine there has to be a bit of self loathing going on.

Rejecting his viewpoints based on a single quote is the height of foolishness and intolerance.

And his other numerous "weighty pronouncements" on theists and theism?

Your reference to rejecting all of his viewpoints is completely off topic and unprovable, but you are entitled to make such leaps of hyperbole.

is so penetrating and clear.

His take down of Lewis, who tried so hard to be intellectual about his unsupported beliefs is a wonder.

"Why I am not a Christian" is a must read.

I think the main difference between the two is Russell was a philosopher and the ideology of theists was a part of his discipline.

Einstein was a physicist, his area of inquiry was the understanding of the physical world. Not involving any God or supernatural entities. He chose not to be confrontational about his atheism. Which is also understandable.

I think you are completely mis-characterizing the two men's beliefs. Putting Russell as a hate filled atheist and Einstein as a agnostic defender of belief.

I think you would find their lack of belief very similar and only the discourse they engaged in different.
Which is understandable given their different disciplines.
They were not in two different "camps" as you are trying create here.

And, judging by the replies, it is shared.

of unfounded beliefs. But play on.

It isn't nice, but it isn't intolerance.

And we agree that it was not nice.

It’s very telling how personally attached some are to their mythology that they cannot bear someone calling it mythology even though that’s the literal definition of it.

What specific actions is suggesting be taken against believers? If you call every criticism intolerance, or only allow certain types of criticism, then by your owb definition, you are being intolerant.

Are you familiar with the Russell-Einstein Manifesto? No?



Signatories to that document include 10 Nobel Prize winners, as depicted in boldfaced type:

Max Born
Percy W. Bridgman
Albert Einstein
Leopold Infeld
Frédéric Joliot-Curie
Hermann J. Muller
Linus Pauling
Cecil F. Powell
Joseph Rotblat
Bertrand Russell
Hideki Yukawa

You could learn much more about this at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%E2%80%93Einstein_Manifesto and the links in that article.

Or you could read more at:
https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/russell-einstein-manifesto

The two men did not hold extremely different opinions, dear Guy, but both are among the most respected people of the 20th century. Are you sure you wish to malign one of them? Are you sure you are in any way qualified to do so?

Ironically Einstein arguably was as well. At the very least he had no respect for theism.

Only one side is unprovable. It's been pointed out to you before.

Here is the core of atheism: There is no proof of God's existence. That's it, and it is easily provable. Since no proof exists, only atheism stands on solid ground.

You keep assuming that atheists claim that God doesn't exist. We don't believe he does, due to lack of evidence, but our minds are open. Faith is the wall theists construct to keep their mind closed.

And that is the substance of Einstein's quote.

There is no proof that God exists.

You got any? No one does.

And if you do not realize that, and do not recognize your own human limitations, as Einstein noted, you will continue to make such logical errors.

God exists?

I do not accept that any God exists, based on lack of evidence.

I will gladly reconsider if evidence is presented.

An unprovable and unproven assertion.

Here is a provable statement

There is no proof that God exists.

When one has to recite strawman bullshit ad nauseum to validate their belief, one has to wonder how firm it ever was to begin with.

If he had said that he personally found no proof etc. that would be one thing.

he is saying, right now, there is no proof, anywhere. If you have some to offer, we are listening. you can disprove what he said.

It is a provable statement.

He is asserting, with no evidence provided, that there is no proof.

evidence for claims work.

Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2018, 12:53 AM - Edit history (1)

You've said, "There is no proof God exists. Faith needs no proof." Are you now saying there is proof?

You have admitted that there is no proof that God exists or does not exist. Therefore the statement "There is no proof that God exists" must be true.

Where you actually differ from atheists is whether this lack of proof means that God does not in fact exist.

When someone points that out the predictable reply is you just don’t understand.

that uses non-religious texts. By cherry-picking individual quotations, one can try to make a particular point. It's in common use by apologists through mining of scriptural quotations. Here, we're seeing it used in the same way, but by mining quotations from famous people.

As your quote from Einstein indicates, his opinion was similar to Russell's. Perhaps not as well expressed, but almost the same.

Both men produced a large body of work, which provides a rich source of quotes to be used in "proof-texting," I suppose.

If you did, you tell me what he meant.

Now I’ll ask you the exact same question and fully expect no coherent answer.

So after you answer what exactly you feel that he meant, I will answer.

No matter what answer I give you will never provide a straight answer to a straight question, at least if past practice is any predictor of the future.

In fact you asked two questions and I provided two answers. You refused to answer either in return. At least you proved how utterly predictable you are.