/sci/ - Science & Math

Atheism isn't THE intellectual position, but it's the most intellectual position than theism or agnosticism.

Who the fuck ever said Einstein was an atheist? Fuck off with your religious shit.

>>1993863
>but it's the most intellectually bankrupt position than theism or agnosticism.
FTFY

Most scientists are agnostics though... and atheist leaning, similar to Einstein.

The only places where this dead, LONG dead childish debate is hot are in high schools and the internet. I guess you're going to need to get rid of the dogma mentality in order to welcome science, so Dawkins does have a point, but what this atheism trend has done is simply replace 'religion' with 'atheism' instead of eradicating the dogmatic mindsets of massively retarded youtube debaters.

no sage, because this shit is going to be bumped by a /b/tard troll regardless

Want to be smarter than Einstein?
Become an atheist today!

>>1993863
It is the most intellectual based on what? what you personally percieve to be a lack of evidence? believe what you want, but the position of believing something without is the same as rejecting something without evidence.

>>1993865
Why are you angry for? I didn't say anybody said Einstein was an atheist. I am also not religious. You seem to act upon a lot of presuppositions.

>>1993885
the position of believing something without evidence is the same as rejecting something without evidence.

>>1993865
It's a waste of intelligence and talent that he wasn't.
>>1993874
Agnosticism IS atheism because not knowing if there are gods or not or being open to the possibility is still not believing in any gods. There are plenty of atheists on this planet that still think it might be possible there are gods abound, yet still choose not to believe in them.

>>1993897
The choosing not to believe part is what makes them atheists, and not agnostics.

"Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors." --Isaac Newton

The intellectual position is to ignore religion completely. Einstein knew that we couldn't understand the universe fully so we shouldn't just to conclusions especially through religion.

TLDR: The question of whether god exists is irrelevant

>>1993885

You poor word choice of led me to believe that you were saying that atheism was not Einstein's position. And I am angry because you bring up non-science in /sci/, asshole. How the fuck is the discussion of whether or not imaginary friends exist scientific in the least?

>>1993905
we shouldnt just JUMP to conclusions*

>>1993885
Atheism is the most intellectual because it's the most compatible with realism, logic, and rationality; being preferential towards a belief based on physical and usable evidence of it's existence, being able to question it when needed, and actually drive forward to seek the truth and flesh it out if it's in dire need of such attention and empiricism.

People who believe in god think they are smarter than those that don't, and those that don't think they are smarter than those that do. This haughty attitude is distracting them both from accomplishing anything.

>>1993897
Who are you to say it's a waste of talent and intelligence? He was a lot smarter than you. Your post is akin to a child pitying an adult because he doesn't play games, despite the adult understanding that games are for children.
You also confuse the gods of religion with the god of philosophy.
.

>>1993912
OP here, i love you.

>>1993901
But choosing to be open to the possibility of god, or choosing the position that the existence of such may never be known, is still choosing not believe in said gods. Agnosticism is just a form of atheism.

>>1993917
>games are for children
Millions of adults partake in sporting activities, ever watch a football ''game''?

>>1993923
That made my day, thanks OP.

>>1993917
Despite what Einstein is known for, he was always wrong about so many things over his career. The notion that gravity doesn't pull but push, inspiring the works of string theory, and many more.

>He was a lot smarter than you.
Considering his positions on atheism and religion, as posted in this thread, I highly doubt that.

>>1993932
>Considering his positions on atheism and religion, as posted in this thread, I highly doubt that.
Yes, but you're retarded.

>>1993929
i apologise for the metaphor if you're going te be a pedant about it. what i meant is that the posters chain of reasoning led to atheism, and einstein, who has a better chain of reasoning, was led to a different conclusion, and that the poster who was led by an inferior chain of reasoning thought he was superior.

>>1993938
'Fraid I'm not, and 'fraid I'm a lot smarter than Einstein ever was if he literally believed in that crap this thread is spouting; but I'm 'fraid the same cannot be said about you.

>the child does not know how they were written
>how

Everyone knows how books are written. Lol, it's evn there in the sentence. Horrible example

>>1993932
>Considering his positions on atheism and religion, as posted in this thread, I highly doubt that.

actually he was strictly anti religion. religion is not synonymous with a higher power. you can say that being an atheist is a more intellectual position, but without discourse i will not accept it. give me an actual reason why atheism is the most intellectual position and i will concede rather than "Considering his positions on atheism and religion, as posted in this thread, I highly doubt that."

/thread

How are you defining atheism? There's plenty of atheists that see it as just a lack of belief in god(s), and some that see it as a 100% chance that there is no god(s). You seem to be referring to the latter, but that is not how all atheists see things.

>>1993951
Basically what >>1993911 said, and to not accept it is to not accept reality as a well (i.e.: delusional).

>>1993944
so you're smarter than einstein because you don't understand philosophical supportings for the existence of god? i would like to see you discover something as important as the theory of relativity.

>>1993956

God fucking damnit. We can't keep making new expressions for every fucking movement. If people are atheist, there should be ONE PURE FUCKING definition of what a fucking atheist is. You can't bend the meanings of the words towards your own preferances; that's ridiculous!

>>1993858
>quote mining
Fuck the hell off.

>>1993962
Yes, I am smarter than Einstein because I KNOW those "philosophical supportings for the existence of god" are complete bullshit and unempirical abuse of logic. And you don't have to be a genius to discover something grand and earth shattering that it affects humanity and cultures as a whole, just being in the right place at the right time (see: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc).

>>1993963

I agree, but that's not the way things are. People disagree on the definition, I'm just pointing that out.

>>1993958
I accept that actually, but only as an approach to science, not as a worldview.

>>1993982
So say something that stupid you have to be a teenager

there is not a man alive now that i would consider smarter then Einstein

also intelligence only matters when you use it

quit being an arrogant child

>>1993956

Its the belief that there is no god. Which is the same as "lack of belief in god" whether someones diehard about it or not doesnt change the fact that theyre still an atheist.

An agnostic is someone who thinks that the world makes sense without a god, but they feel that theres something more there that science is looking past/not seeing something important.

But either way, its all going to just be shades of grey, and there will always be people who just cant seem to be defined. Some will say, oh hes definatly an atheist, and others will so, no hes an agnostic.

>>1993963
>We can't keep making new expressions for every fucking movement

But, thats what religion does continously. Yall and your hundreds of types of chirstanity, Islam and ___insert random fairtales____. Yall redefine/change/add defintions so much!

How about we just call yall all stupid? Work for ya?

FUCK OFF!

>>1993963
>there should be ONE PURE FUCKING definition
I'm afraid that no matter where you go (science, religion, philosophy, semantics, language, etc.), there's never going to be one pure definition of anything, ever, it's just something that's not possible to achieve. There can be a general and broad definition, but never just one, ever.

Also the broad and general definition of atheism is "the lack of belief in a god or deity," which mean the person can still not believe in a god but open to the possibility there might one, or they cannot believe in a god or that one even exists.

Pfff atheism, naturalism is much more intellectual, with that there is no room for anything supernatural.

>>1993982
Why do matter and energy exist? Please do not say, No reason, it doesn't have to have a reason. There MUST be something, not even a material cause or a purpose. but for existence to spring out of non existence, there must be more than what is understandable.

the true seeker of truth will always find Jesus

>>1993982

So, because you came after Einstein, and had things explained to you by more intelligent people, you feel this understanding you've been given makes you more intelligent?

You're not the pioneer here, you're the sheep following a majority opinion in your chosen archetypal projection of being.

When YOU personally have done one of these ground shaking life altering events, and it stacks up to the achievement/effect of g/s relativity maybe you can say something like that. It's your fucking accomplishments that matter, son, not the shit you read in a book thought up by someone better than you.

>>1994009
The only people that insist on there being a reason for the existence of matter etc are religious.

>>1994010
Big Breated girls are laughing at you

>>1994009
Matter exists because energy can convert and accumulate itself into matter, mass, particles, etc. As well as matter can convert itself into energy. But also energy can be virtually just anything, whether it be light or a force of nature, even vast emptiness with no matter or forces in it is still, itself, a form of energy that can behave off itself.

>>1994002

Personally I always thought of atheism as a type of nihilism centered on religion. For me it's an unwillingness to participate in thoughts of religion or god. I treat them as though they do not exist, while recognizing the fact that I can not know. Because it can not be defined I try not to bother myself with it.

>>1994022
big breaded bun women are laughing at you

>>1994009

Yeah, but once you find that reason, you can then ask, why does that reason exist? And so on and so forth. Eventually you will have to come to something that just IS. For theist, the just IS is god, for atheist the just IS is going to be something along the lines of the uncertainty principle.

But this path of argument will get you know where, both groups have to have something that just IS, theres no way around it, something has to be intrinsically there for no reason. The real argument lies in the universe we see today, not what was there before. Does the universe we see today appear to have a god, or does it appear to have come out of some random chaos? If you follow observations, evidence, and just plain old logic, the universe appears to come from random chaos.

>>1994019
They are not the only people, religion is not synonymous with faith and spirituality. I accept the big bang, I accept evolution, I do not believe in heaven or hell, but I do not believe that Time and space are meaningless. Also, to abandon something because other people have misused it is foolish.

>>1994014
I may have not achieved anything in my life (yet), but I'm still smarter than the fucker because I'm not batshit insane enough to go off some philosophical drebble behind theistic existence like he did.

>>1994033

And you never will. Enjoy the megalomania.

>>1994037
And enjoy your ad hominems and wishful thinking.

... I thought Einstein was Jewish.

Wasn't that why he left Europe?
Wasn't that why he was asked to be leader of the new country of Israel, but refused?

>>1993988
Sad, what he described is basically how I view the world in general.

>>1994043

I'm sorry, what wishful thinking? You're the one with delusions of unproven super-intelligence.

You will never acheive anything as important as Einstein has, deal with it. Attempting to insult a dead man for his theistic beliefs in an effort to inflate your ego is weaksauce.

>>1993999
your logic is that because they do it we can as well

also you sound like a arrogant teenager

hopefully you be more humble is your later years

>>1994046
>Einstein
>as a leader of a middle eastern country
Oh man... There is no way that would end for him.

>>1994030
Very fair point. I think your talking about the material reason for something existing and the predicament of god vs the universe existing eternally though? also i don't believe that a higher power has to be a demiurge, so tho chaos existing is kinda irrelevant i feel.

>>1994024
You have missed the point, my friend. A mobile phone doesn't exist simply because the materials have the properties enabling the mobile phone to exist, this however makes it sound like i am supporting a demiurge which i'm not

>>1994009
>>1994009
>existence to spring out of non existence

Technically, there is no problem here. The problem is that you have a very simple mind, and dont understand complicated concepts.

GTFO, go learn some physics, and it will all make sense one day, even without envoking your magic sky king!

>>1994049
You assume the other person will not achieve anything in his life because you want to believe he will not because of your current disposition towards him/her. You're just wishing he won't make it anywhere, nothing more.

being against organized religion (and, more generally, telling people what to think) does not an atheist make.

Megalomania and arrogance everywhere

>>1994057

I'm not wishing anything. I could care less. You've got issues though if you'd like to argue the fact that someone with zero credential is more intelligent than Einstein. This rests on that person's shoulders, not mine. Until they prove themselves, my statement remains true.

>>1994054
You asked why do they exist, and I gave you why they exist, because no matter how significant or insignificant anything in this universe can be, they're always capable of complex behavior of their own, being able to move and react to each other in a flavor of ways by themselves.

>>1994067
says the jingoistic tripfag

>>1994056
You know, if you had made an effort to educate me in physics, rather than insult me, it would have been beneficial to all parties involved.
All you have achieved in that puerile post is lessening the rational standing of your viewpoint, I am open to physics, physics can hold it's own without having you insult other people for what you percieve as ignorance.
You also assume I believe i can invoke a 'magic sky king', which is very ignorant.
Please explain to me how existence springs out of non existence or your take on it.

>>1994068
Well yeah, someone with zero credentials can be more intelligent than someone with endless credentials. I mean people like Zuckerberg and Jobs achieved so much in their lives already, and they're nothing but of plebeian intelligence, they were just lucky. Achievements do not mean intelligence, so yes, anybody with no achievements can still be smarter than Einstein or Hawking.

>>1994070
I agree with you. I don't put those type things down to god. but what i meant was a purpose. why have matter and energy at all instead of a void?

>>1994068
>I could care less.
If this were true, you wouldn't be replying to his posts or partaking in them at all.

Also it's "couldn't care less" you fucking American.

>>1994080

If hugging a piece of paper makes you sleep better, by all means, clutch it as tightly as possible.

In the real world a person's worth (intelligence, in this case) is defined by action, or in most of our cases (including mine) a lack there of.

>>1994082
Because a void itself would not only still be a form of energy, it's still a something that's present and existing. Hence one of the many secrets of the universe: the one thing that cannot possibly exist, ever, is absolute nothingness.

Also there IS no real meaning behind why they exist other than the meaning you put behind them.

>>1994084

I applaud you for taking the bait. Is that all you had to add?

>>1994078
>existence springs out of non existence

Its basic physics. We can see this happeneing al the time. The prime example being quantum fluxuations. Yes, shit can just appear and disspear, it happens all the fucking time. We know these processes very well, so well we can actually predict with great accuracy when shit will appear and dissapear. ITS ALL PHYSICS!

NO SKY KING!

>>1994088
Intelligence is nothing more than a curious drive to learn, a vast knowledge base, and intellectual talent (even if it's all in the head). It has very little to do with action, and when it does it becomes an achievement or drive, not intelligence (just intelligence-backed).

>>1994089
Thank you a lot for your posts, really, it's not often where somebody actually aims to educate instead of fight childishly. I didn't know about the impossibility of absolute nothingness.

>Also there IS no real meaning behind why they exist other than the meaning you put behind them.

I used to accept this, but now i just feel that there is a reason.

>>1994097
There may be a reason, but it's not an intentional reason that's for sure.

Atheism IS the most intellectual position, but only by a tiny bit.
Theism has been disproved.
Deism hasn't been.
Atheists who say there can be no Theist god make sense.
Atheists who say there can be no Deist god are stupid.
In terms of the library analogy:
Religion is an average guy who claims he can translate the book: He could be lying when he translates the book, or could be counting on you believing whatever he says. He says he is translating it word for word but cannot get it verified by anyone else.
Science is the scholar: It learns the language, he studies it for his entire life, even if it means he only translates one sentence - but it's enough. He then passes on his translation to the next generation, so they can discover more through his sentence. This carries on until we understand every book in the library.

I overthoughtededed. Wops.

>>1993858
WTF /SCI/!
STOP SHITTING UP THE BOARD!

>>1994092

And proof of said intelligence comes from where? One can't just walk around talking about how intelligent he is without expecting to be demanded to prove it. For the most part, dictating from a book or other third party isn't exactly the way to express above-average intelligence. I suppose that would be my opinion though.

Directly from the dictionary.

a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

And when you finally close your eyes,you will see who was right and who was wrong.

>>1994091
>basic physics
>quantum fluxuations
well i didn't realise that quantam fluctuations were basic physics. thank you for telling me about it though, even though you are very immature in your methods. you know, if you weren't so antagonistic towards people, they're more likely to listen to you. if you were to teach a religious person without fervour about physics in a rational way they are more likely to listen to you than when you say "HUR DURR MAGIC SKY KING". your superior attitude adds to the problem of ignorance, it doesn't take away from it.

>>1994113
>And proof of said intelligence comes from where?
Expressing and comparing it mostly for recognition, but that's pretty much it.

Also that dictionary definition is wrong and exaggerated.

>>1994122
>wrong
No. Arbitrary and mishandled though.

>>1994104
Thanks, bro.

>>1994112
this thread has nothing to do with creationism or religion, in this thread i have learnt quite a few things about physics.

>>1994118
I don't think so, the non existence of heaven is only proof of the lies of religion, not of the non existence of a higher power. personally i dont believe in heaven.

>>1994046
most Jews after the Holocaust turned their backs on God; they have been partially blinded to the truth. that blindness is ready to disappear.

>>1994135
A "heaven" is still possible.
Maybe not as Christians/Muslims etc. describe but you have an infinite possible kinds of heavens.

>>1994119
QM is pretty basic shit.

Sorry if I seem Harsh, but I really get tired of dealing with retards like you. You use Dr. E as an implication that smart people believe in God.
But in fact, he isnt refering to anything you would consider a "god".

Einstien was talking about the "God of Spinoza"
A GOD WHO DOESNT GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOU! THERE IS NO HEAVEN IS NO HELL, NO AFTERLIFE! There is nothing supernatural. This God doesn't it exisit in a limited amount of physical space. It is pretty much equivalnet to worshiping the universe. It doenst fucking matter if you worship this God or not. This is the God of Einstein and smart people.

IT IS FOR ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES IT IS ATHEISM! SO FUCK OFF

>>1994159
>>1994159
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

Read up faggots!

>>1994159
you seem upset

>>1994159
You are wrong in your assumption, i do not believe in a personal god at all. i dont believe in heaven or any religions. I have just lost all respect for you for your assumption. never once did i mention god as a demiurge. do you actually know any of spinozas beliefs or do you just assume that i dont know that?
Quantam fluctuations may be basic but i haven't had the same advantages as you to learn about it. I apologise for wasting your time oh superior one who was born with esoteric knowledge of physics and never once erred or needed explanation.

>>1994178
Naw, just trying to help yall understand what Einstein believed.

Einstein believed God exists only philosophically and that God was abstract and impersonal.

Einstein viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "that which stands beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect is only understood in part.

Ugh, science vs religion treads are so fucking boring...
they shouldnt even be here.

>The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.

tell me how to find meaning in my life
I believe that what others do, matters, because it is done for me
But I don't believe anything I do matters
how do i make myself believe?

>>1994159
Jesus christ your ignorance is infuriating i have to reply again.
in my OP i clearly said "I guess it doesn't really matter whether you believe in a higher power or not," which is exactly what you said just now "It doenst fucking matter if you worship this God or not"
"IT IS FOR ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES IT IS ATHEISM!"
no, you're wrong, a belief in a god doesn't have to be religious.

Your lucky i believe that your ignorance is determined or i would resort to your childish namecalling.

>>1994196
Yeah, that is pretty much
God = the universe
We can only attempt understand God through physics

This is pretty close to what most people consider atheism

Good job /sci/

\thread

>>1994204
Actually, Einstein opposed Spinoza's pantheism

>>1994203
ITT: Religious troll got told

>>1994207
source?

>>1994208
we both know that your hiding behind that "you got trolled" excuse. im not religious and youre childish, seriously, i hope your not older than 17.

>>1994196
Nice bro

>>1994212
It's actually in the first quote. He admired Spinoza but wasn't pantheist.

>>1994221
are you honestly that pathetic?

>>1994204
>I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.

but he was a patheist

>>1993858

I stopped reading after OP compared the universe to books in a library.

>>1994234
OP is not Einstein.

WTF /sci/?

>>1994203
>>1994203
>>1994203
>>1994203
>>1994203
>>1994203
>>1994203

>>1994242
OP was a Troll, OP got Trolled!
WTF?.....lmao

Well, Albert was wrong about quantum physics. So from QP's perspective, he's the new Newton.