[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 11 KB, 300x327, einstein_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3250438 No.3250438 [Reply] [Original]

So Einstein believed in Spinoza's God.
Question. What is spinoza's god, in a nutshell?

>> No.3250456

>So Einstein believed in Spinoza's God.
I'm absolutely not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.
He took interest in it. But he didnt identify with it.

>> No.3250465

>>3250456
I was refering to this quote:
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

>> No.3250475

To him the laws of physics are god. Its a god you can find in a star, or a lump of coal.

>> No.3250478

>>3250465
Einstein changed his views multiple times. That was after he had just stopped believing in a personal god. This was his opinion closer to his death.

>> No.3250490

>>3250438
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

/thread

>> No.3250513

>>3250490
>in a nutshell
I saw that article; read header; no will to read on
philosophical bullshit or not?

>> No.3250523

>>3250513
it is just a pantheism, there's nothing particularly special about it. it just makes a useless, baseless, unknowable assertion with the already loaded term of 'god'. probably because einstein's family, being the stubborn jews that they were, would be very upset if he deconverted

>> No.3250540

Yeah but Einstein was wrong. His theories are wrong.


Google:
Stacy McCaugh
47 galaxies
Einstein's relativity : disproved.

>> No.3250569

>>3250540
>Googles
>MOND
nope.jpg

>> No.3250573

>>3250523
i thought Einstein's family were very liberal (unpractising) jews

>> No.3250578

>>3250569
You cannot reduce McCaugh's discovery to MOND as it is not directly correlated in its entirety.
Please read more.

>> No.3250592
File: 39 KB, 208x228, Frog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3250592

>>3250540
I've seen people posting this shit everywhere (Unless its you samefagging everywhere). What the balls man? I can't be fucked to read it but, i doubt it disproves relativity anyway.

So calling bullshit.

Pic related, its you.

>> No.3250614

>>3250592
Mccaugh is an astronomer that found 47 galaxies that aren't behaving like they should if Einstein's model is right.

Hence, Einstein is wrong, reality shows it.

>> No.3250643

Einstein and McCough were full of shit. Gene Ray has it figured out.

>> No.3250659
File: 91 KB, 407x550, Azathoth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3250659

Spinoza's God is a semantic trick, whereby you redefine "God " to mean "the Universe". This is a deity without consciousness, let alone agency, a clockwork God who mindlessly obeys the laws of the Universe, with no room for prayer or any kind of personal relationship. At that point, I really don;t see why you'd even bother with the idea, it's been so stripped of meaning.

Pic related: It's basically Spinoza's God.

>> No.3250664

>>3250540
My God! The established theories of space and time are all lies! I wonder why nobody seems to care about this stunning discovery!

Oh wait, it's obviously a conspiracy by the higher cabals of Big Astronomy.

>> No.3250708

>>3250664
It's still being studied by other scientists.
And yes, they are partly right, but fundamentally wrong.

>> No.3250722

>>3250664
Why don't you read seriously on it you dickbag?

>> No.3250741

>>3250540
>Yeah but Einstein was wrong. His theories are wrong.
Oh boy, even assuming the link you never gave had some value, you should probably read this first.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

>> No.3250744

>>3250659

uh... no.... God is Mind.

Maybe if you'd actually bothered to READ Spinoza.......

>> No.3250753

>>3250744
I doubt most people have read anything by Spinoza. The problem with most /sci/entists is that they get their education from wikipedia.

>> No.3250766

>>3250741
>partly right, but fundamentally wrong

Do not serve me your philological bullshit a.k.a word nitpicking.

>> No.3250772

>Einsteins wrong

>Newtons wrong

>Hawkings wrong

This is how science works, douchefags. Each one of them put forward theories that explained observations better than any before. Only sith deal in absolutes, scientists just try to, and deliver on, making a better theory than the previous paradigm.

>> No.3250782

>>3250766
Just because a fudge factor might one day be added to the laws of gravity at galactic scales does not invalidate the groundbreaking research Eistein did that got us out of aether-thinking. You're advocating a silly idea of absolute rightness and wrongness; please read the short essay by Asimov again. It addresses your concerns.

>> No.3250784
File: 40 KB, 485x551, Frans_Hals_Youth_with_skull.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3250784

"How could Spinoza’s God be defined? In one of his works, On the Improvement of
Understanding, the philosopher shows that a relevant definition consists in nothing but
excluding all questions as “does the thing exists?”, excluding all causes as well, and deducing
from this definition all the properties of the subject. So the definition of Spinoza’s God would
be at first to prove its existence, then to show that he has no cause and determines the world,
and finally to illustrate his properties.
According to Spinoza, the existence of God can at first be proved a posteriori (according to
our experience). We know (and it is tautological) that if something is non-existent, it exists
and vice-versa, (there is no mixed situation), and that everything is determined to existence or
non-existence by a specific cause. For instance, I am determined to existence by a cause,
which is named “parents”. But by definition, God has no cause because he is unlimited and
thereby cannot be created by something else (he is causa sui). Owing to this perfection, he
cannot find in himself the cause of his non-existence. Consequently, God does necessarily
exist
1
. This proof is contestable because it is impossible to analyse the divine causality as a
human one. God cannot determine the existence of things, even himself, as the artist a statue
or the parents their child, because it would imply a temporal succession between the creator
and the created, a beginning and an end which are incompatible with God’s perfection and
everlasting. It is preposterous to deduce the existence of God from a typical human and
limited category (causality)[...]"
http://nb.vse.cz/kfil/elogos/student/jous104.pdf

>> No.3250789

>>3250744
"God is Mind"
what does this even mean? please elaborate just a little

>> No.3250800

>>3250784
> This proof is
false
> because all those things.
Being impossible makes you not exist.

>> No.3250804

>>3250782
>got us out of aether-thinking

To plunge us into even more retarded stuff like space time distortion, wormholes and other retarded sci-fi delirium.

souhaita laissio

>> No.3250806
File: 90 KB, 600x808, guido-reni-ecce-homo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3250806

>>3250789
Don't listen to him.
Basically Spinoza's God is pantheistic in nature, simply meaning that God and the Universe are one in the same. Now, Spinoza's God is more specifically monistic[1] in nature.

[1]:The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.

>> No.3250809

>>3250782
It's been 80 years since no real discovery were made in the field.
I think it's a hint that we are looking in the wrong direction, or with the wrong pair of shades at least

>> No.3250812

>>3250800
What are you rambling about?

>> No.3250821

>>3250782
Please, show me a graviton.
Show me a photon.
Show me a Higgs (lol)

Yeah...no. HUR DUR EVERYTHING IS MADE OF SMALL BALLS OF "STUFF"

Nope.
Fucking waves they are.
And waves need a medium to propagate.

>> No.3250828
File: 12 KB, 189x267, Baphomet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3250828

>>3250821
Then how do you explain wave-particle duality?

>> No.3250831

>>3250821
0/10

>> No.3250836

>>3250804

>herp
Derp.

>> No.3250849

>>3250828
False interpretations from researchers trying endlessly to prove Einstein right...even whe he is obviously not.

>> No.3250851
File: 159 KB, 725x725, cosmic_sphere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3250851

>mfw "science cannot into redshift derp"

>> No.3250859

Einstein stole Poincarre's and Lorentz's physics and perverted them instead of develloping them into some absurd chimeria thazt needs all sort of ludicrous patches in order to stay mathematically correct.

>> No.3250866

This is not science, please take the voices in your head and your awkward emotions elsewhere

>> No.3250867

This was Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity most important postulate:

"The speed of light is the same in all Galilean inertial reference frames."

Surprisingly, this seems to be true. Many observers moving at different speeds will really record the same speed for light. However, this severely hurts common sense. One should investigate how come it is possible.

In 1904, Lorentz published his famous transformations and he showed that they could explain such a stunning result. He especially discovered that moving matter, including the observer and his instruments, should contract. He also found that clocks should tick slower.

Finally, the light does not really travel at the same speed in all reference frames: those transformations simply cancel the speed difference and the observer is mislead.

source: http://glafreniere.com/sa_errors.htm

>> No.3250884
File: 908 KB, 640x241, light10.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3250884

THE LIGHT WAVES DO NOT VIBRATE TRANSVERSALLY

Augustin Fresnel studied polarized light. He thought that transverse vibrations could explain this and he postulated that aether should be made of "material points separated by intervals" in order to transmit them.

However, he was wrong. Composite waves emitted simultaneously by many electrons can clearly transmit transverse patterns. Such waves are regular longitudinal waves, but the interference pattern may undulate and even rotate.

The light waves can carry transverse patterns. This explains polarization.
For example, two sources produce the above pattern if one of them is slightly moving to and fro. This explains the light polarization, which may either rotate or remain stable on a given transverse axis.

>> No.3250906

>>3250867
>>3250867
so basically we all got trolled, and that all of this is a trick of the eye?

>> No.3250918

>>3250906
Seems obvious.

Way too obvious to presumle that in nearly 1 century, the most brilliants minds of this planet were fooled while still being able to predict of TON of physical phenomenon....

You decide.

>> No.3251200

In a nutshell:
Spinoza's God is not personal.
Spinoza's God is infinite.
Spinoza's God is the author/source of the universe.
Spinoza's God has infinite properties two of which are matter and mind -- those two being the two that are conferred on our universe.

Not in a nutshell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

>> No.3251539

>>3251200

Coo.

The forms of deism are fine by me. People can still be spiritual or even hopeful without giving in to the derp of theism.

>> No.3251606

Spinoza thought god to be the natural order: physical laws, form and substance. Scholars debate whether he was more atheistic, wanting to elevate nature to a godlike status in order to replace old god concepts or a theistic, wanting to make sense of what he thought outdated theology.

>> No.3251622

>>3251606

Whatever he held in his heart, his writings indicate a position closer to modern atheism than any modern religion.

>> No.3253491

bamp

>> No.3253513

atheism is convienant but ultimately intellectually incorrect, mostly due to consistancy.


the alternatives are all terrifying. Good luck, dear retards, when you come to this point.

>> No.3253522

>>3250438
>Question. What is spinoza's god, in a nutshell?
It's an abuse of words. Spinoza's god is not a god in any normal sense of the word god.

>> No.3253530

>>3253513
>Atheism is not logically consistent.
Oh, this is should be good. Pray tell, why?

>> No.3253531

>>3251622
Spinozism is a theism, so it's pretty much the opposite of atheism. I don't know why you feel the need to claim it as such.

>> No.3253537

Spinoza's God is a polite way for Einstein to say he didn't believe in mythology but found the universe to be an incredible entity (almost to the point that he was a pantheist).

>> No.3253556
File: 67 KB, 400x370, einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3253556

>>3253531

>>Spinozism is a theism, so it's pretty much the opposite of atheism. I don't know why you feel the need to claim it as such.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this." ~Albert Einstein, letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
~ Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." ~Albert Einstein, March 24th, 1954.

>> No.3253558

>>3253531
>Spinozism is a theism, so it's pretty much the opposite of atheism. I don't know why you feel the need to claim it as such.
Nope. Deism at best. No interference for the expressed purpose to change human destiny -> not theist.

>> No.3253560

>>3253531

I don't think so....

Einstein also stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

>> No.3253561

Pantheism.

>> No.3253576

>>3253561

Nope.

try again

>> No.3253580

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems." ~Einstein

"belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly" sounds like atheism to me, since theism implies a conscious entity.

>> No.3253581

>>3253561

>>Pantheism.

amen.

>> No.3253582

>>3253560
Einstein wins
/thread

>> No.3253588
File: 60 KB, 512x640, turtles-all-the-way-down.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3253588

>>3253560
This is why dawkins wants you to believe agnostics are atheists. Then he can claim einstein was atheist.

>> No.3253590

>>3253531
I don't know, man.

Technically being belief in some kind of god doesn't change that deism is a far closer position to atheism than it is to any particular theism.

>> No.3253598

>>3253588

Agnostics are pretty much atheists. They're not a halfway point, they're less than a percent off atheism on the atheism-theism scale.

>> No.3253606

>>3253588

You fool, the turtle doesn't rest on anything. It swims!

/Pratchett

>> No.3253608

>>3253588

Tomato, tomatoe. I think labels are a little bit silly.

I personally introduce myself as an agnostic aleprechaunist.

As for cherry picking individuals under a certain label to act as a representative of the entire group, I also think that's a load of crap.

Even if Einstein was a theist, I wouldn't be stupid enough to believe in the magical tooth fairy called God unless he had some good reasons to believe in the existence of said tooth fairy.

>> No.3253613

>>3253560
Theism isn't limited to PERSONAL theism. The Spinozan God is definitely not personal. But it is definitely a theism, as it believes in an infinite source, from which comes the mind and matter of our universe.

>> No.3253617

could pantheism and deism be considered the same?

>> No.3253618

>>3253556
None of those quotes contradict what I said.

>> No.3253620
File: 23 KB, 295x310, 12a8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3253620

>>3253608

>> No.3253621

>>3253558
>Nope. Deism at best. No interference for the expressed purpose to change human destiny -> not theist.
The word theism doesn't necessarily imply an interventionist God, just a God.

>> No.3253622

>>3253613

It could be argued to be limited to interfering gods.

Believing or not believing in a space-god outside the universe is a lot different from believing or not believing in a specific, interfering, theistic god that spoke to certain people.

>> No.3253623

>>3253588

>>This is why dawkins wants you to believe agnostics are atheists. Then he can claim einstein was atheist.

Einstein seemed to indicate both at various points. I think it most reasonable to conclude that he was an agnostic atheist with a strong distaste for militant atheism. Not so different from Sagan.

>> No.3253633

>>3253588
I didn't think Dawkins did that. I thought that was just Internet trolls. I've always seen Dawkins use the word "atheism" correctly, i.e. not to include agnostics.

>> No.3253636

>>3253618

>>None of those quotes contradict what I said.

I'm very familiar with how you operate, from our last encounter. You employ selective perception and even contradictory evidence will be interpreted as supportive of your position.

>> No.3253637
File: 1.41 MB, 500x211, 37317_mordoranim8.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3253637

>>3253618
>I have a ghost of an idea, and no bullets can penetrate him

>> No.3253640

>>3253613
>>3253618
Yes, but theism requires an entity (God) that is conscious that does something to start the universe.

Spinoza's God in the way Einstein used it is not conscious, so not theistic.
See:
>>3253580

>> No.3253643

>>3253590
>Technically being belief in some kind of god doesn't change that deism is a far closer position to atheism than it is to any particular theism.
And do know why you find it such. Deism is just another kind of theism to me, and totally removed from any kind of atheism.

(One of the definitions of theism can basically mean theism-as-opposed to deism, however, by the general definition of theism, deism is a kind of theism.)

>> No.3253656

>>3253643

Perhaps I should say; deism is a position that is far closer to the various flavors of atheism than it is to any form of theism.

At it's core, it is a gut feeling that there is a god, while hard atheism is a gut feeling that there is no god. This is unlike pure theisms, which are assertions that there must be a god, and that they know which one it is, and that everyone else is wrong.

>> No.3253658

>>3253636
Don't be an ass. Einstein believed in Spinozism. It couldn't be more well-defined what Spinozism is.

>> No.3253660

Deism in principle is closer to theism (belief in a divine being), but in practice closer to atheism (no dogma)

>> No.3253661

>>3253640
>theism requires an entity (God) that is conscious
sauce?

I have never considered the word to necessarily imply that.

>> No.3253671

>>3253661
Well there's your problem, everyone else thinks that theism requires a conscious God.

What sort of (non-conscious) entity are you talking about?

>> No.3253678

>>3253658

>>Don't be an ass. Einstein believed in Spinozism. It couldn't be more well-defined what Spinozism is.

Einstein never used the term Spinozism. He was emphatically not religious. He made a passing mention of Spinoza in order to explain politely that he did not believe in a god.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this."
>>No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this
>>No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this
>>No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this
>>The word God is for me nothing more
>>nothing more
>>nothing more

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

>>If something is in me which can be called religious
>>If
>>Clearly implying he is NOT religious

>> No.3253680

>>3253656
That's an extraordinarily biased and jaded view of what theism entails. Theism doesn't just mean a nitwit fundamentalist. It also means great thinkers like Pythagoras, Aquinas, and Newton.

>> No.3253685

>>3253661

There is a more appropriate label than theism.

"pan·the·ism/ˈpanTHēˌizəm/
Noun: A doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God."

OR better yet....

We could just READ WHAT EINSTEIN HAS TO SAY:

"You may call me an agnostic"

>> No.3253690

No theism doesn't require a god.

What about Daoism or Buddism?

>> No.3253698

>>3253678
> He made a passing mention of Spinoza in order to explain politely that he did not believe in a god.
You're delusional. He said, "I believe in Spinoza's God."

>Clearly implying he is NOT religious
LOL, you're back to your old MO, arguing with someone who is not in the room. I never called him religious. I'll leave you to it.

>> No.3253705

>>3253680
>>great thinkers like Pythagoras, Aquinas, and Newton.

Aqunias, in Summa Theologica: "Rain and winds, and whatsoever occurs by local impulse alone, can be caused by demons. It is a dogma of faith that the demons can produce winds, storms, and rain of fire from heaven."

Newton was an alchemist for the latter half of his life.

All three believed in the supernatural because they lived and died long before science was able to provide a natural explanation for origins.

>> No.3253706

>>3253680

Being a great thinker does not preclude being wrong about some things. I know more about atomic physics than Newton, Pythagoras and Aquinas, but I don't think I'm smarter than them.

Theism is necessarily exclusive in most of the forms we see today. You can't believe in one without believing all the others are wrong. That the source of your theism is accurate, and the sources they have are wrong.

>> No.3253703

>>3253690

Those are religions, but they wouldn't be considered theists.

Although....I would argue that, at least, Buddhism does have gods. After all, it's based off of Hinduism.

>> No.3253704

>>3253685
No lies. We cannot take him as his word as his word has changed, and now we must suitably analyze him in historical context and rewrite atheism to include his believe.

>> No.3253709

>>3253685
Pantheism says the universe is God, but without the following characteristics normally associated with God:
1) God is personal
2) God is the universe's creator
3) God is alive in some way
4) God has a plan

Which really cuts the word God away to nothing.

>> No.3253712

>>3253698

Just out of curiosity (not trying to go at you), what do you think defines theism?

>> No.3253713

>>3253685
But I wouldn't call Spinozism Pantheism. I would call it Panentheism. I'm find calling him an Agnostic, a Panentheist, or a Theist. As I understand those words, he was all of them. Perhaps that's not the way most people use the word Theist, but as I see it Panentheism is a subset of Theism.

>> No.3253715

>>3253698

>>You're delusional. He said, "I believe in Spinoza's God."

And Hawking said "For then we should know the mind of God". If asked, he would likely also say he believes in Spinoza's god. Yet we know he is an atheist.

>LOL, you're back to your old MO, arguing with someone who is not in the room. I never called him religious. I'll leave you to it.

As long as you leave.

>> No.3253716

>>3253705

Alchemy gets a bad rap. The fact is, they actually used pre-scientific methodology to investigate things with reason and rigor. And when it was found to be wrong, they stopped.

Really superstitious and supernatural claims are still around today, because they can't be falsified and because their followers aren't interested in falsifying.

>> No.3253717

>>3253690
The "the" in "theism" means god from the greek theos.

Daoism and Buddism are non-theistic religions.

>> No.3253719

>>3253706

>>Being a great thinker does not preclude being wrong about some things

I agree, I'm just saying their belief in god(s) was one of those things. It's a primitive belief carried forward into the present by way of tradition, no more credible today than Aquinas' convictions concerning weather spirits.

>> No.3253726
File: 35 KB, 500x375, einsteinshow.php..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3253726

>>3253698
This is a quote
Similar, not same, you can google the rest.

>> No.3253730

>>3253706
>You can't believe in one without believing all the others are wrong.
I take issue with that. I consider myself a theist and a Christian. I don't think any other form of theism is wrong. I've seen things I think are definitely right in all of them that I've studied, and I've studied most of them I think.

>> No.3253742

>>3253709
In spinozism, God is not personal or conscious (I'm not sure about the plan part, I'd have to think about that), but God is definitely the creator of the universe. That's why it's more accurate to call spinozism panentheism rather than pantheism. I would agree that in pantheism, there's really no "God". But not so in Spinozism.

>> No.3253745

>>3253726

>>Einstein: "My views are near Spinoza"
>>Near

>>Philosopher's Scone: "Don't be an ass. Einstein believed in Spinozism. It couldn't be more well-defined what Spinozism is."

Who are we to believe?

>> No.3253746

>>3253712
Theism is any system belief based on a God. The minimum requirement for God, is an infinite source of our universe, external and/or transcendent of our universe.

>> No.3253748

ITT

So many silly words for things that, for our intents and purposes, don't matter whatsoever.

>> No.3253752

>>3253715
Hawking is not an Spinozan, and does not believe in Spinoza's God. He is an atheist.

>> No.3253753

>>3253730

I can't take that seriously, I'm sorry. You don't think that basic disagreements over the nature of Jesus are serious distinctions between theisms?

Muslims think that Jesus was not god, and that he didn't die on the cross.

Jews think that Jesus was a false prophet, or at least not the messiah.

Some Christians have disagreements over the trinity, over the divine or human nature of Jesus, over the validity of the Hebrew Scriptures, over every blessed thing at all.

And non-Abrahamaic religions are utterly ignorant of these things, they don't mention any of it at all in any way.

If you do not think these others are wrong, I have to ask why you would consider yourself a Christian at all?

>> No.3253756

>>3253746

>>The minimum requirement for God, is an infinite source of our universe, external and/or transcendent of our universe.

Where, in an authoritative work, is this written? How many agree to this definition? I can think of an eternal source of the universe that is not correctly classified as a god. Can't you?

>> No.3253758

>>3253716
Yep, almost all the alchemistic reactions can be reproduced in the lab today.

>> No.3253766

>>3253752

>>Hawking is not an Spinozan, and does not believe in Spinoza's God. He is an atheist.

So was Einstein, who said he was both an atheist and agnostic at various points. He used spinoza's god poetically, but never the term Spinozan. He never identified as a member of any ism other than atheism and agnosticism.

>> No.3253767

>>3253730

>The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses

He thinks the word God (aka theism) is weak.

>If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

He's only religious (zealous) about science.

> You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.

He's an agnostic and would be an atheist but doesn't share the "crusading spirit" that it would take to be a militant agnostic (atheist)

I really have no understanding of how you can read those same sentences and get such a different meaning from them.

I'll politely step out of this conversation now before I become a stereotypical angry/frustrated atheist....

>> No.3253771

>>3253758

Chemical reactions can be done in the lab today.

>> No.3253781

>>3253753
>If you do not think these others are wrong, I have to ask why you would consider yourself a Christian at all?

I don't think other theisms are wrong, because I understand their basic messages, which I agree with, and think are founded in a good concept of God. It doesn't mean I agree with them about the nature of who Jesus was. I also don't agree with other Christians about many particulars. I'm a Christian because some of my particular beliefs make me so. But I think there are some very wise and God-seeking people who are not Christians.

>> No.3253788

>>3253767
I think I understand those sentences the same way as you. But you might not be willing to listen to him when he's talking about what he DOES believe.

>> No.3253797

>>3253781

Well, in that case even atheists don't think any religions are wrong. If your standard for whether a religion is right or wrong whether you can find a few things about any of them you agree with, then all of them are right, right?

The fact is, they are mutually exclusive. By saying one is right, you are saying that all of the others are wrong. If you think Jesus existed and was god, then the people who do not think he existed and that if he did, he was not god, are wrong.

>> No.3253802

>>3253771
Specifically, the alchemistic reactions that were the product of hundreds of years of experiment and observation. A few of them were BS, but most of them work.

>> No.3253810

>>3253802

Still, there is that difference between alchemy and other nonsense practices, like astrology and homeopathy and faith healing.

>> No.3253814

>>3253797
They are not mutually exclusive. Many that existed in the past were mutually exclusive, but the ones that exist today are AMAZINGLY coherent in their message and substance. That's one of the things that eventually lead to me believing in God. The substance of the world's religions are not what they say about the nature of Jesus. That makes no difference. The substance is what they say about things like love and charity and providence and the nature of the spirit, and the paths to improving the spirit.

>> No.3253818

>>3253788

Hahaha.

No. No, we are not reading the sentence in the same way.

I honestly don't care if a scientist has theistic or atheistic views. Newton and Pascal obviously were theists.

I call it like I see it.

>> No.3253823

>>3253802
Alchemy was probably not the best example. However, even the great thinkers of old did not have the knowledge and confidence in science that we do today.

Based on what we know in the present, theism is just not needed. Great thinkers in the past needed that and other mystical explanation to explain the universe. We have more knowledge now, so many of their beliefs would be considered thought provoking in their times, but false in our time.

>> No.3253828

>>3253814

Their central message, the main point, then, is not the metaphysical claims, which are as I say utterly contradictory, but rather the moral or ethical statements, which are a mixed bag.

You just can't be serious if you are saying that the central belief that a particular person is god is compatible with a central belief that a particular person is not god, or did not even exist.

And yet if you think that the metaphysical claims are just stories, just poetry, just framing, just allegory, and the main message is the ethical, then fine. Though secular enlightenment values are still better, religions do have some useful points to contribute, and they did provide the basic building blocks some few centuries ago.

>> No.3253831

>>3253818
How do you think we're reading it differently? He obviously rejected religions in the vein of Judaism and Christianity.

However, he did not embrace atheism either. He embraced the idea of God (or "God" if you prefer) put forth by Spinoza, which was the idea of an infinite (impersonal) source of the order of the universe, with infinite properties, two of which are manifest in the universe we observe and live in, those two being mind and matter.

>> No.3253839

>>3253814

You probably have gotten way too many links to atheistic videos, but I encourage you to check out this guy because he has a certain logical/rational/cool head approach to sharing his conversion that I think would appeal to your personality type:

"PhD candidate in Intelligent Systems (a sub-discipline of Computer Science); my focus is on evidence-justified beliefs and their argumentation as a means of conflict resolution both in computational and human systems."

http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3

>> No.3253852

I read it as if he was a pantheist and explicitly tried to distance himself with religious superstition.

As far as I can tell, you read it as if he was a panentheist/theist who was trying to distance himself with the specificity of religious practices/rituals/beliefs.

>> No.3253859

>>3253831

It's a bit of a stretch to call that thing god, though.

How does it differ from the observable, physical, material universe such that it deserves the term god?

>> No.3253861

>>3253823
>Based on what we know in the present, theism is just not needed.
This is such a horrible old canard. Theism was never "needed". Newton as a student was an outcast due to his piousness in an academia that was already awash in atheism. There were atheist movements even among the ancient Greek philosophers. The idea that theism ever owed its existence due to the insufficiencies of science is pure hogwash.

>> No.3253872

>>3253861

Theism owes it's existence to overactive agency and pattern detection systems, as well as natural deference to parental teachings and peer pressure.

>> No.3253883

>>3253828
>You just can't be serious if you are saying that the central belief that a particular person is god is compatible with a central belief that a particular person is not god, or did not even exist.

That would be true. However, there is no religion on the face of the earth whose central belief is that Jesus was not God. (Unless you call western atheism a religion, in which case, yes I do reject that one.)

>not the metaphysical claims, which are as I say utterly contradictory, but rather the moral or ethical statements
No, I'm saying that the principle metaphysical claims ARE the moral statements. If you read the New Testament or certain of the Vedas, you will find this to be the case I think.

Even the metaphysical claims that are not moral but ontological, are mostly in agreement. You have to cherry pick to find the contradictions. Many religious and irreligious people focus on the contradictions, but I find that foolish.

>> No.3253896

>>3253883
> there is no religion on the face of the earth whose central belief is that Jesus was not God.
Nope, but there is no religion on the face of the earth whose central belief is that FSM was not God.

However, moral/ethical codes are similar across religions.

>> No.3253897

>>3253883

Judaism and Islam. You cannot be a Jew or a Muslim without specifically believing that Jesus was not the son of god.

And the non-Abrahamaic religions say nothing about him, in any direction. He is just an obscure historical figure to them.


At least address the point about the other Abrahamaic religions. They are, as I have shown, demonstrably incompatible with Christianity.

>> No.3253905

>>3253872
Also, it's a form of government.

>> No.3253916

>>3253859
1) it is infinite
2) it has infinite properties
3) it is outside the universe and the source of the universe.

Discussion would be easier if we all knew exactly what we meant by the words we use, but that is the essential of what "God" means to me.

>> No.3253926

>>3253883
>there is no religion on the face of the earth whose central belief is that Jesus was not God.
amazing obscurantism 7/10

>> No.3253932

>>3253916
infinite in what sense?
How can it be infinite in properties defined for objects in the universe if it is outside the universe.

>> No.3253936

>>3253814
was jesus gods only son?

did he perform miracles?

are we born with original sin?

will he return to Judge mankind?

did he blame demons for peoples illnesses?

was he a direct descendent of noah?

are the jews guilty of deicide?

is Israel a promised land?

>> No.3253942

>>3253852
No, I likewise read it as if he was trying to distance himself with religious superstition. As for pantheism/panentheism, some people call Spinozism pantheism, but I find panentheism the more accurate term for what Spinoza described, and I take Einstein at his word that he subscribed to it. He had no reason to lie. He was certainly not trying to pander to Christians or Jews, as he didn't mince his words.

>> No.3253943

>>3253916

Why call this thing god, though? God is a loaded term.

>> No.3253958

Also, just a general comment on theism: How come all theistic religions are geographically located if they are intended to apply to all humans?

Ex: What happened to the poor fucks living in south america when Jesus died in the middle east? Did God forget about them because they were in the southern hemisphere? No: theism is always geographically based, implying that it came from human thought, not a God

>> No.3253965
File: 44 KB, 338x319, doubleslitjavafigure1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3253965

>>3253958
God is both a particle and a phase, and when we observe him we collapse his wave function to a particle.

>isn't it obvious?

>> No.3253985

>>3253839
Good video. Haven't watched part 2, which sounds like where I would likely start disagreeing with it. It would be great if we could apply evidenciary verification to all rational problems. We certainly build our rationality through physical experience. But I do believe we can extend our minds beyond physical experience (rationalism). Are we prone to error in realms when evidenciary verification is impossible? ABSOLUTELY! That's why a constantly self-critical mind is essential. We should assume there are many wrong things in all our rational models of reality, and seek them out.

>> No.3254003

>>3253936
You really want to discuss all these things? I'm not sure I want to derail the thread into this.

>> No.3254018

>>3253932
It's not infinite for properties defined for objects in the universe; it has infinite properties proper only to itself. Our universe is a manifestation of two of those infinite properties, which are mind and matter.

>>3253943
Yes, God can be a loaded term I suppose. I guess the way I think of it, God is so unknowable, it is appropriate to have the same term for many kinds of conceptions of the universe's infinite source.

>> No.3254019

>>3254003

They are yes or no questions. You might as well answer them.

>> No.3254023

>>3253936
>>3254003
too many questions that, although I believe no is the answer to all of them, we will inevitably end up arguing circularly.

>> No.3254025

>>3253958
Jesus never said that people have to hear about them to be saved. He only said that salvation is through him.

Religion is geographic because it evolves, like language does, with discrete events along the way which may or may not be revelations from God.

>> No.3254026

>>3254018

It is not appropriate.

God means something. If Spinozism means something, then god definitely means something.

Saying that god is unknowable, and that the nature of existence outside the universe is unknowable does not mean that the two are synonymous. We know that what is outside the universe is unknowable, and, indeed, we don't claim to know anything about what that is. And we are told that god is unknowable, but for an unknowable thing, people sure make a lot of claims to know a lot about it.

>> No.3254027

>>3253985

Yes, I can see that.

There is nothing that guarantees that human beings have evolved in such a way that would give us any significant insight into the essence of the universe.

One of my favorite quotes:

"I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb."
- Richard Feynman

>> No.3254031

>>3254019
I can't answer them all with a yes or no. Also,
>are the jews guilty of deicide?
wat?

>> No.3254037

>>3254026

Agreed. Very succinct and to the point.

>> No.3254052
File: 3 KB, 308x290, mathset.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254052

>>3254018
What contains the set of all possible properties and is independent of the universe, oh right. Closer to MATH, not God.

>> No.3254053

>>3254026
I didn't say God means nothing. God certainly means something. God means the infinite, eternal, immutable, origin of the universe, which transcends space and time. That's how I would normally define it.

>Saying that god is unknowable, and that the nature of existence outside the universe is unknowable does not mean that the two are synonymous
That's not what I was trying to say.

>> No.3254055

>>3254031

Did Jewish people call for the execution of Jesus, who was also god?


At least answer my earlier question regarding the other religions which have something to say about Jesus.

Is Jesus the savior? And do Judaism and Islam not both teach that Jesus is not the savior? This seems like a fundamental disagreement to me.

Perhaps you don't take these kinds of teachings seriously. And if not, what would you say to a truly religious person who does to convince him that he was taking it too seriously?

>> No.3254068

>>3254053

But this origin of the universe need not be a god.

You don't think it is personal, right? Or interfering?

>> No.3254069
File: 9 KB, 200x248, feynman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254069

>>3254027

>>One of my favorite quotes:

>>"I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb."
>>- Richard Feynman

One of mine:

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand."
- Richard Feynman

:)

>> No.3254088

>>3254027
>There is nothing that guarantees that human beings have evolved in such a way that would give us any significant insight into the essence of the universe.
True. Unlike what the video claims, I do think there are things that are self-evident to us, which are NOT just because of physical experience. Like the transitive relation in logic for example. I think there is truth in that, not just a conditioned response to stimuli. From there, I think that proven mathematical theorems are matters of truth, not just conditioned responses to stimuli. So I do think we are capable of aspiring to matters of objective truth and insight, for whatever reason we may have evolved this way.

>> No.3254091
File: 45 KB, 350x350, work.3544730.1.fc-550x550-lemon.v3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254091

>>3254025
> Jesus never said that people have to hear about them to be saved (1). He only said that salvation is through him(2).

(2) implies that Jesus is needed for salvation.
which implies that You need to know about Jesus to be saved
which implies all Americans (at the time, no confusion intended) are damned
which contradicts since you cannot believe in something you do not know (1).

>> No.3254103

>>3254052
I believe that math is eternal, immutable, and in a platonic sense, perhaps can even be called a creator of the universe. So yes, math is very close to God. This is why Pythagoras is my favorite philosopher -- "Number is the ruler of forms and ideas, and the cause of gods and demons."

>> No.3254106

>>3254091
>implies that Jesus is needed for salvation
You clearly have never read the bible or lack any reading comprehension skills.

>> No.3254125

>>3254055
>Is Jesus the savior? And do Judaism and Islam not both teach that Jesus is not the savior? This seems like a fundamental disagreement to me.
Yes I think Jesus is a savior. My point was this is only a fundamental point in Christianity. No question of Jesus is a fundamental point in Judaism and Islam. So it is not a disagreement in an area that is fundamental to any two of those religions.

The things that are fundamental in Judaism are in harmony with the things that are fundamental to Christianity -- an inevitability, seeing how one started as a sect of the other.

>> No.3254139

>>3250523
> Believes Einstein was lying to appeal to his family.

lol? He speaks of intelligent creation.

>> No.3254141

>>3254125

This is a dodge. It is a fundamental point. You cannot accept Jesus as savior and be a Muslim. You cannot not accept Jesus as savior and be a Christian. It is a fundamental contradiction.

And my point, and it is evident, is that all religions have such contradictory beliefs.

>> No.3254142

>>3254106
Ok, BELIEF in him is needed, big difference, doesn't change the scenario.

"For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: "

Say you know about Jesus, but don't believe in his power, even though you are in general a good person:
you aren't saved since you have sinned and haven't repented to Jesus.

Say you don't know about Jesus, even though you are in general a good person:
you aren't saved since you have sinned and haven't repented to Jesus.

>> No.3254152

>>3254068
>Interfering
I believe in Providence, that all minutia in the universe is subject to the will of God. "Interfering" doesn't apply, as all things follow from God's order and providence.
>Personal
It's a tricky term. I believe that God is love, and spirit, and to understand that we have to tend to personify God, however, God is immutable; there is no progression of state or experience of time for God, so it's not a kind of "mind" that we can in any way easily relate to. As a convenience we tend to think of God like us, and while this is wrong, I think it's more right than thinking of God as inanimate.

>> No.3254155

>>3254142
So its your reading comprehension thats the problem.

>> No.3254161

>>3254091
>which implies that You need to know about Jesus to be saved
no, it doesn't imply that.

>> No.3254167
File: 71 KB, 463x800, 1308123799686.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254167

>>3250438
>What is spinoza's god, in a nutshell?

God is the universe. God doesn't give a shit about you. YOU CANNOT personify god.

>> No.3254168
File: 7 KB, 300x300, no-clue-2x.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254168

>>3254155
Ok smart one, how are people in south america saved?

>> No.3254180

>>3254142
He doesnt know what Jesus was saying. Your interpretation is flawed.

>> No.3254183

>>3254152

I'm afraid I have to go now, sleep beckons.

Suffice it to say, you call god many things, and call many things god. Just because these things exist, and we all see them and so we all believe in them, doesn't say anything about whether they are part of god, or whether god exists.

If you can make the bridge between the base deism and pantheism you claim in half your posts, and the Christianity you claim in the other half, you'll be the first person in history to do so. But there is just no way to get from one to the other, leaving both intact.


Goodnight, sir.

>> No.3254192

>>3254141
All individuals have contrary beliefs too? So what? You are wrong that anything about Jesus is a fundamental belief in Islam. Jesus is not fundamental in any way to Islam. I'm not a huge fan of Islam, but two religions such as say, Christianity and Sikhism have far more in common in fundamental matters than they have in opposition. It's only people looking to pick fights who would find disagreements between the two.

>> No.3254193

>>3254168
>Hey guys, we to cross the mississippi to get to california. Man lucky for us. I dont know how people in arizona get there.
You logic is flawed

>> No.3254195

>>3254141
Wow, wow, wow. Slow the fuck down. Muslim here. You clearly have no idea what youre saying.

>> No.3254208

>>3254195

>Muslim

>believes jesus is the son of god

>herp

>derp

>> No.3254218

>>3254208
As i said, slow the fuck down. You clearly have no idea what youre saying.

>> No.3254220

>>3254167
>God is the universe.
no.

>> No.3254231

>>3254195
LOL, Let 'im have it, my friend in God. :)

>> No.3254232

>>3254218
Then explain. Can one be both a Muslim and a Christian at the same time?

>> No.3254233

>>..."believed"...
I've heard enough, this thread is irrelevant.

>> No.3254240

>>3254193
Sorry, I actually am trying to understand, you'll have to explain that metaphor more:
This is what I see:

California = salvation
Arizona = South America
East Coast = people knowing about Jesus
Mississippi = Jesus

But I must be wrong since it implies all South Americans go to heaven
do they go by a different route?

>> No.3254252

>>3254183
> you'll be the first person in history to do so.
lol, I believe Ghandi did so too. I truly do identify strongly with many religions, as he claimed to. When you don't think dogmatically about your religion, and acknowledge the limits of your knowledge, I think this happens naturally.

Goodnight, my friend.

>> No.3254258

Einstein did not believe in Spinoza's God,

>> No.3254271

>>3254232
Technically... yes. A muslim is defined as a follower of peace.
But thats not what im talking about. I never implied that you had to be. Both were sent by god. We acknowledge that.

>> No.3254273

>>3254258
Its in the first post. But no one reads that ;_;

>> No.3254278

>>3254240
Just my 2 cents... I rely more on the Gospels and am lest familiar with the Epistles, but somewhere in the Epistles it talks about how Abraham's obedience to God was imputed to him as righteousness, although he never new who Jesus was.

More to the point, the idea that you have to believe in Jesus to be saved is an oversimplification. The picture Jesus presented was a lot more nuanced. John says no one can be saved without Jesus, but he also says nothing was created without Jesus. He's talking about Jesus as God. The message that Jesus sent disciples out to preach was NOT "believe in Jesus for salvation" which is often preached now, but "repent of your sins for salvation".

>> No.3254287

>>3254273
Since Einstein apparently changed his story throughout his life (and why not), if we want a decent argument from authority, we should find out what he believed while working on General Relativity.

>> No.3254293

>>3254278
Alright, so repent sincerely, and even if you did not mean to, Jesus will hear and accept it.

That makes a little more sense, though I still think the localness of all theistic religions, not just christianity, points to humans conjuring up ideas rather than a God.

>> No.3254300
File: 18 KB, 379x214, im ok with this.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254300

>>3250659

>> No.3254303

>>3254287
What does that matter? I think you want to say "We want what he thought later in life when he has more stuff to rely on."

>> No.3254315

How is pantheism any different than atheism? Neither believes in deities. A pantheist seems to be nothing more than an atheist who is awestruck by the universe, which basically includes every on /sci/.

>> No.3254316

>>3254287
>if we want a decent argument from authority

I know you mean appeal to authority, and using Einstein in religious context is so fucking overdone it might as well be considered a move of surrender.

>> No.3254346

>>3254316
"For a theologian, Einstein was a great physicist."

Einstein didn't even have that much to say about theology and what he did say wasn't that inspired.

>> No.3254365

>>3254303
No, thats the opposite of what hes saying. hes saying einsteins belief only mattered when he was working on relativity

>> No.3254367

>>3250523
However Einstein's parents were secular Jews who considered the Torah ancient superstition.

>> No.3254383

>>3254346
This. I'd much rather just talk about Spinoza. He was inspired.

>> No.3254396

>>3250456
As I see it, Einstein believed that whatever God is is way beyond human understanding, so that none of the existing attempts to understand him (different religions and whatnot) were valid since they couldn't possibly come close to the truth.

>> No.3254400

>>3254396
Like an axiom you know must be self evident but you cant find it

>> No.3254402

>>3254365
Right, because after GR, he sort of went full retard, refusing to believe the advances of QM, going to celebrity cocktail parties, and trying to find his own GUT while ignoring the latest research and discoveries.

>> No.3254406

But he held no belief in God which by the broadest definition of atheism makes him an atheist.

I just don't understand pantheism. It's like saying God is a coffee mug to make yourself a theist.

>> No.3254409

>>3254396
In short, he probably thought that the existing religions were simplistic and child-like attempts to understand God, and so he didn't believe in them.

>> No.3254412

>>3254406
Did you read the first post? He didnt believe in a personal god.

>> No.3254424

>>3254406
Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it's the rejection of the idea. If you mean by God a personal God, Einstein was an atheist. If you mean by God an impersonal God, Einstein was a theist, or else he lied about believing in Spinoza's God.

>> No.3254447

>>3254424
>Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it's the rejection of the idea.
Both are, for all practical purposes, the same thing. Imagine two people, one that lacks belief and another who rejects belief. If a third person introduced absolute proof that God wasn't real neither person would change how he or she sees the universe. Both lacked any belief in God and thus none of their actions were affected by them finding out God was impossible.

I mean, you could introduce any of an infinite number of concepts to me, like a solid neutronium coffee mug that barks, and I wouldn't alter my belief system in the slightest. You would have to give me evidence for the coffee mug before I change my conception of reality. If instead you showed me a mathematical proof for why a neutronium coffee mug that barks could not exist, nothing changes once again. I had no belief to begin with. The lack of positive evidence is for all practical purposes the same thing as believing something doesn't exist.

>> No.3254450

kinda late, but here's some verses about people who haven't heard the word of God, if anyone is still curious

for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation. (Romans 4:15)

for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Romans 5:13)

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36)

There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. (John 12:48)

>> No.3254461
File: 28 KB, 400x304, COOL-STORY-BRO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254461

>>3254450

>> No.3254469
File: 36 KB, 500x375, atheist_cat_dogma.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254469

>>3254450

>> No.3254481
File: 46 KB, 339x398, Schopenhauer.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254481

"The chief objection that I have to Pantheism is that it signifies nothing. To call the world "God" is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word "world"."

>> No.3254510

>>3254315

This is some kinda bullshit you worked up here. You don't have to go making nonsense bullshit pantheist claims if you're awestruck by the universe.

I'm a pretty thorough skeptic and a strong atheist on virtually every theist claim that isn't extremely watery deist fluff... and I'm awestruck by the universe.

>> No.3254520

>>3254424

Hello Scott.