Two views on theism:

[guillaumeb]

In the first quote, we have a man who, while progressive in his political opinions, exposes his extreme intolerance as he attacks theists. He reveals much about himself, but nothing about those whom he obviously hates.

The quote:

There is something feeble, and a little contemptible, about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought, and he therefore cannot carry his own reflection to any logical conclusion.

Bertrand Russell

In the second quote, we have a man who acknowledges his own limitations and reserves judgment because he recognizes those limitations.
The quote:

"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."

- Albert Einstein

Personally, I find the intolerant progressive to be far the intellectually inferior of the two in attitude, but that attitude of contempt seems to be much in favor among some.


My own view is that, while I have faith, there is no proof. And as long as both sides recognize the essential unprovability of both positions in the theism versus non-theism debate, we can share our progressive politics while understanding that we do not agree on all things.

[vlyons]

1. I'm a Buddhist

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

[guillaumeb]

2. I understand your belief, and respect it.

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.

[vlyons]

4. Whatever your beliefs are don't invalidate my confidence in Buddha's teachings

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.

[guillaumeb]

5. Excellent advice.

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......

[Doodley]

8. But is that how it should be? Spending so much time with people you work with

and not talking about something that is so important?

[guillaumeb]

15. My job description was union representative,

not spiritual advisor.

[JNelson6563]

3. I think Einstein was right.

"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.

[guillaumeb]

6. Agreed. If we truly recognize out limitations,

we will not make absolute pronouncements.


And mutual respect involves not imposing beliefs on others.

[Doodley]

7. One is self-righteous and the other humble. These attitudes can be held by theists and atheists.

[guillaumeb]

16. We all see it.

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

[violetpastille]

9. I just want someone something to thank.

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)

[guillaumeb]

17. A feral kid.

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

[Brainstormy]

27. you can be thankful

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.

[MineralMan]

10. Two points of view from two highly intelligent men.

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.

[guillaumeb]

18. Both were intelligent.

One was aware of his limitations.

[MineralMan]

34. Clearly, you are not very familiar with Russell.

Last edited Sat Nov 10, 2018, 02:57 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.

[Mariana]

48. Gil knows all he needs to know from those two quotes.

There is no need for further study.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

11. Personally, I believe religion is but a warped interpretation/expression of humility.

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.

[Major Nikon]

13. Even more so during his time

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.

[guillaumeb]

20. Another disciple of Russell?

Do you recognize your own limitations?

[Major Nikon]

24. My limitation is people will not be quoting me 50 years after my death

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

Just sayin'

[guillaumeb]

41. As I thought.

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

[Major Nikon]

62. Says the guy who defends the RCC child rapists and their enablers

...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.

[guillaumeb]

85. More misreading on your part.

Stay within the bounds of your gif(t).

[Major Nikon]

89. Bullshit

[guillaumeb]

91. Your other gift on display.

[Major Nikon]

94. Tell us again how deism is another form of theism

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

[Voltaire2]

35. Jesus f'ing Christ do you have a clue who

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”.

[MineralMan]

36. Wait, what? You mean none of us here in the Religion Group is

as smart as Bertrand Russell? The very idea!

[Mariana]

51. Well, one frequent poster seems to feel qualified

to cast shade upon The Right Honourable Earl Russell.

[MineralMan]

99. The shadow cast, however, is narrow and scarcely dims

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

[Mariana]

100. That tiny shadow appears to be distinctly troll-shaped. nt.

[MineralMan]

101. Hmm...

I didn't look that closely.

[guillaumeb]

19. Can humanity break the bonds of what makes us human?

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

[MineralMan]

39. I strongly believe that you should leave off putting people

in categories. You are not good at it.

[Major Nikon]

64. The irony that guilt by association works both ways is lost on that one

[Major Nikon]

12. Yet another brilliant faceplant

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.

[MineralMan]

14. You'll find no consistency where there is no understanding.

A fool finds it easy to ridicule genius.

[guillaumeb]

22. Another disciple of Russell.

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

[MineralMan]

32. I'm doing neither, of course.

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.

[Major Nikon]

25. What's consistent is the baiting OP

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

[guillaumeb]

21. You should really stay with your gif(t).

All else falls short.

[Major Nikon]

23. Meanwhile you'll stay with zero substance replies

While pretending otherwise.

[guillaumeb]

45. Because you do not understand something does not make it nonsense.

It simply indicates that you misunderstood something.

[Major Nikon]

63. Undoubtedly your canned responses are so deep intellectually nobody else could understand

[MineralMan]

69. You have convinced yourself, yes.

[MineralMan]

40. And you should avoid giving advice to others, I think.

It's seldom good advice, and often insulting.

[guillaumeb]

42. Was this intended for yourself?

Because if so, I agree.

[Major Nikon]

65. Wow! A clever rework of the tired ol' "I'm rubber, you're glue line"

I haven’t seen such brilliance since primary school.

[MineralMan]

71. LOL!

In spades.

[Mariana]

28. Also, he's still pretending that criticism is intolerance.

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

[Major Nikon]

29. About as strong as insisting deists are really theists

... 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.

[marylandblue]

31. Yeah conflating criticism with intolerance is a problem and an insult

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

[guillaumeb]

46. The quote:

There is something feeble, and a little contemptible, about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought, and he therefore cannot carry his own reflection to any logical conclusion.

Bertrand Russell

This is simply name calling disguised as some type of insight.

[marylandblue]

56. It may be name calling but it is not "intolerance"

Last edited Sat Nov 10, 2018, 09:53 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.

[guillaumeb]

58. It is personal intolerance, if expressed privately,

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

[Major Nikon]

67. Bullshit

[marylandblue]

76. Free speech is only free if it can be public

[Mariana]

77. Gil's definition of intolerance:

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

[Major Nikon]

79. A bit problematic for one who often contradicts himself

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

[Major Nikon]

66. Bullshit

[guillaumeb]

86. Your insight amazes.

[MineralMan]

33. Bertrand Russell said and wrote many excellent ideas.

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

[guillaumeb]

47. And what does this single quote demonstrate?

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.

[marylandblue]

26. We can also disagree that it's unproveable and still share progressive politics nt

[edhopper]

30. Russell's dismantling of believers ideology

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.

[guillaumeb]

43. Russel's intolerance for theists is well known.

And, judging by the replies, it is shared.

[edhopper]

52. He was "intolerant"

of unfounded beliefs. But play on.

[guillaumeb]

54. Here is just one of his many pronouncements on religion:

There is something feeble, and a little contemptible, about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought, and he therefore cannot carry his own reflection to any logical conclusion.


Bertrand Russell

I could deconstruct each blatant example of his contempt for theists, but the contempt is so obvious, so undeniable, that there is no need for those who read it.

By contrast, Einstein acknowledges the limitations of human intellect. Do you?

[marylandblue]

57. Contempt is not intolerance

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

[guillaumeb]

59. It is publicly expressed contempt and it leads and is intended to lead to intolerance.

And we agree that it was not nice.

[Voltaire2]

61. Yes it borders on BLASPHEMY

[Major Nikon]

72. Another example of conflating an attack on a belief as an attack of a person

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.

[Major Nikon]

70. Bullshit

[marylandblue]

75. It's intended to criticize religion

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.

[Major Nikon]

68. Bullshit

[MineralMan]

37. It's interesting that you mention Russell and Einstein in the same post.

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?

[Major Nikon]

81. The only thing that seems to matter is he is an atheist

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

[Cartoonist]

38. essential unprovability

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.

[guillaumeb]

44. Neither position is provable.

And that is the substance of Einstein's quote.

[Cartoonist]

49. Here is a provable statement

There is no proof that God exists.

You got any? No one does.

[guillaumeb]

50. No, it is an unproven and unprovable assertion.

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.

[edhopper]

53. So you are saying there is proof

God exists?

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

I will gladly reconsider if evidence is presented.

[guillaumeb]

55. No, I said that Cartoonists' assertion is only that.

An unprovable and unproven assertion.

[edhopper]

60. His statement

Here is a provable statement

There is no proof that God exists.

You ignored that to continue your false equivalency between faith and atheism.

[Major Nikon]

74. Reeks of desperation

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.

[guillaumeb]

84. The statement is unprovable.

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

[edhopper]

88. No

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.

[guillaumeb]

96. Yes.

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

[edhopper]

97. you don't understand how

evidence for claims work.

[tonedevil]

104. Where is the proof? /nt

[marylandblue]

95. You've admitted there is no proof

Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2018, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

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

[Major Nikon]

80. Bullshit

[marylandblue]

83. You are making a logic error

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.

[Major Nikon]

106. Gil has a tendency to contradict himself

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

[Major Nikon]

73. Bullshit

[Major Nikon]

78. Einstein had no use or respect for theism

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

I get that you have a childish and intolerant desire to impeach Russell because he was an atheist, but the part you miss is Einstein’s belief, or lack thereof, isn’t all that much different. As such I must conclude you have created another train wreck of an OP.

[MineralMan]

82. What appears to be happening is a version of "proof-texting"

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.

[guillaumeb]

87. Did you actually read the Einstein quote that is a part of this OP?

If you did, you tell me what he meant.

[Major Nikon]

90. Yes. What he meant had nothing to do with theism.

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

[guillaumeb]

92. I asked what you think he meant.

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

[Major Nikon]

93. Bullshit

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.

[Lordquinton]

105. Did you read the very real einstien quote that you are responding to?

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

Looks like Einstein was also a "disciple" of Russel. Put me in that camp, it's an honor.

[Major Nikon]

107. I asked the same question and predicted he would never answer it

Prophesy fulfilled.

I’d love to claim clairvoyance, but it’s not as if anyone can’t read him like a book and play him like a tune. The best part is all you have to do is pull the chain and something unintentionally funny dribbles out.

[Permanut]

98. You speak in the OP of "both sides"..

I don't have a clear understanding of how you are presenting those sides. Seems that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but one side claims to have proof, while the other claims absence of evidence. Those are not two sides of the same coin.

[malchickiwick]

102. To accuse Bertrand Russell of "extreme intolerance" is ridiculous...

...one must wonder, if his barbs compel such a libel on your part, perhaps it is because deep down you know him to be stating the truth?

[MineralMan]

103. Actually, I doubt if he knows much about Bertrand Russell.

More likely, he found that quote somewhere and decided that it was the measure of the man. So he posted it here as "proof-text" that the Nobel Laureate is intolerant, despite the quote showing nothing of the sort.

The Einstein quote, too, is one that is often quoted in online content.

[guillaumeb]

108. Early Russell:

In extreme cases, there can be little doubt of the superiority of one race to another. North America, Australia and New Zealand certainly contribute more to the civilisation of the world than they would do if they were still peopled by aborigines. It seems on the whole fair to regard Negroes as on the average inferior to white men, although for work in the tropics they are indispensable, so that their extermination (apart from the question of humanity) would be highly undesirable. ––Marriage and Morals, 1929

https://greatmindsonrace.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/bertrand-russell/