Religion

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts) Mon Nov 12, 2018, 02:11 PM Nov 2018

One view on theism, two different reactions:

In the first quote, we have a man who, while progressive in his political opinions, hurts the feelings of the privileged majority. Because he's an atheist, this provokes an immediate libelous allegation of intolerance from the privileged majority who doesn't really care to understand what he's saying or what he actually is condemning.

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 set of two quotes, we have a man who says virtually the exact same things except with even stronger condemnations of certain behaviors, yet somehow manages not to hurt the feelings of the privileged majority. One has to wonder if it's because he never declared himself as an atheist.

The quotes:

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”

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.
- Albert Einstein

My view is that theists tend to look for validation of their beliefs or for condemnation of non-believers before they consider what's actually being said. So what does it mean when you get one reaction from a declared atheist and another from one who makes no such declarations? While intolerance may be the inevitable outcome, this in and of itself isn't an example of intolerance, even after they insult and slander non-believers. It just means they are simply a slave to their emotions and allow them to trump their rational thought processes.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

One view on theism, two different reactions: (Original Post) Major Nikon Nov 2018 OP

When you're proof-texting, you choose your texts carefully to MineralMan Nov 2018 #1

I would note HopeAgain Nov 2018 #2

I don't share your interpretation of what Einstein is saying Major Nikon Nov 2018 #3

Of course you do not. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #6

How does Brand come into this discussion. MineralMan Nov 2018 #4

That's really a big stretch. Mariana Nov 2018 #5

MineralMan

(146,331 posts)

1. When you're proof-texting, you choose your texts carefully to

Reply to Major Nikon (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 02:18 PM

Nov 2018

bolster your position. You don't look for other texts that don't. That wouldn't be prudent.

Of course, if you find your proof texts somewhere all ready for use, you don't have to look any further. That happens a lot, too.

HopeAgain

(4,407 posts)

2. I would note

Reply to Major Nikon (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 02:23 PM

Nov 2018

Einstein's quote is couched more in terms of HIS personal beliefs. Yes they would apply equally to others, but Brand points the finger outward. A subtle distinction, but maybe Atheists would benefit from taking the personal approach more often. "i believe it would be foolish of me to believe in a God" is more palatable than "you are a fool because you believe in a God" (and less rude).

See, I don't at all care what others believe, only what they do. But if someone were to point their finger at me and call me contmptable for what I believe, I'm probably going to feel a little hostile.

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)

3. I don't share your interpretation of what Einstein is saying

Reply to HopeAgain (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 02:38 PM

Nov 2018

He very clearly points outward, which you should note from the emphasized text.

I suspect neither would be openly hostile towards theism, were it not for the far greater hostility received from believers on a biblical scale. Words might sometimes feel hurtful even when they reflect reality, but by themselves don't deny people basic human rights.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)

6. Of course you do not.

Reply to Major Nikon (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2018, 06:02 PM

Nov 2018

It undermines what you think you have proven here.

Name calling generally does not lead to dialogue. The name caller is trying to shut down dialogue. So when Russel was employing a brutal ad hominem attack, he was "speaking to the choir", as it were. He was not engaging in dialogue at all.

MineralMan

(146,331 posts)

4. How does Brand come into this discussion.

Reply to HopeAgain (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 02:45 PM

Nov 2018

It is Bertrand Russell in the first quote. Albert Einstein was the source of the others. Perhaps you're conflating Bertrand Russell with Russell Brand. They could not be more dissimilar, really.

Mariana

(14,861 posts)

5. That's really a big stretch.

Reply to HopeAgain (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 03:31 PM

Nov 2018

From the OP: "Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.

Whose feeble souls do you suppose he meant? Whose ridiculous egotisms?

Reply to this discussion