HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| PyrrhusiVictoria
PyrrhusiVictoria
♂️
[23181483]
[2012-08-21 07:26:17 +0000 UTC]
"To live is to think"
(United States)
# Statistics
Favourites: 11; Deviations: 16; Watchers: 16
Watching: 13; Pageviews: 8699; Comments Made: 1859; Friends: 13
# Comments
Comments: 28
You wrote: "But Europeans are the least religious people on the planet per capita, and most of the famous anti-religious people with science degrees came from Europe - Darwin, Einstein, Dawkins, to name a few. So I have no idea what your point is. "
Neither Einstein, nor Darwin were anti-religious. Einstein was agnostic and/or pantheist (his interviews can be interpreted different ways), Darwin was a broken-hearthed christian, who probably became aítheist, but he confessed it only in a private letter, and never acted as an atheist activist like Dawkins. Dawkins is a very unlucky man, an otherwise good scientist who fallen into the trap of fears from religious people - probably because of traumatic events in his childhood, or whatever. Instead of doing serious biology, he deals with the sociological problem of religion in vain - I think no one can he convince who otherwise was not an atheist originally.
My point was that, however, is that in Europe religion has a certain and obvious respect because of long history. So atheist activism most usually means a kind of unculturedness, for example, an infection of communism, liberal extremism or similar neobarbarian ideologies. There are a lot of atheists, who live without religion and without any link to religion (without anti-religionism also) but explicite anti-religious atheism is the passion of a ridiculous and almost uncountable minority. And yes, Dawkins is one of them, whether or not is he a good biologist otherwise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Darwin and Einstein were atheists. Einstein even stated it clearly several times, his only problem was too sophisticated language and metaphors which could be taken as a religious speech. The idea that Darwin was religious came from some American lady who hadn't even seen him.
Dawkins is a very confident and happy man, you haven't read any of his books, I bet.
Religion is a trap.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Einstein was as Jewish as a Jew can get - just look at him.
YOU are a sad case, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Einstein was an Atheist, and he was disgusted when people assumed he was religious. The best people leave your tribe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well said! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks!
You know, I hate Jewish fundies even more than Christian fundies, they always start with such smug tone. And when I tell them my mom is Jewish (by nationality, not by religion) they're like this:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed. My parents are Orthodox Jews, I know first hand how crazy they are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry to hear about it.
Yet it's nice that we both are in company with people like Einstein, Feynman, and Trotsky.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Definitely. Hitchens, whose mother was Jewish, once said something like "there must be a gene for atheism in Jews."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Except they CAN'T.
YOU are a tribal ape, not me.
(I also don't use my avatar to *laugh* at people who merely look at it, ya know.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why can't they? I did.
We all are apes, dear.
Yeah, you use yours to stare at people with that oh-why-are-you-so-bad expression. I guess everybody chooses what fits them best.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You *think* you did (if you even qualify, which is for you to know, and for me to not really care for now).
Whether you *really* DID - is quite a different question altogether.
Dunno, to me it looks like a neutral photo with NO "emotional expressions" behind it.
(Whereas yours is an open invitation to decide that you're a TROLL.)
And yes, Vegeta IS cool, problem?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Both Darwin and Einstein conceded that there might be a divine power behind or within the workings of the universe (pantheism would be the closest description), but both dismissed organized religion. This is why I didn't call them atheists, but said they were anti-religion. They had a dim belief (and for Darwin, he admitted it was a poor argument at best) in a divine power, but not in any human organization meant to further or explain it (religion). Darwin said, "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God". Similarly, Einstein dismissed religion as a fairy tale and superstition: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions." and "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 (for me) change this."
However, all of what you are saying here is detouring from the original comment you made. You made the assertion that in the U.S., anti-religious people can become famous scientists, but that doesn't happen in Europe. Clearly, that is completely incorrect. Moreover, it's common for the religious to assume that atheism leads to communism, which is also incorrect, however, even if that were true, again, reflect on the fact that the U.S. has NEVER been communist, while Europe has had many countries with both national socialism and communism. Your point about Europe somehow being more religious or more respectful of religion is a wash.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As I have been blocked by lisa-im-laerm (that childish individual seems to think any nuanced discussion or disagreement is persecution or bullying), I will post my reply here.
Yes, Hitler was quite consumed with the occult and with the spiritual/religious heritage of Norse and Germanic tribes, although he was a staunch supporter of the Christian church(es) and claimed Christianity himself. How much of that was genuine vs. how much was purely a political tool is hard to say. Only Adolf knew for sure
Indeed, the exact nature of Hitler's beliefs can only be speculated upon. It seems clear he was not fond of christianity itself- it seems most reasonable that his support of it was political in nature; Stalin made similar concessions to the churches during wartime. It's a very effective part of any propaganda machine.
Having said that, ironically, it makes him quite a typical neo-Christian or Catholic. When Rome officially co-opted Christianity, it blended Christian myths with all sorts of pagan traditions and rituals (and continued to do so for hundreds of years), very unlike the Gnostic, Zealot, and Orthodox sects that preceded it.
That is both ironic and true, yes- a christian with little regard for the actual teachings of his book, for better or for worse, is very typical no matter what age or country he lives in.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey , maybe next time, instead of jumping immediately into an argument like you know everything, and bashing everyone who disagrees with you, you might do better to try a conversation instead. At least that way, you won't have to scurry off and hide. Just some advice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Now it makes sense. The reason you're trying to focus on your hatred of one religion is because you're a Secular Humanist, and are yourself pushing for a theocracy. Here I thought you were just a troll.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Theocracy would be the polar opposite of what a secular humanist would want.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great comment! Your insight is very much appreciated
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm so glad you decided to become a contributor to Secular-Human! You're a very well-read and insightful person and I respect that about you. I look forward to any journal entries you write! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you very much for inviting me
I haven't been too active for a while, but I'll try to be more prolific and do you guys proud.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Whatever you contribute will be awesome, I just know it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're welcome
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You are very welcome
👍: 0 ⏩: 0