Slashdot Mirror
Einstein Letter Goes on Sale
ErkDemon writes "For any Slashdotters who want a piece of frameable Einstein memorabilia, a letter from A.E. to Eric Gutkind goes on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions today (May 15th). The content of the letter mostly deals with Einstein's views on religion. (Einstein pronounces himself rather unimpressed by the whole idea and rejects it as "childish.") The Guardian has printed a translated excerpt from the letter."
Reading it, you'd think this would stop the theists from repeatedly dragging the man unwillingly into their camp; but since this well-known remark...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
This is the same man who said "God does not play dice with the universe".
Just callin' it like I see it.
It may come as a shock, but people use metaphors or analogies or funny quotes all the time, without actually believing in the thing used as a metaphor.
E.g., we may spew or quote stuff like "Mother Nature always sides with the hidden flaw" or "Mother Nature is a bitch", without actually believing that there is such a sentient entity. Or when Stalin said that "artillery is the god of war", chances are he didn't mean it literally.
E.g., you may have noticed quotes from Futurama's characters before on Slashdot. I'll take a wild guess that most of those people don't actually believe that Bender or Dr Zoidberg are real.
More importantly, look at the context in which he said that. There was _nothing_ theistic about it. Einstein's view of the world was based on the evidenced-based large-scale physics, where stuff is very deterministic. More importantly, there seemed to be no obvious way to reconcile relativity with quantum physics, so one or the other had to be false. Einstein obviously favoured his own relativity, and had plenty of experimental confirmation (at macro level) that it's correct.
If anything, it just shows that even really really smart people can be occasionally wrong, when talking about stuff outside their expertise domain.
But the crucial thing is that it was based on falsifiable evidence, not on some belief in a deity whose will is absolute and whose habits can be guessed. There was nothing inherently theistic about that belief.
Yes, he used the word "god". It was just a metaphor/anthropomorphisation of the universe. He could have just as well used "mother nature" or just personified the universe itself. It was just supposed to get the point across, not be some declaration of faith in a god.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Reading it, you'd think this would stop the theists from repeatedly dragging the man unwillingly into their camp; but since this well-known remark...
...didn't do it... somehow, I doubt this new letter will, either, clear as it may be.
All it says is that Einstein does not believe in a personal God. The God in the bible is a personal God that cares about the fate of humanity.I don't believe in a personal God either, but I do believe in a God. Einstein also said that God does not play dice with the universe. If the universe is not random, there must be a God.
And honestly, I don't believe in the Christian God either. This does not mean the man did not believe in a God concept.
Einstein did not believe the universe was randomly generated, this means he believed in intelligent design whether or not it's a Christian God or just some self aware universe, he believed in a God.
Athiests believe the universe is a complete accident and that everything in the universe is random. Nothing Einstein has ever said in any of his writings support that he believes that the universe is random. All we see here is that he's not a Christian and perhaps he was drifting away from being a traditional Jew.
Einstein's letter raises another issue - do scientists, the great, good and so forth still write letters? My feelings are that people nowadays just type out emails or long journal articles. The letter writing industry seems to have disappeared - which would be a terrible shame. Letters written by big historical figures like Einstein provide important insights into their thinking that other forms of communication seem to lack.
Actually, that "reverse ad hominem" has a name: appeal to false authority. You know, X is accepted as a smart and authoritative guy on his domain, X said Y, therefore Y must be true. It's used all the time, sadly. Franklin sad this, Churchill said that, Einstein said that other thing, etc. Often raising somethig that's little more than a wisecrack or thinly veiled jab at one's opponents (Churchill for one was quite the wisecracker) to the rank of absolute truth, beyond all questioning. Just because the great man said it, and obviously someone that great can't be wrong about something outside the domain of his expertise. And very few people seem to be aware that it's a fallacy. In reality, even _within_ one's domain of expertise, one can be wrong all right. Einstein was against quantum mechanics. Tesla didn't believe in relativity. (And in quite the fighting words: "[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king") Lorentz was _rabidly_ against Einstein's relativity, and even denounced it as bolshevism, although it was based on his own equations. Go figure. There's a reason why the scientific method assumes that anything is falsifiable, and nothing is above questioning, no matter how big a genius said it. (Although, you're still supposed to present your evidence if you want to challenge it. Just personal disbelief or contradicting one's pet dogma aren't enough.) Move outside what one really knows, and the association with some authority figure becomes fully irrelevant.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It's as simple as this. The universe is completely in our collective minds. When I say our, I do not mean humans, I mean the collective self awareness of the universe.
That collective self awareness of the universe perceived the universe into existence. The big bang was the beginning of the universe(self awareness), becoming aware of itself.
Existence is self awareness. That which is self aware is all that is real in the universe. Everything else is just junk information, noise. If all self awareness in the universe dies, the universe itself will cease to exist.
Basically the universe only exists because there are self aware beings capable of perceiving it. The only thing real in the universe are the self aware beings. And God is the collective self awareness of the universe, the universal awareness, or universal soul, or universal mind, however you want to think about it.
"Does God belive in Einstein?"
This probably goes a fair way to explaining why he turned down the offer to be the second president of Israel. To do that job I would suggest that a belief in a god who does concern himself with the fate and the doings of mankind is something of a prerequisite.
simon
Excellent choice of words there. "childish" is perfectly adequate. "God" is of the same order of things as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny.
Except I don't know anyone murdered or tortured in the name of the easter bunny, and I'm not aware of anyone blowing himself up to honour the tooth fairy.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Physicists don't usually think about why things are, they only think about how things work.
So a physicist can explain the math behind quantum entanglement but a physicist cannot explain why math is capable of solving all the mysteries of the universe.
I'm getting a degree in philosophy so I can explain.
And if you think you can challenge my philosophy go ahead.
1. God is self awareness.
2. When an entity, individual or species becomes more self aware, they become closer to God. As a result, their science gets better, their math gets better, and their self awareness allows them to organize all the information of the universe, thus they become the programmers of the universe.
3. The universe only exists in the minds of the self aware. Self awareness perceived the universe into existence, and this was the cause of the big bang.
4. The universe cannot exist independently of self awareness. Self awareness is existence, and when the universe becomes more self aware it becomes more real. When you become more self aware you become more real.
5. All which is not self aware, is not real, it's junk information, it's noise, it's fake, it's illusion.
This means, life is real if it's aware of itself. Humans and most mammals are real. Rocks, dirt, sand, dust, mud, minerals and all which is not self aware, is the junk/noise of the universe. It's simply information which wouldn't exist at all without our perception to perceive it into existence and classify it.
This means the observer is the universe. This means that due to non-locality, distance and space are illusions. This means time/change is energy. And energy is conciousness/self awareness.
The eye/ears/brain simply organizes that energy so that it can become aware of itself. But there is no universe outside of that energy of awareness.
In the translation: "In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew."
Is "man" here meaning "adult male human", or just "human"? Is there a German speaker with access to the original text who can clarify this?
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
"Einstein, though a brilliant physicist, was not trained in the philosophy of religion."
;)
And yet 50+ yrs after his death, religious philosophers, fellow scientists, and popular writers are all trying to understand what he meant by the phrase "The mind of God". So I hardly think "http://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/credo.html">the personal philosophy of one of the great thinkers of the 20th century can be dismissed as inappropriate.
However I do agree with the rest of your post it's more entertaining to watch all sides trying to prove "Einstien is on their side".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power
Did he foresee their actions in Gaza and the West Bank when they did get power!
For some reasons, I think it would be very appropriate for this letter to end in the ownership of Richard Dawkins.
Can you think of anybody else who you'd like to end up with this letter?
(I won't go as far as to propose a fund to buy the letter for these people)
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
.. believing is .. the same as not believing.
Since, you still believe. You believe that there's God or you believe that there isnt a God.
Anyway, objectivization of God is not good (but some people like that), and I think Einstein said that he don't believe in "the man on the sky with a beard", but he hasn't been specific about it.
Anyway, IMHO, the only true path is to doubt/question everything, but it's easyer to believe that someone is watching us, and that we will "live" after death, since it gives us a meaning and security.
Am I the only one in deep bewilderment why this even makes it to the /.?
It is just a letter by one of the scientists. Well, renowned scientists in the field of photoeffect (just kidding), but hardly a great philosopher or metaphysicist or actually anyone who's opinion on religion should matter for the rest of the mankind who consider religious experience to be outside of realm of science and deeply personal experience.
Who cares what Einstein says about religion? Did he "disprove" religion?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
IMHO the fastest growing religion these days is atheism.
:-)
Even though most atheists will hardly claim that it is not a religion
If you believe nature is dead, do you believe you are any more real than a rock or some sand?
Einstein also didn't believe in quantum mechanics which he famously dismissed with the phrase "God doesn't play with dice."
I guess if you get the 'i before e' thing wrong twice in your own name, you might be error prone in other things.
Kevin O'Kane http://www.cs.uni.edu/~okane/
In other words, you believe in magic. But we can easily experimentally verify this state of affairs.
I put you inside a dark room, completely and utterly dark, so that most of your perception is disabled. What you don't know is that there is a hole in the floor of the room : but no worries, nobody is aware of the hole, and it isn't aware of itself : so you won't fall through it. If the universe were not self aware, there would be no such thing as a hole. The example you give depends on some God like being creating a concept called a room, creating a hole, and putting us in that room. The simple fact is, if nothing ever perceives the hole then there simply is no such thing as a hole.
The same argument athiests use to try and explain how there isnt a God because we can't collectively perceive of a God, is the exact argument I'm using to prove that nothing exists without being perceived into existence.
If you believe a hole can exist without anything perceiving it, then you believe the universe exist independently of perception, and if you believe that then you are relying completely on faith. Obviously it's not. The world exists independantly of you. No the world does not exist independent of perception. I never claimed "I" was God. I said God was the self awareness of the universe, this means all of the collective perception and self awareness combined.
What I'm saying is, if there is nothing in the universe to perceive of a room, there will be no such thing as rooms, or holes. You just assume these ideas exist outide of the mind we think with on pure faith alone. You assume the physical universe can exist outside of the mind even when there has never been any evidence of anything existing outside of universal perception and thought.
Science may be, but language isn't.
By choosing to adopt the deceptive language of creationists, you've aligned yourself with them.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
1. Before the beginning was the Nonexistent Chao, balanced in Oblivion by the Perfect Counterpushpull of the Hodge and the Podge.
2. Whereupon, by an Act of Happenstance, the Hodge began gradually to overpower the Podge -- and the Primal Chaos thereby came to be.
3. So in the beginning was the Primal Chaos, balanced on the Edge of Oblivion by the Perfect Counterpullpush of the Podge and the Hodge.
4. Whereupon, by the Law of Negative Reversal, the Podge swiftly underpowered the Hodge and Everything broke loose.
What is it with layered approaches? Is it because it works from cakes to network security?
It does not state that matter and energy are the same thing.
It states that mass has energy, and inversely, energy has mass.
A body travelling at enormous speeds gains mass because of the mass of its kinetic energy, which is the quantity described by E=mc^2. The body does not gain any matter (it's particle count remains constant).
The constituents of a nuclear fission reaction neither lose or gain mass. No mass is converted to energy. The energy released is the spare binding energy that the larger nuclei required but the more stable products do not. Products like photons with no intrinsic mass of their own carry away the mass of the energy they embody. No mass is destroyed or "converted to energy".
Even in a matter-antimatter annihilation, the products carry energy equivalent to the combined rest mass of the reagents and thus mass and energy are conserved.
I openly asked them if they still find the logic persuasive, but intellectual integrity is just beyond some people. This type of practice is a clear, unambiguous clue that evangelicals don't believe what they believe because of the reasons they cite--they're just fishing around for whatever looks like good ammunition, and they don't really care to follow through the logic they're using.
Logic and accuracy do not matter to them, and they'll knowingly use illogical arguments based on bad data if doing so will convert a soul. This is also why you basically can't trust them when it comes to evolution, the age of the earth, etc. It isn't just that they're wrong on any given issue, but that intellectual integrity is of so little importance to them compared to their perceived role as a soldier for Christ against the forces of Satan.
Black holes for example.
As for Buddhism, well, let me say that I was not impressed that menstruating women were not allowed in Buddhist temples in Thailand (how would they know is beyond me) and they were as jealous about modesty (cover legs, shoulders) that would have not been out of place in a mosque or a Catholic Church.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Somebody trained in Astrology is still a quack, no matter how you want to spin it.
Ditto with religion if you understand my analogy above.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Look up Quantum Entanglement on Google and see how.
For the simple fact that he demonstrates mathematically that energy, time and matter are predictable, no god needed, thanks.
Others took this even further to the very point when the universe started as we know it, to the point that pope John Paul II was fearful of the findings of Hawking and other astrophysicists, because they were clearly cornering the idea of a god, by mathematical means, to the point where it did not matter at all if there was one or not.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Few human beings have understood the nature of the universe better than Einstein.
Who else could have authority to talk about the existence or non existence of god but the person that described how matter, energy and time, the most basic universal concepts, behave?
Few people will ever have as much authority as Einstein, and now it is uncontroversial exactly what his opinion (expert opinion) was about the matter.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If the universe is intelligently designed, how many were thrown away before it passed QA?
It takes a particular lack of imagination to assume that intelligence itself is not a random process, or that there is one universe, or that any conception of existence affirms or denies the possibility of a motivation behind it. The intelligent design movement (aside from it's creationist agenda) looks at complexity and is all "aw, gosh, that shore is complicated, someone must've been real smart to come up with that one!" There is absolutely nothing unscientific about ridiculing the argument-from-personal-befuddlement.
Me, I believe the universe was created exactly as was in Genesis. Everything else? Oh, that is a natural consequence, going backward in time, that resolves the consistency of the system. The universe isn't 20 billion years old because God didn't create it like in the Bible, the universe is 20 billion years old because God can't make a 6000 year old earth any more than he can make "four" without all of mathematics.
So the atheists are trying to beat on the theists by proving that a really smart guy was one of them?
Frankly, considering the off-kilter nature of genius as we know it, I wouldn't want to lay too much value on having some of the same ideals of other geniuses, or many other people for that matter.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
and then bury it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I believe there is a posse or four*.
they would be:
Pollution(Formerly known as Pestiliance)
Faminie,
War,
Death
*Chaos was removed a few moments after the universe was crated. He now delivers cold fresh milk.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Religion is the best bullsh*t story of all time. There's an invisible man who lives up in the sky and he watches everything you do every minute of every day for your entire life. And if you're bad, there's a place he sends you where it's fire and pain for all eternity...but he loves you...and he needs money. IMHO, sure it's possible that there's a supreme being but I'm sure that it's something so far beyond human comprehension that for any person to claim they know is typical human arrogance. Those who claim that things like GTA IV erode society conveniently choose to ignore the fact that every religion has been distorted for the twisted desires of a few people. Islam is just the current flavor. Don't forget The Inquisition on the Christian side of things. "Thou shalt not kill" which really was written as "Thou shalt not commit murder" (distortion already) is paraphrased as "Thou shalt not kill...unless it's someone who doesn't believe in the same invisible being as you do." I'm a conservative. When did the evangelicals get their talons into that ideal? "Abortion is murder"? Okay, wiseguy, who's going to pay for the kid's existence if you pooh pooh welfare? That unwanted kid is probably going to end up being an entitlement-mentality liberal. Stick that in your peace-pipe and smoke it.
"..and many other people agree with me."
the plural of anecdote is not data.
And no, the only way to interpret that sentence is that he didn't believe in any god;which also confirms to all his other statement regard religion.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I am a deeply religious person. I fervently believe in a personal, Christian God. Yet I cringe when I see other theists quote Einstein in an effort to support the possibility of God, or to indicate that Einstein believed in God.
I think Einstein, like many of us, had a deeply ingrained desire to "understand it all", and much of what he said in a philosophical context was an expression of his humility at not being able to fully comprehend the universe.
Religiosity seems to be built into us. Some even theorize that it's in our genetic makeup, and explains how we modern humans have flourished as a species these last 10,000 years since we arrived on the evolutionary scene. Belief is what makes us human, or as Terry Pratchett put it in Hogfather, "Take the universe, grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice; one molecule of mercy. And yet you act as if there were some sort of rightness in the universe by which it might be judged." Indeed, even the staunchest atheist can have the most fervent ardor for justice and mercy and compassion and sacrifice.
There is nothing wrong with belief in something that is greater than yourself, and I think if Einstein were here, he would shake his head in shame at the rantings of theists and atheists alike.
Proverbs 21:19
This ranks with his cosmological constant as his biggest mistake.
Actually, they may be related. There are theistic implications to there being a beginning. Maybe Einstein didn't like a beginning (hence the need for a cosmological constant) because he didn't like the implications that there was a Beginner.
More reflection would have also noted that if you have laws you need to assume a Law
-giver. If you have free-floating laws of physics not grounded in anything, you have no valid reason for assuming they won't change. This is the problem Hume raised and which atheistic materialism cannot account for.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
First off, Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
It's got the world 'lack' right in there. There is no belief.
They do not 'believe' there is no God, they have NO belief.
I am sick and tired of believers turning there sickness around and saying everyone believes.
The burden is on the believer to provide proof. Not on the Atheist to provide some sort of mythical 'anti-proof'.
You can't prove a negative.
agnosticism is a belief. If there is a God, there is no reason why someone couldn't know.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"I'm not a creationist."
Actually you have to be if you believe a god created the universe.
They go hand in hand. That doesn't mean you believe God created everything in 6 24 hour period, but it does mean that at some point God started everything with a plan.
Atheism is not a belief in a randomized universe.
In fact, it's not a belief at ALL.
Your last statement shows that you have no idea about atheism or religion, what a dumb shit.
It's not a belief, how can it be a myth?
I mean, you clearly don't even understand what a theory is. Please tell me how you test the laughable 'theory'?
It's a supernatural belief, by definition it can't be tested.
"Science can explain how a universe could be intelligently designed."
this sentence is completely meaningless.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Some of us might want to read the whole letter.
Presumably, you will become aware of the hole once you encounter it. In fact, the belated nature of its discovery will likely be an important attribute once it becomes part of your awareness.
Actually it was a joke, not a troll (see the ":P"). I am an atheist myself...
Einstein says religion is childish. I say religion is an emergent phenomenon. By that I mean, a novel behavior that arises spontaneously as a result of the interactions of combinations of other behaviors.
I am referring specifically to a subset of the abilities of the most evolved brain on the planet. Humans have the ability to model their environment in terms of cause-and-effect relationships. When any human, even the most primitive, is interested in understanding what brought about an effect (whether to elicit it or to avoid it) he naturally starts enquiring into its cause. This is a level of cognition that towers above instinct in the adaptive and survival advantages it grants us.
Similarly, humans also have a very unique creative/imaginative capacity. For example, when trying random experiments to get something to happen, humans will come up with much more elaborate actions than other animals.
Humans are also good at such things as abstraction and discovery of isomorphism...again with obvious survival advantages.
I submit that the combination of these three aspects of our brain will invariably result in religious doctrines. At some point, humans will visualize the entire world as an effect and inquire about the cause. For want of easy answers, the creative/imaginative capacity will provide some interesting ones. Our abstraction/isomorphic cognitive abilities will make the likening of initial causes to familiar ones (such as other people) very intuitive. To our highly evolved brains, religion practically sells itself.
So the widespread phenomenon of religion, as disadvantageous as it may (arguably) be, is a direct result of the combination of several survival advantages that are unique to humans.
Or, to put it plainly, we are so dumb because we are so smart.
I will agree that it is childish only insofar as a properly developed and exercised brain should, at some point, apply its logical and critical thinking capacities to the problem and see the strong disparity of scope between the claims being made and the nature of the evidence presented. Many humans are either too lazy or ill-equipped to develop these mental capacities, or they have made such a strong emotional attachment (another survival advantage being mis-applied) to a belief system that their logical and critical thinking capacities are overpowered.
In my opinion, religion was also a significant rung-in-the-ladder in the evolution of our species, empowering us to survive through some very interesting (and difficult) stages in our development. We have, however, climbed high enough that clinging to this rung is holding us back more than supporting us. It is time to let go of religious thinking and embrace a more pure and direct path to authentic spirituality. We don't need a set of myths and unsupportable absolutes to guide us to a deep and profound understanding of (and participation in) the mysteries that surround us.
Truth has nothing to fear from simple and direct investigation.
They fully understand that the bible was written and translated by men.
That is a very important point. The Bible was written by humans. A copy of it was given to each owner by a fellow human. Instructions on how to interpret it were provided by humans. The teaching of the dual nature of Jesus was taught by humans.
Therefore, to put faith in the Bible, in any interpretation of the Bible, or in any church based thereupon, is to put faith in humans.
If you would like to put faith in God that is great. But when you believe what your church, or your book, says, you aren't putting faith in God. You are putting faith in humans.
And humans are fallible.
Do you believe in God? If you answer "No", we both share the same position, but just use different labels.
But labels ARE important; semantics are important. This is such a nuanced discussion that one can't throw around words without rigorously defining them first. We may both answer "No", but exactly what we mean is very different. That IS semantics. Agnosticisim vs. positive atheism vs. negative atheism are not the same, and they shouldn't be used as such.
As you stated, the true meaning of agnosticism is not "I don't know", but that "The answer is unknowable in this world, so the question itself doesn't make sense."
A positive claim of agnosticism is more rational than a claim of atheism, because in the absence of evidence the former says that the answer is "With no evidence, it is impossible tell one way or the other", while the latter says "With no evidence of existence, I will assume non-existence." To me, the former is more rational that the latter.
Atheism and theism are both faith, in that they are positive statements of belief in the face of no evidence and unprovable facts. They are both less rational than saying "how can we ever know" with a shrug of the shoulders.
---
For more fun, spend some time of Wikipedia in this area: "positive" atheism = "I believe there is no god"; "negative" atheism = "I do not believe there is a god". Gnostics and their repudiators, the Agnostics. Theism & Deism. Many hours of fun!
exactly! well explained..
You might note that Einstein was wrong on a lot of stuff too.
I think you are misunderstanding what philosophy actually is. Philosophy is a question, not an answer. So far it appears that you believe your ideas about the nature of the universe to be wholly correct without accepting the fact that a complete answer will never be found through philosophy, only more questions.
If you are looking for an answer, switch to science.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Atheism was popular, as it still is, in scientific circles in the early 20th century. Einstein was notable on this subject BECAUSE he subscribed to neither his native judaism nor atheism.
During his lifetime Atheists tried to claim this deterministic-jew as one of their own, and despite his rejection of their point of view they have continued non-stop ever since.
This is such a nuanced discussion that one can't throw around words without rigorously defining them first. We may both answer "No", but exactly what we mean is very different. That IS semantics. Agnosticisim vs. positive atheism vs. negative atheism are not the same, and they shouldn't be used as such.
... Atheism and theism are both faith
Agreed - your comment should be directed at the person I replied to, who did not define his terms, or use the term strong/positive atheism, or say anything that implied he was talking specifically about them.
A positive claim of agnosticism is more rational than a claim of atheism
Be careful to stick to your own definitions - you mean strong/positive atheism.
Also I would point out that agnosticism can also mean the belief that we can never know, not that we simply don't know, which is just as much a statement of faith.
And note that just because two things are both statements without evidence does not mean they are equal in any sense. "I believe there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter" is far more of a claim than "I believe there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter" (especially when it's people in the former group that often rule their lives by this belief). To pick on the latter group seems rather petty to me.
And we don't have to justify them to anyone.
It's what we do with them that matters...
Einstein clearly had a practical application for his belief and the intellect, will and perseverance to act upon it. These are all acts of faith.
The theists don't have a monopoly on faith (or morality etc...)
I can only aspire to Einstein's faith and dedication, never mind his capabilities.
Nullius in verba
in the letter states that "The Jews are not the chosen people".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
On a serious note. I'll put this as simple as I can. I left the flock of diggers because of thoughtless comments and posts similar to the replies to this posting. To poke fun at theists and put historical figures such as dawkins and Einstein on a pedestal is no different than Christians following in the footsteps of Jesus. You guys are going to have to come to the realization that Jesus is a matter of fact. You morons comparing Him to the FSM shows your stupidity and immaturity. Jesus was a man of infinite wisdom. His teachings are second to NONE! You may not agree with the bible. However, it's not about the bible, but who the bible reveals. Just remember that.
Are you rational enough to put yourself at the top of the list of most important?
It's not that solipsists don't believe that the idea of another person can exist. The solipsist simply does not believe that the physical form of the idea is the idea itself. I hope that makes sense.
So a solipsist might want to study insects, or wildlife, or people in the same way scientists study natural phenomena, and it's not to be considered a waste of time. Also a solipsist can enjoy some ideas and thoughts more than others.
I don't see why you think a solipsist would act any different from a materialist except in that a solipsist probably only sees you as a thought pattern/idea while a materialist sees you as a bunch of randomly generated atoms. I don't see any difference in how either one would act.
It's not that I believe there is world outside of the world of thought. And frankly, even if there was, I only care about my thoughts anyway so it would be a world not worthy of mentioning or caring about. However, I do have favorite thoughts like anyone else.
Just like materialists can have favorite forms of matter.
If you can dream it you can do it. Man can fly, can go into space, can have sex with lots of women. Of course it's not going to be easy to do this and get away with it, but it's not impossible because people have done it.
If you aren't willing to look out for your own self interest, someone will dominate and control all those who think of themselves a unimportant simply because they feel more important than you.
If you are looking for an answer, switch to science. Science doesn't answer why. And honestly, neither does atheism. Atheism is just another religion based on faith in materialism.
You seem to be assuming throughout all this that an atheist is "someone who does not believe in a god or gods" (and thus is characterized by the absence of a belief) when in fact an atheist is someone who believes that there are no gods (characterized by the presence of a belief).
These do not form a dichotomy. It is quite cogent to not believe in the existence of something without actively believing that the thing does not exist. For example, on the question of your oldest surviving third cousin's best friend having a pet, I neither believe nor disbelieve. I, frankly, do not even know if you have any surviving third cousins, let alone presuming to have an opinion about this hypothetical person's hypothetical best friend's status vis a vis animal companions. I don't know, and I see no shame in admitting it.
This question, however, is far more tractable than the whole theist issue. We could, if we cared enough, find out if you have an oldest surviving third cousin and if they have a best friend, and from there determine if this person is a pet owner. Conversely, I see no way to even get started on the god question, since it doesn't seem like there is a good definition of what a god is, let alone a solid explanation of what existence would mean for such a creature.
Thus, I am an agnostic. I don't know if gods exist, and I don't see how you could even begin to answer the question. But you can not jump from that to claiming I must be an atheist, since I also have no clue how you would go about proving the nonexistence of a god given the epistemological swamp that surounds the subject.
To see what I mean, I'll ask you flat out:
See how silly that is?
My suspicion is that you just think you're an atheist because you've fallen into the trap of thinking that you know what a god is, just because the people who think they believe in gods seem so sure that they know what gods are. Really, you're an agnostic and you're stuck being one until someone can show you a god and say "Look, see, this is a god!", in which case you'll be a theist.
But atheist are just people who've fallen for the idea of gods far enough to think that the question of their existence or non-existence is meaningful, but not far enough to tithe and wear funny hats and things on some god's behalf.
--MarkusQ