Whence the atheist superficiality about other people's religiousness?

Why are atheists so willing to believe that anyone who claims to be religious also is religious?

If you tell me that you believe in anything then I take that as what you believe.

It's true that if someone says their favorite color is blue, I can't be totally sure of that.

But why should I not believe them without a reason to not believe them?

Unless I'm paranoid of the world in general...

Does the same hold of atheism?
Or is there a standard for a "real" atheist?

I noted this elsewhere:

When a person shows up at your door, claiming to be your long lost father - do you just take this person's word for it, and don't claim otherwise?
Or when someone you meet at the supermarket claims to be a doctor and gives you medical advice - do you just believe them, with no concern about their expertise and credentials?
Probably not. Probably, you seek some proof of their expertise first, before taking them seriously.

But why not do the same with those who claim to be religious?

The question really has little to do with the belief, but rather why should you trust what anyone says.

And again, everything you hear could be lies, but without a reason to think they are, why would you default to the world being a falsehood?

Does the same hold of atheism?
Or is there a standard for a "real" atheist?

I'd think that what I stated holds true for anyone I meet but that doesn't mean it holds true for everyone because everyones different and will change their minds as well.

Why are atheists so willing to believe that anyone who claims to be religious also is religious?

You're apparently suggesting that there's some significance to the phrase "is religious" that eludes many/all atheists. Something that goes beyond mere assertions of one's own religiosity.

Maybe some atheists don't acknowledge this thing because they don't share the idea that religion should be something more. (Whatever that something is.)

I guess that I'd say that religion is kind of like a rope, composed of numerous semi-distinct strands --

There's belief in propositional doctrines of a world-viewish sort and often about super-mundane realities. There's personal practice, both inward and outward. There's often some ideal of personal transformation. There may be ideas of salvation, of transcendental escapes from life's suffering and from the certainty of ultimate death. There will probably be a social practice dimension, probably including groups performing ritual actions. There may be an assumption that religious practice influences individual and community flourishing here in this life. There's likely an aesthetic dimension. There's almost certainly going to be a difficult-to-describe emotional aspect, all the sometimes overwhelming feelings that accompany religiosity. And obviously there's a critically important ethical dimension in most cases.

Religion probably isn't so much an essence as it's a family-resemblance deal. Perhaps few individual instances of religiosity display all of these aspects, certainly not equally. But individual examples display enough of them that they resemble religion and are identified as such.

So, who is really religious and who isn't? It's a question that atheists should probably take some interest in, for sociological reasons at least.

Maybe I'd say that a person becomes more religious the more of these aspects that they display. (Adjusted for their particular tradition, which may emphasize some and deemphasize others.) And maybe more important, a person becomes more religious as these aspects become more central in their lives and the focus of their daily activities.

Why are atheists so willing to believe that anyone who claims to be religious also is religious?

Because it's a strange thing to lie about? I don't know. Do you think many atheists claim they are religious? Well i guess certain jobs requires you to be religious, so there's an incentive. Jobs like... say... being the President of the United States.

Why are atheists so willing to believe that anyone who claims to be religious also is religious?Can you define what it is to be "religious"? Are there specific documents that one must hold, as in the case of your example (e.g. for being a medical doctor)?

When a person shows up at your door, claiming to be your long lost father - do you just take this person's word for it, and don't claim otherwise?
Or when someone you meet at the supermarket claims to be a doctor and gives you medical advice - do you just believe them, with no concern about their expertise and credentials?
Probably not. Probably, you seek some proof of their expertise first, before taking them seriouslyAs it usually is if one wishes to take the "religious" person seriously, in my experience.

Unfortunately there is little in the way of specific qualifications or documents one needs to demonstrate their "religious" nature, and thus greater importance is placed on what they say rather than their claim of being religious.


But if you can suggest a means of identifying a religious person beyond them merely claiming, and also give an approved/trustworthy authority that can certify their "religious" claim such that others know a minimum standard of understanding in the matter, then please feel free to detail it?

Until then we only have their word, which makes it rather meaningless as a title, and thus focus is placed on what they say rather than their self-claimed authority.

Whence the atheist superficiality about other people's religiousness?

Why are atheists so willing to believe that anyone who claims to be religious also is religious?

Who says they do?

In my view the most vociferous religionists often appear to be the least likely candidates deserving of being given any credence in their self proclaimed religiosity or demostrate any of the behaviours and values that one should expect to see based on scriptural teachings.

when was the last time you saw Pat Robertson behave like a christian? or George W Bush? or Ted Haggard?

It makes me wonder how denominations view eachother and also how religions think about eachother... I mean all religious people believe that theirs is the right faith. So all the other faiths must be wrong. Is it not hard to take people from other faiths seriously, when you know that they are mistaking?

Why are atheists so willing to believe that anyone who claims to be religious also is religious?

If we should all be skeptical of someone's claims to be religious, should we not all be equally skeptical when someone goes out there claiming to speak on behalf of divinity?

You're apparently suggesting that there's some significance to the phrase "is religious" that eludes many/all atheists. Something that goes beyond mere assertions of one's own religiosity.

Yes.



Maybe some atheists don't acknowledge this thing because they don't share the idea that religion should be something more. (Whatever that something is.)

Yes.



So, who is really religious and who isn't? It's a question that atheists should probably take some interest in, for sociological reasons at least.

Yes. They should probably have a better idea of what and whom it is that they are against.

When atheists set out with rebuttals of theism, they not rarely use polls and statistics to support their arguments against theism.
(A favorite atheist argument against theism is that the majority of the prison population is religious, therefore, there is a connection between greater religiosity and crime.)

But how reliable are such polls and statistics? Do they really say anything about a person's actual religiosity?
Like you mentioned elsewhere, in polls, American Italians and Irish will likely answer they are Catholics, even if they haven't been to church or prayed for decades.

So atheists would do themselves and their intellectual integrity a big favor to learn more about religiousness.

If we should all be skeptical of someone's claims to be religious, should we not all be equally skeptical when someone goes out there claiming to speak on behalf of divinity?

Absolutely.

It makes me wonder how denominations view eachother and also how religions think about eachother... I mean all religious people believe that theirs is the right faith. So all the other faiths must be wrong. Is it not hard to take people from other faiths seriously, when you know that they are mistaking?

Of course.

Moreover, people get excommunicated or shunned from their churches daily. And from the perspective of the congregation which excommunicated or shunned them, that person is not religious at all.
Yet atheists would sometimes, if not often, count such a person as religious anyway.

Such phenomena complicate statistics on religiosity, and bring up questions on how useful they are.

Because it's a strange thing to lie about? I don't know. Do you think many atheists claim they are religious? Well i guess certain jobs requires you to be religious, so there's an incentive. Jobs like... say... being the President of the United States.

Do you think that ''being religious'' occurs purely on ones say so?
Or do you think ''being religious'' is a required action?

jan.

The question really has little to do with the belief, but rather why should you trust what anyone says.

And again, everything you hear could be lies, but without a reason to think they are, why would you default to the world being a falsehood?

Would you believe the person was your long lost father?
Or would you require further proof?

Someone could think they are religious, but not actually be?

jan.

Can you define what it is to be "religious"? Are there specific documents that one must hold, as in the case of your example (e.g. for being a medical doctor)?

In individual religious traditions, there usually are standards and degrees by which a person's religiosity can be measured.

To impose external standards to measure something specific to a particular group or area of expertise (such as religiosity) is artificial, though.




The question really has little to do with the belief, but rather why should you trust what anyone says.

And again, everything you hear could be lies, but without a reason to think they are, why would you default to the world being a falsehood?

I think this is a bit simplistic.
It is common for people to operate out of notions of varying degree or hierarchy (e.g. "A and B are both doctors, but A is a more competent doctor than B").

When several people claim or imply to be religious, it wouldn't be fair to lump them all into the same category, as if there would be no differences in their spiritual attainment, competence and whichever other factors may be relevant.

I noted this elsewhere:

When a person shows up at your door, claiming to be your long lost father - do you just take this person's word for it, and don't claim otherwise?
Or when someone you meet at the supermarket claims to be a doctor and gives you medical advice - do you just believe them, with no concern about their expertise and credentials?
Probably not. Probably, you seek some proof of their expertise first, before taking them seriously.

But why not do the same with those who claim to be religious?
Because it is of personal importance whether or not it is indeed your father.

Not so with someone that claims that his favorite color is blue or that his religion is Christianity. Unless there are suspicious circumstances, what reason would anyone have for not believing that?

Why is this in "Religion"?

When several people claim or imply to be religious, it wouldn't be fair to lump them all into the same category, as if there would be no differences in their spiritual attainment, competence and whichever other factors may be relevant.
You just did.

You just did.
She did?
So along the same lines, if several people claim to be your father, you automatically have several fathers?

She did?
So along the same lines, if several people claim to be your father, you automatically have several fathers?

No, but if I accepted their claims (somehow) I would have lumped them into one category.
Signal lumped these people into one category by referring to all of them as religious people. Not that he could have done much about it :p

No, but if I accepted their claims (somehow) I would have lumped them into one category.
Signal lumped these people into one category by referring to all of them as religious people. Not that he could have done much about it :p
I think they were categorized as people making the claim :

Originally Posted by Signal
When several people claim or imply to be religious, it wouldn't be fair to lump them all into the same category, as if there would be no differences in their spiritual attainment, competence and whichever other factors may be relevant.

So along similar lines ...

When several people claim or imply to be your father, it wouldn't be fair to lump them all into the same category, as if there would be no differences in whether you were or were not a consequence of their having copulated with your mother, their genetic make-up and whichever other factors may be relevant.

:o

I think they were categorized as people making the claim :

Originally Posted by Signal
When several people claim or imply to be religious, it wouldn't be fair to lump them all into the same category, as if there would be no differences in their spiritual attainment, competence and whichever other factors may be relevant.

So along similar lines ...

When several people claim or imply to be your father, it wouldn't be fair to lump them all into the same category, as if there would be no differences in whether you were or were not a consequence of their having copulated with your mother, their genetic make-up and whichever other factors may be relevant.

:o
I see. Sorry, my bad.
My apologies to Signal.

By the way, I also posted a more on-topic reply (post 20).

Because it is of personal importance whether or not it is indeed your father.

Not so with someone that claims that his favorite color is blue or that his religion is Christianity. Unless there are suspicious circumstances, what reason would anyone have for not believing that?

Why is this in "Religion"?

If having a particular favorite color or a particular religion is not characterized by any (affirmative) tell tale signs they become meaningless or hopelessly vague categories.

So IOW you are saying having X as a favorite color is automatically plausible as long as one does not have a complete absence of it in one's wardrobe (or whatever else one imagines to be a suspicious circumstance for it being false).

So, to continue in line with such vague reasoning, red is Obama's favorite color

http://www.globaldailystar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obama-pitch.jpg

If having a particular favorite color or a particular religion is not characterized by any (affirmative) tell tale signs they become meaningless or hopelessly vague categories.
Like I said, someone claiming some color to be their favorite color is not of personal importance to me. In other words, I don't care enough to be suspicious (unless there are suspicious circumstances that cause me to question the statement).


So IOW you are saying having X as a favorite color is automatically plausible as long as one does not have a complete absence of it in one's wardrobe (or whatever else one imagines to be a suspicious circumstance for it being false).
Suspicious circumstances are, for instance, having evidence to the contrary, the likelihood of the claim being true being statistically very low, or that it is based off a false premise (as in you example below).


So, to continue in line with such vague reasoning, red is Obama's favorite color

http://www.globaldailystar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obama-pitch.jpg

Also, there is a difference between a person making a claim about himself ("My favorite color is blue") and someone making a claim about another person ("Obama's favorite color is red"). I am much more inclined to believe the person making a claim about himself, if the claim is of no personal importance to me.

Is there not here also a difference between believing what you are being told as truth, and merely accepting them for the sake of utility.

If someone says their favourite colour is red, I might accept it for the purpose of discussion but not necessarily believe it as true.

If someone says their favourite colour is red

My favourite colour is red. I don't care if no-one believes me because you're all going to burn in the eternal hellfire (which burns red, by the way, because it hurts more) if you try to deny it.

Like I said, someone claiming some color to be their favorite color is not of personal importance to me. In other words, I don't care enough to be suspicious (unless there are suspicious circumstances that cause me to question the statement).


Suspicious circumstances are, for instance, having evidence to the contrary, the likelihood of the claim being true being statistically very low, or that it is based off a false premise (as in you example below).



Also, there is a difference between a person making a claim about himself ("My favorite color is blue") and someone making a claim about another person ("Obama's favorite color is red"). I am much more inclined to believe the person making a claim about himself, if the claim is of no personal importance to me.

so why do you suggest there are no false premises surrounding the use of the word religion?

Atheists often question the reality behind someone's claim to be religious - as they did repeatedly (and erroneously, IMHO) during Reagan's and W's campaigns for President.

The central problem is that there are no actual criteria for the degree of a person's religiousness, that religious people seem willing to accept. That would not matter much, either, except that

meanwhile, people defending religion or specific religions usually come around to throwing a bunch of bad people out of the defended category, whatever it is, to avoid dealing with the taint.

So areligious people, even the theistic ones, get impatient with the double standard. If you don't want everyone who appears to be religious and claims to be religious and is accepted in society as religious to be included in the category "religious", give us something to go on in excluding them - in advance of scandal, when it's useful.

Whence the atheist superficiality about other people's religiousness?

Why are atheists so willing to believe that anyone who claims to be religious also is religious?

First of all, you're creating multiple threads on the same topic with the same question....

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107297

Secondly, I'm copying and pasting my response...

The very definition of religion (or being religious) is a mixed bag. Whether we are talking about being religious in brushing our teeth every day or in believing and practicing religious dogmas, religion itself has a very broad range.

But more specifically, since we are in the Religion subforum, and assuming that we are referring to religion in regards to the supernatural, the answer is pretty simple.

ULTRA here claimed that nobody decides. I think quite the opposite is true. Anyone can decide whether or not someone is religious, regardless of if it is themself or others. Traditionally, religion - or being religious - was thought of as someone who simply believed a supernatural teaching (such as Christianity, Islam etc). No practice or ritual was necessary to represent their beliefs. However, more recently, a new term has come into light: "Spiritual". In previous history, "spiritual" and "religious" were, in definition, one in the same. Yet, in modern society, we find that though the defining characteristics of being "religious" has slightly more or less stayed the same (meaning to belief), being "spiritual" has somewhat taken on it's own meaning.

It seems that with the changing times, being "spiritual" has come to identify someone who believes, and being "religious" means to take a proactive stance in their beliefs - to practice the rituals associated with that belief system.

Now, understanding that the two are different in contents, the definition of being "spiritual", in my own observation, has also come to mean that the believer is more moderate or passive in their belief and practice. Whereas, the "religious" are more stern and adherent to their religions teachings, regardless of their own personal mentality or judgements against their teachings.

I've said this before somewhere on this site, but cannot recall exactly where. Regardless, I still find that the following phrase, though different in structure, can apply to this discussion:

"Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religion is doing what you're told, regardless of what is right."

It seems very simple that, by abiding by the definitions as I have provided here, one could seemingly replace "Morality" with "Spirituality" (so that I am clear, the two are unrelated and I do not mean to replace one with the other to mean the same thing in it's own definition. Morality does not equal Spirituality. I'm simply changing the words to show that typically the people who are "spiritual" tend to be more lenient and moderate in their belifs. I.E. Being "spiritual" does not, in essence, require the same adherence and practice as being "religious".)

Now, as I digress, anyone can be either religious or spiritual by the their own consideration or that of others. We need no authority to designate who is and who is not one or the other. We are able to discern that on our own, based on our own interpretation.

I hope that what I've said here is understandable. The definition of who is religious (or spiritual) is really a subjective pretense which can be applied to anyone.

so why do you suggest there are no false premises surrounding the use of the word religion?

There may or may not be, but I most of the time I have no reason to be suspicious about someone claiming to have this or that religion. Most of the time I do not know whether or not it is based off a false premise and, frankly, I do not care enough to go an try to find out.

Whence the atheist superficiality about other people's religiousness?

Why are atheists so willing to believe that anyone who claims to be religious also is religious?

Ever tried to understand colour from the point of view of a colour-blind person? Sometimes, you just have to take it on faith.

Ever tried to understand colour from the point of view of a colour-blind person? Sometimes, you just have to take it on faith.

But color-blindness isn't an issue with the national budget and state policies, while religiosity is.

There may or may not be, but I most of the time I have no reason to be suspicious about someone claiming to have this or that religion. Most of the time I do not know whether or not it is based off a false premise and, frankly, I do not care enough to go an try to find out.
Then I guess any discussions you lead on critiques of "religious" persons is also similarly hindered.

Then I guess any discussions you lead on critiques of "religious" persons is also similarly hindered.

Pardon? I thought we were discussing the topic in a general sense.

Either way, why would that hinder me?
Also, I don't critique religious people. Not because they are religious at least.

iceaura,



Atheists often question the reality behind someone's claim to be religious -

I believe the point of the thread asks why they accept that someone is religious because they say so.


The central problem is that there are no actual criteria for the degree of a person's religiousness, that religious people seem willing to accept. That would not matter much, either, except that

There must be, otherwise religion, and, being religious, have no meaning.



meanwhile, people defending religion or specific religions usually come around to throwing a bunch of bad people out of the defended category, whatever it is, to avoid dealing with the taint.


Does that mean they are religious?


So areligious people, even the theistic ones, get impatient with the double standard. If you don't want everyone who appears to be religious and claims to be religious and is accepted in society as religious to be included in the category "religious", give us something to go on in excluding them - in advance of scandal, when it's useful.


Why don't you affored the scrutiny in finding out?
For example, on numerous occasions athiests defend the idea that
Einstein was NOT religious.

jan.

iceaura,
I believe the point of the thread asks why they accept that someone is religious because they say so.

How do you suggest we solve it?



There must be, otherwise religion, and, being religious, have no meaning.


Exactly. No meaning at all.

How do you suggest we solve it?




Exactly. No meaning at all.




I think you've ansewered your own question.
Well done!


jan.

That's brilliant Jan. Weren't you the one complaining about making you feel like a 2nd grader in that poll? How very appropriate that you now act as one.

Edit: Nevermind that was John99.

Does anyone agree with me when I say that this entire discussion is pointless because the title of "religious" is subjective?

I'll take the silence as a no lol

....on numerous occasions athiests defend the idea that
Einstein was NOT religious.

jan.
"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." Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” (Einstein, as cited in Clark 1973, 33).

It would certainly appear that Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but it would also appear that Einstein was not an atheist. He certainly never said anything that put him directly in that camp.

Pardon? I thought we were discussing the topic in a general sense.

Either way, why would that hinder me?
Also, I don't critique religious people. Not because they are religious at least.
well suppose we were discussing whether a prominent person in history was religious. If "most of the time I do not know whether or not it is based off a false premise and, frankly, I do not care enough to go an try to find out" any conclusions you care to make are hindered by a lack of investigative responsibility on your behalf.

well suppose we were discussing whether a prominent person in history was religious. If "most of the time I do not know whether or not it is based off a false premise and, frankly, I do not care enough to go an try to find out" any conclusions you care to make are hindered by a lack of investigative responsibility on your behalf.
If that were the discussion I obviously wouldn't hold that stance.

"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." Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” (Einstein, as cited in Clark 1973, 33).

It would certainly appear that Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but it would also appear that Einstein was not an atheist. He certainly never said anything that put him directly in that camp.


My point is, why are atheist bothered that he was not a theist, but are
quick to claim that Hitler was?

jan.

conversely, why are theists quick to claim that einstein was one of them but that hitler was an atheist ?

conversely, why are theists quick to claim that einstein was one of them but that hitler was an atheist ?
because theism (as advocated by theists) has a qualitative model .. atheists other hand, at least as far as this thread is concerned, don't (or admit that they don't care enough to question if there is)

Einstein had a high IQ so it is less likely he was religious.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2ue5f60.jpg

because theism (as advocated by theists) has a qualitative model .. atheists other hand, at least as far as this thread is concerned, don't (or admit that they don't care enough to question if there is)

But if theists start claiming to an atheist that Hitler was an atheist they make it personal.
Claiming that Einstein was a theist and Hitler was an atheist is part of an agenda that serves to make atheists as a group look bad. Again, that is making it personal.

conversely, why are theists quick to claim that einstein was one of them but that hitler was an atheist ?

''one of them''. :D

The point is, we care about the quality of the persons claim, not the words.
You guys don't. You don't want Einstein to be a theist because he was great scientist. But you want Hitler to a theist because of his actions.

theist = looking at the reality
atheist = trying to score points


;)


jan.

Einstein had a high IQ so it is less likely he was religious.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2ue5f60.jpg

if you don't have a qualitative model for theism, such statistics are completely useless.


("w -w-w-w-w-w- ... that's almost one datapoint")

Einstein had a high IQ so it is less likely he was religious.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2ue5f60.jpg


Would you like me to raise your IQ level by explaining to you
the difference between ''theism'' and ''religion''? :)

jan.

But if theists start claiming to an atheist that Hitler was an atheist they make it personal.
Claiming that Einstein was a theist and Hitler was an atheist is part of an agenda that serves to make atheists as a group look bad. Again, that is making it personal.
So you want to try and argue that whatever mock up an atheists runs with when playing with the term "religion" is not an attempt to make it look bad or personal?

That's brilliant Jan. Weren't you the one complaining about making you feel like a 2nd grader in that poll? How very appropriate that you now act as one.

Edit: Nevermind that was John99.

Can't get me off your mind uh..! :D

jan.

Would you like me to raise your IQ level by explaining to you
the difference between ''theism'' and ''religion''? :)

jan.

Do you think that countries with high concentration of "theists" also have a high concentration of "religious"?

Do you know that teaching me the difference between those two won't increase my IQ?

Do you think that countries with high concentration of "theists" also have a high concentration of "religious"?

Do you know that teaching me the difference between those two won't increase my IQ?
Do you think you can collect statistics about theism/religion when you don't have a qualitative model for it?

no but i can safely assume that there is a high correlation... would you like to try and prove it wrong?

Anyway here's some more material.


ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

no but i can safely assume that there is a high correlation... would you like to try and prove it wrong?

Anyway here's some more material.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
given that you don't have a qualitative model for the words you are using, any correlation you want to talk about is simply imagination (but then the argument of "correlation=causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_causation)" is also an imagination anyway)
:shrug:

So you think it's a completely unreasonable assumption?

Anyway I'm arguing that there's a higher chance of Einstein being an atheist as atheists have higher IQ than non-atheists (whatever sematics you will use to differentiate magic believers).

Here's another source of a different study:


Intelligence is a predictor of religious scepticism, a professor has argued. Rebecca Attwood reports

Belief in God is much lower among academics than among the general population because scholars have higher IQs, a controversial academic claimed this week.

In a forthcoming paper for the journal Intelligence, Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, will argue that there is a strong correlation between high IQ and lack of religious belief and that average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 countries.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402381&c=2

So you think it's a completely unreasonable assumption?
as much as correlation = causation is unreasonable and raving on about statistics when one can't even get close to a single data point is unreasonable, yes.

"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." Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” (Einstein, as cited in Clark 1973, 33).

It would certainly appear that Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but it would also appear that Einstein was not an atheist. He certainly never said anything that put him directly in that camp.
Once again, it depends on a person's concept of god. If there is only one god and I don't believe in yours - am I an atheist?

My point is, why are atheist bothered that he was not a theist, but are
quick to claim that Hitler was?

jan.
Atheists care very much. You will never see an atheist website without quotes from Einstein.

But this is the one Einstein quote you will never see on an atheist website.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. " Albert Einstein

Anyway I'm arguing that there's a higher chance of Einstein being an atheist as atheists have higher IQ than non-atheists (whatever sematics you will use to differentiate magic believers).

Here's another source of a different study:



http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402381&c=2
He is certainly not an atheist now. :)

That's very mature

That's very mature
No. Either everyone's a believer or everyone's literally nothing after death. :)

Well that we can agree on :)
Nothing but stardust.

Atheists care very much. You will never see an atheist website without quotes from Einstein.

But this is the one Einstein quote you will never see on an atheist website.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. " Albert Einstein

To understand Einsteins theism, you have to have some kind of understanding
of ''spinozas God''.
As atheists don't have any understanding (outside of intellect) about God (that's why they are atheist), they don't understand Einstein.

And don't let them tell you any different. ;)

jan.

Well that we can agree on :)
Nothing but stardust.
You failed to see my point.

As I've said earlier: He is certainly not an atheist now.

Like i said. I agree. He's dead.

Einstein had a high IQ so it is less likely he was religious.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2ue5f60.jpg
Yeah, he's not exactly the poster-boy for religious belief.

He's not exactly a poster boy for atheism either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmtK-X_MV0k
And this:

http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/vid01.shtml

Frankly I don't care much about Einstein or proving whether he's one or the other. All I'm saying is statistically people with high IQs are more likely to be atheist. Einstein had high IQ so he's statistically more likely to be an atheist. Whether or not he was, is not important (to me). I wasn't the one who brought him up and I don't see why he's so important that everyone will fight over him.

Anyway I'm arguing that there's a higher chance of Einstein being an atheist as atheists have higher IQ than non-atheists (whatever sematics you will use to differentiate magic believers).

I'm not sure that I entirely believe that. To the extent that it's true at all, it's most likely a crude statistic that doesn't really catch the nuances.

Here's what I mean:

Graduation from university is probably a better indicator of intelligence than simply taking an IQ test.

Here in the United States, in 2008, 27% of the over-25 population were university graduates.

But 31% of individuals who report no religious adherence are university graduates.

That's evidence that 'nones' are better educated than average, right?

Well, yes. But before we get carried away, let's look more closely at the numbers and break the figures down by several varieties of religious adherence:

Pentecostal/Charismatic - 13%

This grouping is most popular among the poor and among some racial minorities. These people often underperform in school and on IQ tests. Much of the reason for that might be socioeconomic.

Baptist - 16%

As above, but not so dramatically.

Catholic - 25%

This grouping comes in at near the national average (27%). That's not surprising, given the massive numbers (25.1% of American adults identify themselves as Catholic). My guess is that there's lots of variation within this group, ranging from Irish- and Italian-Americans who likely outperform, to many recent arrivals from Mexico who probably don't.

Mormon/LDS - 31%

The None's - 31%

Mainline Protestant - 35%

These are the Episcopalians, Methodists and Lutherans, typically the more theologically liberal denominations. Many of these people are from families who have been in the US for many generations and they are probably more upscale than average.

Jewish - 57%

This is a small group in which Torah study was traditionally considered a religious duty. As they have become secularized, their emphasis on study has broadened out to academics in general.

Eastern religions - 59%

Another small group, consisting of Asian immigrants who push their children very hard to succeed, combined with white converts who are typically drawn from better educated individuals.

The bottom line seems to be that in terms of university education, the difference between religious adherents and non-adherents is real but rather small. It's dwarfed by the variation between different kinds of religious adherents.

The numbers come from the authoritative 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (page 16 on the pdf version). If anyone is interested (it's a fascinating read) you can find the ARIS site by googling "ARIS survey".

Frankly I don't care much about Einstein or proving whether he's one or the other. All I'm saying is statistically people with high IQs are more likely to be atheist. Einstein had high IQ so he's statistically more likely to be an atheist. Whether or not he was, is not important (to me). I wasn't the one who brought him up and I don't see why he's so important that everyone will fight over him.

How do you think a well trained laboratary chimp would do in its natural environment given that it is considerably more ''educated'' than his jungle peers?

jan.

I'm not sure that I entirely believe that. To the extent that it's true at all, it's most likely a crude statistic that doesn't really catch the nuances.

Here's what I mean:

Graduation from university is probably a better indicator of intelligence than simply taking an IQ test.


No. Unless your definition of intelligence is "being knowledgable and/or hardworking"

Graduation from university is probably a better indicator of intelligence than simply taking an IQ test.
I don't think so. A college degree is a better indicator of education. But education != intelligence.