MaddKossack115
theTrueConfusions
dpell251
ZenEinKodama
Anicomicgeek
xraineynight713x
schizmatic
DarkCrypt
LeelooPoulain
lisa-im-laerm
majicfrog
Limnoria
Watching 13
DA-Philosophers
K-B-Jones
LogicSquad
Club-Atomix
atheist-alliance
Secular-Human
MichiIzkurEreshkigal
Ex-Christians
DaisyViktoria
SadisticIceCream
JeanFan
Nekromanda
MamaLucia
Collection
Favourites
Artist // Hobbyist // Varied
- United States
- Deviant for 11 years
- He / Him
Badges
Profile Comments 28
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Thanks for the Llama!
You bet 
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.
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.
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.
Dawkins is a very confident and happy man, you haven't read any of his books, I bet.
Religion is a trap.
Einstein was as Jewish as a Jew can get - just look at him. 
YOU are a sad case, though.
YOU are a sad case, though.
Einstein was an Atheist, and he was disgusted when people assumed he was religious. The best people leave your tribe.
View all replies
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.
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.