• Einstein was an atheist.
    151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Fish_poke;37922440]Theories are still just that. Theories. Doesn't matter if they are standard or scientific. The main difference being equations that show what MIGHT be true, but also may be wrong. What if Einstein was wrong in that e=mc^2? That would essentially destroy all theories in existence that relate to Quantum Mechanics. My point is that Science is also held on common belief, and some treat it as a religion which it isn't. Science and religion are separate things that hold some common traits. That isn't to say I disagree with science, no I generally enjoy it. But to hold it above religion is silly. They're different, stop putting one above the other.[/QUOTE] Either you are a troll, or ignorant of the scientific method. I am not sure which but.. WOW! A "Scientific Theory" is a cohesive explanation of a set of observed facts.. It isn't a "hunch" or "speculation" it is the most explanatory concept that comprehensively covers all data points to no exclusion, as it allows for future predictions. Overall a scientific theory must be falsifiable, in that it must say: "If 'so-and-so' is found, then this explanation is wrong, or is in need of modification or reconsideration". -- Besides Buddhism, I have never seen this sort of philosophy be sought in any religion. "[B][I]To hold it above religion is silly[/I][/B]" -.-'
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;37922523]It's hard to peacefully co-exist when they have opposing beliefs on important things.[/QUOTE] A lot of things are hard. what would be the easy solution? Eradication of one of the conflicting belief systems?
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922548]A lot of things are hard. what would be the easy solution? Eradication of one of the conflicting belief systems?[/QUOTE] When you talk in cold, hard, tangible facts -- the playground starts to look a little deserted..
[QUOTE=Bradyns;37922573]When you talk in cold, hard, tangible facts -- the playground starts to look a little deserted..[/QUOTE] Mate this isn't really the place for sideways analogies or parable
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922437]The idea that there should be no contradiction doesn't really sit; we are inherently full of contradictions on every level.[/QUOTE] Except that a proper scientific theory is a coherent explanation based on facts, and a religious explanation of an event is all but pulled out of thin air? The two are incomparable, and religious ideology has no room to claim or ascribe truth to explanations about the universe. So yeah, if the two contradict (and they do), there should be no contradictions. Whether the human mind has contradictions during our everyday life has no bearing on how many contradictions scientific theories [I]should[/I] have with the rest of the world's thinking. [editline]5th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Maloof?;37922585]Mate this isn't really the place for sideways analogies or parable[/QUOTE] Point being, that when dealing with logical and empirically tested theories, it's got nothing to do with how you interpret it.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37922612]Except that a proper scientific theory is a coherent explanation based on facts, and a religious explanation of an event is all but pulled out of thin air? The two are incomparable, and religious ideology has no room to claim or ascribe truth to explanations about the universe. So yeah, if the two contradict (and they do), there should be no contradictions. Whether the human mind has contradictions during our everyday life has no bearing on how many contradictions scientific theories [I]should[/I] have with the rest of the world's thinking. [editline]5th October 2012[/editline] Point being, that when dealing with logical and empirically tested theories, it's got nothing to do with how you interpret it.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about two opposing parties with opposing beliefs. These beliefs don't need to overrule one another or be consolidated. They can exist as separate and entirely intact entities It sounds like you're suggesting that there should be only one true set of beliefs in the world, and that that set of beliefs should be science. Unless I'm misreading what you're saying
[QUOTE=Fish_poke;37922440] That isn't to say I disagree with science, no I generally enjoy it. But to hold it above religion is silly. They're different, stop putting one above the other.[/QUOTE] Religion can stand on the same pedestal as science when it improves my life as much as science has.
I honestly just wish people would keep religion to themselves and not be allowed to teach it to their kids. Im an atheist myself, and i typically shut the fuck up about it. Only if someone asks me directly will i say anything. This is whats wrong with religion and atheists alike. They dont know how to just be and let live. Who cares what you believe in ya know. If anything we would be more unified as a species if it werent for religion sadly. Im not saying we would be more advanced, but there wouldnt be this great divide among us and all this senseless violence. Idk, maybe im just hoping to much that our world can see that the future is space and to get there, god or anything like that must be left out of it and kept in your own home and at your own place of worship, it shouldnt be out in the streets or anywhere else. Its your own beliefs and trying to convert other people is counter productive. Hell i was never told about the bible or anything, and my parents never told me they were atheists. I literally found it out all on my own from friends and such... thats how i came to my own conclusion that the bible, quran, the Torah and all forms of religion in general is just a coping mechanism for death and the long standing thought of why. No one wants to accept that "nothing" might be our future and our "why" is just because. Its a scary thought and frightens me everyday, but after doing so much research im sure of it. And honestly, i think the world needs religion, in some aspect, just to keep people sane and motivated. Removing hope is a bad thing. But, it needs to be limited and not forced down children s throats. Freedom should start at birth in a sense. That your free to believe whatever you want when your ready to understand it. Yeah. I just believe in me and the world around me. We are just biological annomilies, floating in an infinite vacuum of the past. We are us. Nothing more, Nothing less. So why cant we all just get along :(
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922585]Mate this isn't really the place for sideways analogies or parable[/QUOTE] If you are to compare side-by-side, reproducible explanations with testable predictions.. to a "once of event" from a religious text that asks its adherence to use the more righteous method of "faith" [Which amazingly hasn't managed to happen on a grandiose scale since camera's were a thing] Can God stop the sun in the sky again? Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr will Newton still be correct about the next blue moon 285years after his death?
I think people should be allowed to teach it to their kids. I don't really believe in interfering with people's home lives unless the kid is being abused. I don't see religious teaching as abuse. I have enough faith in kids to believe that they will be old enough to think for themselves. Every kid I know that's been bought up in a religious household has had the sense to make the choice as to whether they continue with the religion or not, instead of just 'going along' with it. Some stayed, some didn't. It's very rarely a case of blindly believing 'this is right'. I got hit with RI in school and went to a bunch of christian camps when I was young. I'm quite capable of deciding what I want to believe in [editline]6th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bradyns;37922705]If you are to compare side-by-side, reproducible explanations with testable predictions.. to a "once of event" from a religious text that asks its adherence to use the more righteous method of "faith" [Which amazingly hasn't managed to happen on a grandiose scale since camera's were a thing] Can God stop the sun in the sky again? Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr will Newton still be correct about the next blue moon 285years after his death?[/QUOTE] Ok it sounds like you're just spouting 'science is better than religion, religious people suck' bullshit
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922731] Ok it sounds like you're just spouting 'science is better than religion, religious people suck' bullshit[/QUOTE] But science is better than religion. I don't think religious people suck, but I do think they put too much stock in blind faith.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922654]I'm talking about two opposing parties with opposing beliefs. These beliefs don't need to overrule one another or be consolidated. They can exist as separate and entirely intact entities It sounds like you're suggesting that there should be only one true set of beliefs in the world, and that that set of beliefs should be science. Unless I'm misreading what you're saying[/QUOTE] We've said it before and I'll say it again: Science is not a set of beliefs in the same vein as religion. When you say the 'beliefs of religion', those are based entirely on faith. When you say 'the beliefs of science', those by design attempt to be as close to absolute fact as possible supported by evidence, tests, and peer review. If party A claims that the world was created by a great flood with nothing to support it other than their own word and a long-held belief, and party B follows the Big Bang theory, party B is objectively 'more correct' based on [I]why[/I] they believe it. The claim that [the world was creating by a sentient, omnipotent, perfect (but requiring of worship), and unseeable entity] and [the universe came about through an expanding of a single point based upon a theory that is logically consistent and supported, although it is not all-encompassing and perfect] do not exist in different realms of reality.
[QUOTE=Hellduck;37921975]Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong, but that doesn't sound like very genuine belief if you're weighing up the perks of it.[/QUOTE] If I understand you correctly I have to disagree. What you seem to be implying is that 'genuine belief' comes from within. So if someone weighs the pros and cons(ie outside evidence), then it's not genuine belief. I think it's obvious that ALL belief comes from outside. When you are born, you are not born with any beliefs. You may be born with instincts, to eat and reproduce for example, but no beliefs. Your beliefs are fed to you from the outside. For instance, no one is born a Christian, they are made into Christians after they are born. I bet that's one bit of knowledge that Einstein saw right away. It's a joke for one religious person to say "My way(Christianity) is the one true way" when that same person would be saying "My way(Islam) is the one true way" if he had simply been born in another part of the world.
[QUOTE=King of Limbs;37922685]This is whats wrong with religion and atheists alike. They dont know how to just be and let live.[/QUOTE] Fence-sitting and acting above it all are not going to get us anywhere.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37922788]We've said it before and I'll say it again: Science is not a set of beliefs in the same vein as religion. When you say the 'beliefs of religion', those are based entirely on faith. When you say 'the beliefs of science', those by design attempt to be as close to absolute fact as possible supported by evidence, tests, and peer review. If party A claims that the world was created by a great flood with nothing to support it other than their own word and a long-held belief, and party B follows the Big Bang theory, party B is objectively 'more correct' based on [I]why[/I] they believe it. The claim that [the world was creating by a sentient, omnipotent, perfect (but requiring of worship), and unseeable entity] and [the universe came about through an expanding of a single point based upon a theory that is logically consistent and supported, although it is not all-encompassing and perfect] do not exist in different realms of reality.[/QUOTE] It is still a belief that science is correct, in the same way that Christianity is a belief that the bible is correct. You're arguing from a scientific point of view, so you are judging your belief that science is true to be 'fact'. Religious people may do the same. I'm trying to view this from the outside of both of these beliefs. We're talking about whether two people holding these two separate beliefs can coexist without us having to overrule one of the other. I don't care who is objectively 'more correct'; it's about respecting what these other people believe and allowing them their belief without rocking up and trying to disprove or eradicate it
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;37921256]I thought it was obvious that people with higher education, and especially scientists are all atheists (pantheists, determinists, etc) and avoid common religions like the plague that they are.[/QUOTE] Galileo, Charles Darwin, and George Lemaitre(he proposed the big bang theory) were all very pious christians.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37922795]Let me try something else here. I dont think that atheists should bitch at other atheists for being too open and outspoken about being atheists. You offend my belief system by lowering science to the same level as religion. You offend me by saying science has been as damaging as religion when it in fact, has not. You offend me and scientists alike by describing their work as mere beliefs. Do you see why the argument "dont be a dick to religious people" is flawed? People will get upset and offended and hurt by fucking anything these days. It is pointless to try and tip-toe around touchy subjects that stand in the way of our progress as a race. People need to know the truth so that we may move on from petty concepts and finally evolve. There is no use for keeping old beliefs, just for its own sake and upholding some super-libertarian form of society. Im not saying we revert to fascism obviously, or [I]ban [/I]religion, Im saying we should start treating these concepts as old and outdated, as they are.[/QUOTE] Please read what I'm saying: I'm not saying scientific works are 'beliefs'; I'm saying that scientific folk put their belief in science as a way of explaining the universe in the same way that religious folk put their belief in their religion.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;37922861]Galileo, Charles Darwin, and George Lemaitre(he proposed the big bang theory) were all very pious christians.[/QUOTE] They were products of their societies. Being extremely smart didn't mean being an atheist in those times. But nowadays you'd have to be pretty indoctrinated to believe fully in an abrahamic religion and, lets say be a scholar of Evolutionary Biology.
[QUOTE=Speedhax;37922910]They were products of their societies. Being extremely smart didn't mean being an atheist in those times. But nowadays you'd have to be pretty indoctrinated to believe fully in an abrahamic religion and, lets say be a scholar of Evolutionary Biology.[/QUOTE] Why? One doesn't contradict the other.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922852]It is still a belief that science is correct, in the same way that Christianity is a belief that the bible is correct.[/QUOTE] One is rational, and one isn't. ♫One of these things is not like the other♫
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922852]It is still a belief that science is correct, in the same way that Christianity is a belief that the bible is correct.[/QUOTE] Not quite. Let's see if I can provide a better example. Person A and person B both conduct the same experiment, leaving a piece of bread in a jar for a few weeks to see what happens. After a while, the bread begins to turn green and gray. Person A looks at it closely, smells it, looks at it under a microscope and asks a friend of his knowledgeable about such things what it might be, and determines that it is likely mold. Person B has a book that claims "when things turn different colours than they should be, then it must be an act of God", and believes that it must have been an act of God. What you have basically said in your post is that Person A's conclusion is of [I]exactly the same worth and has as much truth as[/I] Person B's conclusion.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37922938]Darwin had a range of religious beliefs throughout his life. Pious Christian was not one of them. He was a non-conformist and would often skip church, he also claimed to be more agnostic than anything else. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin#Agnosticism[/url][/QUOTE] whoops
most logical minds are sceptical on the existence of a god. this isn't too shocking to be honest, regardless of the time and environment he grew up in.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;37922966]One is rational, and one isn't. ♫One of these things is not like the other♫[/QUOTE] I'm out. I firmly believe that religious people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. I don't think this thread is really going anywhere other than 'this is my opinion and this is why it's better than yours'. I gotta sleep. It's been interesting! See you cats later. [editline]6th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Marbalo;37922987]Are you actually arguing that they BELIEVE in FACTS? And so because of this, religion and science are not that different? Really? Is that your point?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that they believe that they are believing in facts and that that is a perfectly okay thing for them to do.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922899]Please read what I'm saying: I'm not saying scientific works are 'beliefs'; I'm saying that scientific folk put their belief in science as a way of explaining the universe in the same way that religious folk put their belief in their religion.[/QUOTE] Placing belief in, as you say "scientific works" with grounding in evidence and testing is not the same as belief in religious ideology grounded in no evidence and untestable claims. Yes, technically they are both 'beliefs' in the sense that you agree with them, but they are [I]not of the same value.[/I] [editline]5th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Maloof?;37922994]I'm out. I firmly believe that religious people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. I don't think this thread is really going anywhere other than 'this is my opinion and this is why it's better than yours'.[/QUOTE] Except that is not the discussion we are having. No one is saying that believing what you want should be outlawed, only that you CAN be wrong about what you believe, and no one's beliefs are exempt from scrutiny if there is a better and more logically consistent explanation for what their beliefs attempt to explain.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37923016]Placing belief in, as you say "scientific works" with grounding in evidence and testing is not the same as belief in religious ideology grounded in no evidence and untestable claims. Yes, technically they are both 'beliefs' in the sense that you agree with them, but they are [I]not of the same value.[/I][/QUOTE] Again, that's a biased opinion because you are speaking from a clearly defined opposing viewpoint This is my last post for reals Night
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37923043]Again, that's a biased opinion because you are speaking from a clearly defined opposing viewpoint[/QUOTE] But it's opposed because it has grounding in evidence, logic, and the real world. How do you not understand this?
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37922994]I'm out. I firmly believe that religious people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. I don't think this thread is really going anywhere other than 'this is my opinion and this is why it's better than yours'. I gotta sleep. It's been interesting! See you cats later. [editline]6th October 2012[/editline] I'm saying that they believe that they are believing in facts and that that is a perfectly okay thing for them to do.[/QUOTE] I have never argued that religious adherents shouldn't believe what they are so inclined to.. Everyone deserve the same freedom of religion, as outlined in Articles #1, #2, #18, #19 & #20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But, the above is not the points we have discussed -- the mention that "religion is as valid as science" because they are both "beliefs" in the same context is to exhibit ignorance on amazing level, or a disconnect from reality like no other.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37923043]Again, that's a biased opinion because you are speaking from a clearly defined opposing viewpoint This is my last post for reals Night[/QUOTE] as opposed to a non-bias opinion that believes god exists without any solid grounds of evidence right
[QUOTE=OP][img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121003065624-einstein-letter-envelope-story-top.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Who the hell wrote "Einstein letter" on it in pencil?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.