• Einstein was an atheist.
    151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bobie;37923122]as opposed to a non-bias opinion that believes god exists without any solid grounds of evidence right[/QUOTE] No, he was arguing that they are both biased, or rather on the same level of bias, which is also wrong.
I'm going to be honest; I'm not sure about the validity issue. I accept that I probably came off a bit strong, but I had thought we were discussing whether or not religion should be ALLOWED in the face of science, not whether one was more valid than the other. This will definitely give me something to ponder on for the next few weeks. Where that pondering ends up I can't really say. Thanks, gents
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37921300]That is probably one of the best quotes I've seen. [editline]5th October 2012[/editline] Be careful, those jews might drown you in baklava![/QUOTE] Those Muslims might behead you and those Christians might PUT YOU TO [I][B]DEATH[/B][/I].
[QUOTE=mac338;37921210]I'm pretty sure Einstein was a pantheist; he believed the universe itself was god, an allness, which was reflected on all of his work, as well as his downfall where he refused to accept quantum mechanics. He was not an atheist, nor a Christian, Jew or any other major belief. He did not believe in a personal god, but rather an impersonal one. Quite a spiritual man.[/QUOTE] for all intents and purposes that is atheism because people don't care about the specifics, but how the religious belief will affect people's decisions in Judeo religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) the holy books flat out say homosexuality is wrong, this life barely matters and the next life is more important and infinite, x is bad thus do y, etc
So beforehand Einstein was pretty much known as a deist/pantheist, and there wasn't anything absolute directly implying that he was an athiest until this document arose. But why this letter? I'm wondering why it was so direct in such a letter, and not anything else. [quote]The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.[/quote]
this is common knowledge.
[QUOTE=mac338;37921210]I'm pretty sure Einstein was a pantheist; he believed the universe itself was god, an allness, which was reflected on all of his work, as well as his downfall where he refused to accept quantum mechanics. He was not an atheist, nor a Christian, Jew or any other major belief. He did not believe in a personal god, but rather an impersonal one. Quite a spiritual man.[/QUOTE] You've pretty much described how I feel.
a god is a person, if it is present as an energy or universe, it is not a god, and the belief is only using the word 'god' to either not alienate others or to not alienate yourself, because the concept of no god period is too far or uncomfortable for most people
Come to terms with the fact that the universe is, what it is. Accept that you are a part of it, and be mind blown that it is a part of you. [quote=Carl Sagan][I]"The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together."[/I][/quote]
i hope that people gets the fact that being a religious person is as valid as being an atheist
[QUOTE=falcont2t;37923472]i hope that people gets the fact that being a religious person is as valid as being an atheist[/QUOTE] I hope that you understand that people are "atheist" because theists have not produced any factual validity to a belief since time immemorial. Calling "[I][B]Bullshit"[/B][/I] when someone say's: [quote]"Hey, there is a god or gods, and his, her, it's or their name(s) is and or are ""???"", and it/them/they believe ""X"".[/quote] ..is the more rational decision. Suggested Reading Material: [URL="http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm"]The Dragon In My Garage[/URL] [URL="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell's_Teapot"]Russell's Teapot[/URL]
[QUOTE=Bobie;37922986]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] [quote=Ecklund survey]In further analysis, published in 2007, Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle conclude that "the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable"[/quote] [quote=pew survey]"just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science[/url] Not only are you wrong statistically, but the assertion that there's two distinct camps of "logical science-people" and "dumb religious-people" is horrible (and wrong).
[QUOTE=falcont2t;37923472]i hope that people gets the fact that being a religious person is as valid as being an atheist[/QUOTE] Depends what you mean by valid. [editline]5th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=1STrandomman;37923732][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science[/url] Not only are you wrong statistically, but the assertion that there's two distinct camps of "logical science-people" and "dumb religious-people" is horrible (and wrong).[/QUOTE] Well no, of course there are not only 'people that believe in only things tested by the scientific method' and 'people that believe in only their religion', but that does not at all speak to religion's (of any variation) credibility.
Why can't someone believe in both science and religion?
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;37923732][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science[/URL] Not only are you wrong statistically, but the assertion that there's two distinct camps of "logical science-people" and "dumb religious-people" is horrible (and wrong).[/QUOTE] logical minds, not hurr durr every scientist (studying a [I]massive variety[/I] of things) in existence. also where did you get the second half of that statement from? sounds like we're investigating a case involving death by strawman you also might need to take into account that there are statements from that source which contradict what you've said "Among members of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences"]National Academy of Sciences[/URL], 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.[SUP][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#cite_note-101"][102][/URL]" [/SUP]
[QUOTE=Bradyns;37923540]I hope that you understand that people are "atheist" because theists have not produced any factual validity to a belief since time immemorial. Calling "[I][B]Bullshit"[/B][/I] when someone say's: ..is the more rational decision. Suggested Reading Material: [URL="http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm"]The Dragon In My Garage[/URL] [URL="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell's_Teapot"]Russell's Teapot[/URL][/QUOTE] Look Bradyns. It isn't about now, it's about when. When did religion actually help the progress of humanity? Just the same as science? When it was created and developed an exponential increase in cultural development in those areas. It made order where there was none. Now, religion might not have its uses nowadays, but to blow it off as some completely useless thing is very ignorant and not even taking any time to see any historical usage and instead make blind claims. Religion had its place in time. It is an outdated structure for society now, but it still a liable belief for people. People can disregard many things put in the written pieces of text because of their outdated usage for when it was needed back then. Also for some reason if you need some form of validity of their religion if you already know its historical usefulness, then what's the point? [QUOTE=Kymandu;37923987]Well obviously, with his logical reasoning and ability to think above a 3rd grade text he can conclude the lack of probability of a higher being.[/QUOTE] Like this. To say that these written texts from our past are "terrible" is just not a complete detailed thought. These written texts are always going to be part of the list of numerous memorable books throughout human history because of the change they occurred in the culture during its time. It is definitely also not in a 3rd grade format for any of the texts if written in a straight translation. Also to note, If you read more into it, Einstein didn't conclude the lack of probability of a higher being, but instead as others have said, became a pantheist.
Well obviously, with his logical reasoning and ability to think above a 3rd grade text he can conclude the lack of probability of a higher being.
[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. [B]You offend me by saying science has been as damaging as religion when it in fact, has not.[/B] You offend me and scientists alike by describing their work as mere beliefs. [/QUOTE] How many times has technological innovation led to death and environmental destruction?
[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;37923949]Why can't someone believe in both science and religion?[/QUOTE] As we've already explained, science is not a belief in the same way that religion is a belief. So yes, while you can certainly agree that evolution happened and that God exists, one is more justified than the other if judged objectively.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;37923732][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science[/url] Not only are you wrong statistically, but the assertion that there's two distinct camps of "logical science-people" and "dumb religious-people" is horrible (and wrong).[/QUOTE] He was talking about scientists in fields like biology, physics, etc. Science covers a large range of things, and many of those don't contradict religion, such as Sociology, Economy, Psychology, etc.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37924060]As we've already explained, science is not a belief in the same way that religion is a belief. So yes, while you can certainly agree that evolution happened and that God exists, one is more justified than the other if judged objectively.[/QUOTE] The two are completely independent of one another. A belief in a higher power does not interfere with an ability to determine if a hypothesis is properly supported. One can still believe in some form of a "god" in what ever sense they desire, and still carry out and "believe" in scientific method. While science is more justified in the sense that it is supported by premises, it is not "more justified" than religion. Some religions contradict science, but not all do. Therefore, it is possible for someone to believe in Science and Religion.
[quote=Einstein]As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups … I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.[/quote] Some Jews should take this into account. It's incredible we have a society which pardons supremacy claims from only one particular group.
[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;37924252]The two are completely independent of one another. A belief in a higher power does not interfere with an ability to determine if a hypothesis is properly supported. One can still believe in some form of a "god" in what ever sense they desire, and still carry out and "believe" in scientific method. While science is more justified in the sense that it is supported by premises, it is not "more justified" than religion. Some religions contradict science, but not all do. Therefore, it is possible for someone to believe in Science and Religion.[/QUOTE] Except that above all, religion makes at a minimum one assertion (although often more) of the existence of a higher power without testable evidence. The fact that Christianity, for example, has over the years lost out on many of the assertions its leaders used to support, such as multiple literal interpretations of scripture, [I]should[/I] speak volumes about the ground it stands on. To say that religion and the scientific method can be believed simultaneously would mean that you trust the scientific method, but at the same time believe that it in some instances where it cannot explain something, that you can have the answer without it. So, if you claim that there is a higher power but cannot adequately explain it, and the scientific method cannot be used to prove it, then you are saying that: "I can't explain it, but I believe to know the answer (Read: I can explain it)"
[QUOTE=Megafan;37924327]Except that above all, religion makes at a minimum one assertion (although often more) of the existence of a higher power without testable evidence. The fact that Christianity, for example, has over the years lost out on many of the assertions its leaders used to support, such as multiple literal interpretations of scripture, [I]should[/I] speak volumes about the ground it stands on. To say that religion and the scientific method can be believed simultaneously would mean that you trust the scientific method, but at the same time believe that it in some instances where it cannot explain something, that you can have the answer without it. So, if you claim that there is a higher power but cannot adequately explain it, and the scientific method cannot be used to prove it, then you are saying that: "I can't explain it, but I believe to know the answer (Read: I can explain it)"[/QUOTE] Game, Set & Match.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37923978]logical minds, not hurr durr every scientist (studying a [I]massive variety[/I] of things) in existence. also where did you get the second half of that statement from? sounds like we're investigating a case involving death by strawman you also might need to take into account that there are statements from that source which contradict what you've said "Among members of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences"]National Academy of Sciences[/URL], 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.[SUP][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#cite_note-101"][102][/URL]" [/SUP][/QUOTE] I suppose my point requires the assumption that scientists have logical minds, but that's because otherwise your point is irrefutable due to it's vague (not to mention anecdotal) nature. Your statement supposed that there are logical and illogical minds, and that logical minds are skeptical of the existence of a god. Even if you didn't mean to say that smart people don't believe in god and dumb people do, it's heavily implied.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;37924554]I suppose my point requires the assumption that scientists have logical minds, because otherwise your point is irrefutable due to it's vague (not to mention anecdotal) nature. Your statement supposed that there are logical and illogical minds, and that logical minds are skeptical of the existence of a god. Even if you didn't mean to say that smart people don't believe in god and dumb people do, it's heavily implied.[/QUOTE] "assumption is the mother of all fuckups"
Why is this in Sensationalist Headlines? Of course he was an atheist, it leaves out the whole "this is how it is because god made it so" issue
[QUOTE=Bobie;37924563]"assumption is the mother of all fuckups"[/QUOTE] Congratulations to your first statement then; it's a boy!
Newton was a Christian, sure, but this shouldn't be surprising in the least
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;37921044]I thought he was pantheist.[/QUOTE] Well, pantheism is simply redefining god as the universe itself. its a good way to prevent yourself from being persecuted, especially in those times, for being "atheist"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.