Belief in God "Childish"

[peewee's lovechild]

Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter


Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.
The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

"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," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.


In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.

Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP.


Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

[BacktoBasics]

986 of the worlds greatest minds could denouce religion and all you'd end up with is 986 people for the bible thumpers to hate. Its an inpenatrable barrier of stupidity.

[midgetonadonkey]

Wow. Another religion debate. These are always fun to read. :jack

[midgetonadonkey]

Can you post another "is this art" thread too?

[ATRAIN]

Can you post another "is this art" thread too?



LMAO.....This time can we starve a cat?

[remingtonbo2001]

I wonder what context the letter is in. Did Einstein define the Jewish belief in God as childish supersition, or the belief of God in general? I can't imagine it being the latter, judging his previous statements. I don't believe Einstein was athesist by any measure. However, I do believe his concept of God was beyond any literary interpretation, in part b/c his mind was different. I believe he tried to find a science behind God.

Interesting topic.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Faith in religion has been, historically, THE most resilient aspect of human nature. No amount of scientific evidence to the contrary will ever change that. People believe in God because they need to. Faith needs no proof and because of this, is also immune to all proof to the contrary. Trying to argue for or against it is pointless.

[DarkReign]

Faith in religion has been, historically, THE most resilient aspect of human nature. No amount of scientific evidence to the contrary will ever change that. People believe in God because they need to. Faith needs no proof and because of this, is also immune to all proof to the contrary. Trying to argue for or against it is pointless.

Well put.

[mrsmaalox]

Wow. Another religion debate. These are always fun to read. :jack


Can you post another "is this art" thread too?

And while your at it, can we have another "tits are great" one? :lol

[velik_m]

Faith in religion has been, historically, THE most resilient aspect of human nature. No amount of scientific evidence to the contrary will ever change that. People believe in God because they need to. Faith needs no proof and because of this, is also immune to all proof to the contrary. Trying to argue for or against it is pointless.

I fully agree. Faith in god is a matter of belief not evidence, and thus outside of science's scope.

I would also like to add that the title is misleading.


For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions

He's criticising religion, not neccessarilly faith in god.

[peewee's lovechild]

I wonder what context the letter is in. Did Einstein define the Jewish belief in God as childish supersition, or the belief of God in general? I can't imagine it being the latter, judging his previous statements. I don't believe Einstein was athesist by any measure. However, I do believe his concept of God was beyond any literary interpretation, in part b/c his mind was different. I believe he tried to find a science behind God.

Interesting topic.

Dude, read it again.

"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."

It's pretty self explanatory.

[peewee's lovechild]

He's criticising religion, not neccessarilly faith in god.

Read post #11.

[Don Quixote]

And your point is?

[dickface]

And your point is?

peewee doesn't believe in having a point. he just likes seeing his post count go up.

[clambake]

And your point is?

the belief is childish, i'll agree. but the most disturbing aspect is the people that manipulate the "weakness" disguised as the lords servant. i mean, really, is there anything more disturbing than a lying minister? they're probably capable of anything devious.

[remingtonbo2001]

peewee doesn't believe in having a point. he just likes seeing his post count go up.

Figures :rolleyes

He obviously missed the mark on my comment.

[Spurminator]

Faith needs no proof and because of this, is also immune to all proof to the contrary. Trying to argue for or against it is pointless.

It's not that it's immune to proof... There's no "proof" to be immune to.

[BacktoBasics]

It's not that it's immune to proof... There's no "proof" to be immune to.:lol :sigh: :lmao

[Spurminator]

The problem is the most blaring Christian arguments for faith attempt to disprove scientific facts and theories.

[BonnerDynasty]

These people who denounce religion are just as fucking annoying as the crazy religious people.


No one has any idea WTF is going on so just be happy and keep your shit to yourself.

[Don Quixote]

The problem is the most blaring Christian arguments for faith attempt to disprove scientific facts and theories.

No ... that's actually not true. If you were to say, "a few Christian arguments try to disprove science," then, I'd say fine. But most of the arguments for the existence of God go back many centuries have very little to do with modern science.

Examples: The ontological argument is from the 11th century. It fell out of favor during the Renaissance, but lately Alvin Plantinga has been doing good work in reviving it.

The moral argument dates back to Aquinas in the 12th century, and deals with the existence of moral norms, why we have them, and where they might come from. C.S. Lewis focused on this one. Doesn't have much to do with modern science.

The cosmological argument likewise dates to Aquinas, although Aristotle alluded to it as well. It argues, roughly, that everything has a logical cause, so something had to cause the first thing that happened. Medieval Islamic philosophers, and William Lane Craig today, have done quite a lot of work on this one. (In fact, I saw Craig speak last year, and he stole the show. The atheist, a good atheist by the way (Dennett), didn't even try to respond.) The cosmological argument today deals a bit with science (the expanding universe), but it generally doesn't challenge evolution.

And then there's the teleological argument -- the argument from design. This is the only one that really challenges commonly held science. ID is essentially a form of the teleological argument.

Bottom line, though, the arguments are only arguments. In fact, you can reject one or all of them, and still believe in God.

[BacktoBasics]

These people who denounce religion are just as fucking annoying as the crazy religious people.


But at least the arguements are plausible. I don't think anyones trying to denounce religion based on supernatural phenomena.

[Don Quixote]

Second, I would advise that atheists not argue against God based on an a priori bias against the supernatural. They don't know any more than theists know whether or not the supernatural exists or can happen. In effect, they would be saying, supernatural things can't happen because the supernatural doesn't exist. It's circular.

It would be better for them to argue that we don't KNOW whether or not the supernatural exists, it's not probable.

[Spurminator]

No ... that's actually not true. If you were to say, "a few Christian arguments try to disprove science," then, I'd say fine. But most of the arguments for the existence of God go back many centuries have very little to do with modern science.

Examples: The ontological argument is from the 11th century. It fell out of favor during the Renaissance, but lately Alvin Plantinga has been doing good work in reviving it.

The moral argument dates back to Aquinas in the 12th century, and deals with the existence of moral norms, why we have them, and where they might come from. C.S. Lewis focused on this one. Doesn't have much to do with modern science.

The cosmological argument likewise dates to Aquinas, although Aristotle alluded to it as well. It argues, roughly, that everything has a logical cause, so something had to cause the first thing that happened. Medieval Islamic philosophers, and William Lane Craig today, have done quite a lot of work on this one. (In fact, I saw Craig speak last year, and he stole the show. The atheist, a good atheist by the way (Dennett), didn't even try to respond.) The cosmological argument today deals a bit with science (the expanding universe), but it generally doesn't challenge evolution.

And then there's the teleological argument -- the argument from design. This is the only one that really challenges commonly held science. ID is essentially a form of the teleological argument.

Bottom line, though, the arguments are only arguments. In fact, you can reject one or all of them, and still believe in God.


That's all well and good, but I'd guess less than 10% of practicing Christians could tell you about any of those arguments. At least the ones I've grown up with.

In my experience, it has been very difficult for a lot of Christians to get past the Evolution vs. Creation false dilemma. This is amplified by media coverage of controversies related to the teaching of evolution in schools.

[clambake]

Examples: The ontological argument is from the 11th century. It fell out of favor during the Renaissance, but lately Alvin Plantinga has been doing good work in reviving it.

yipee. while you're at it, why don't you revive jack and the beanstalk.

[Don Quixote]

If you refer to young-earth types, then yes, you are correct. I have some problems with their interpretation of the Bible and their philosophy of science.

But let's not pretend, either, that science has disproven God. First, that is a HUGE statement to make. How could one prove that statement? Second, 20th century science has often helped theism. Indeed, one could argue that Einstein's own general theory of relativity (which proved an expanding universe) had theistic implications -- there was a beginning! And, third, the classical arguments won't go away. We still have to deal with the fact that we have language, cognition, conscience, and morals. For the theist, this is no problem, but for the atheist, he has to give plausible explanations for them. (This is a very small nutshell).

As for your experience with "bubba" type Christians, yes, you're right about them. I wish more of us were educated on the issues. But let's not pretend, either, that atheists, as a whole, are any more informed on them.

[BigZak]

The belief in God and Jesus IS childish...that is what makes it so great...

hatred is bred from the 'mature' minds of the corrupted...

N E X T...:wakeup

[Extra Stout]

yipee. while you're at it, why don't you revive jack and the beanstalk.

Do you assume that everyone who preceded modernity is stupid?

[Extra Stout]

As for your experience with "bubba" type Christians, yes, you're right about them. I wish more of us were educated on the issues. But let's not pretend, either, that atheists, as a whole, are any more informed on them.
As recently as a couple of generations ago, there were very few non-intellectual atheists, because the prevailing cultural assumptions were theistic. Today, however, there is a cultural tendency towards naturalism and nihilism, so non-intellectual atheists are more common. However, due to the way it used to be, these unthinking atheists imagine that they know what they are talking about simply because they are atheists.

[Don Quixote]

Stout, good to hear from you again.

Yes, I understand Alister McGrath brings this up in his latest book. Atheism, he says, used to be primarily an intellectual movement. As it developed, it of course made it into the mainstream, so now the majority of atheists are of the presumptive type -- not particularly interested in the issues.

Have you noticed atheists becoming less and less tolerant toward religion in general?

[Extra Stout]

Have you noticed atheists becoming less and less tolerant toward religion in general?
Trends are not favoring the spread of atheism. Thus, the polemics.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

As recently as a couple of generations ago, there were very few non-intellectual atheists, because the prevailing cultural assumptions were theistic. Today, however, there is a cultural tendency towards naturalism and nihilism, so non-intellectual atheists are more common. However, due to the way it used to be, these unthinking atheists imagine that they know what they are talking about simply because they are atheists.

This might be true, but I also think that given that religion is based on nothing but assumptions, wouldn't it be fair to say that when talking about religion/atheism nobody KNOWS what they're talking about?

[Don Quixote]

Some people will follow that line of thinking, that no one can say anything meaningful whatsoever about religion. These people were the logical positivists and it was a big movement in the 20th century.

However ... the statement, "no one can say anything meaningful about religion," is ITSELF a meaningful statement? Yes or no? And furthermore, if no one can say anything at all, then everyone's religion is equally valid and true, and this includes crazy religions (cults, radical Islam). We can't criticize them because we don't know what we're talking about. This gets absurd.

Second, I don't argue for all religions. I am a Christian and argue for Christianity. And Christianity is not a blind faith without any evidence whatsoever. It's not only metaphysical assumptions and things we cannot prove. The belief in God is reasonable, and I would say probable. The Bible is a generally reliable document that accurately describes life in the 3d millenium BC up to the first century AD. (Actually, my position on the Bible's truth is much stronger than this). And, I believe in the person of Jesus. Each of these convictions is held in faith, but undergirded by study in history, archaeology, and science.

[Extra Stout]

This might be true, but I also think that given that religion is based on nothing but assumptions, wouldn't it be fair to say that when talking about religion/atheism nobody KNOWS what they're talking about?

Can you postulate any line of reasoning whatsoever that does not make any a priori assumptions?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Can you postulate any line of reasoning whatsoever that does not make any a priori assumptions?

touché

[peewee's lovechild]

And your point is?

It's pretty simple.

But, let me spell it out for you:

E-i-n-s-t-e-i-n t-h-o-u-g-h-t t-o b-e-l-i-e-v-e i-n g-o-d w-a-s c-h-i-l-d-i-s-h.


That good for you?

[peewee's lovechild]

peewee doesn't believe in having a point. he just likes seeing his post count go up.

That's right, dickface.

[Don Quixote]

It's pretty simple.

But, let me spell it out for you:

E-i-n-s-t-e-i-n t-h-o-u-g-h-t t-o b-e-l-i-e-v-e i-n g-o-d w-a-s c-h-i-l-d-i-s-h.


That good for you?

Yes, I gathered that. Thank you.

And, Einstein's religious beliefs mean what to us, exactly?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

It's pretty simple.

But, let me spell it out for you:

E-i-n-s-t-e-i-n t-h-o-u-g-h-t t-o b-e-l-i-e-v-e i-n g-o-d w-a-s c-h-i-l-d-i-s-h.


That good for you?

Einstein knew as much about God as the next Joe Blow... which is to say not enough for his opinion to be considered anything more than just that, an opinion.

[dickface]

That's right, dickface.

a 29 per day average is tough to get without posting lots of pointless crap, i understand.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Just to clarify, I don't believe in religion, and I'm not certain about God. For this reason, I would never presume to deny anyone else their right to believe in whatever it is that makes them be happy.

Trying to reasonably argue one side or the other is beyond my capabilities I'm afraid. All I know is that although arguing theology and science is not without its uses, it is most definitely without finality. Life on the other hand, is not... ergo, I rather spend my days on this earth worrying about things I'll be able to understand while I'm alive :lol

[Don Quixote]

An excellent observation. The original post commits the fallacy of "the appeal to authority." We're supposed to believe Einstein because, well, he's Einstein!

Einstein, as great and learned a man as he was, was not an expert or any special authority in religion. His expertise in physics has no bearing on his expertise in religion. And even if he were somewhat learned in the Bible and religion, is it possible that he was just wrong in this opinion?

Personally, I think the general theory of relativity did theism a huge favor.

[peewee's lovechild]

Figures :rolleyes

He obviously missed the mark on my comment.

You're trying to infer that Einstein meant that the Jewish religion was childish when in fact he meant, and said, "God" was a childish conception.

[Extra Stout]

The representation of Einstein's beliefs should be clarified in light of his other statements. He was not an atheist per se, but he indeed rejected the notion of a personal God to whom mankind could relate.

[Don Quixote]

Just to clarify, I don't believe in religion, and I'm not certain about God. For this reason, I would never presume to deny anyone else their right to believe in whatever it is that makes them be happy.

Trying to reasonably argue one side or the other is beyond my capabilities I'm afraid. All I know is that although arguing theology and science is not without its uses, it is most definitely without finality. Life on the other hand, is not... ergo, I rather spend my days on this earth worrying about things I'll be able to understand while I'm alive :lol

Thank you for your mature and thoughtful approach. This is America, and I would never dream of denying anyone the opportunity to believe as they wish. God, however, does not operate that way. How could he? How could God say one thing in one text, and something totally contradictory in another? He can't. One has to be true, and one has to be false. Or they can both be false. But they cannot both be true.

There has to be a truth. And we rob ourselves immensely if we don't put forth an honest effort to find it. As for the reasonable arguments -- that's why I'm here :bking.

[peewee's lovechild]

Yes, I gathered that. Thank you.

And, Einstein's religious beliefs mean what to us, exactly?

Nothing, at all.

I just thought it was an interesting article.

One has to wonder why you have to defend faith as fervently as you do.

Is faith/religion so weak that there has to be a militant defense to any comment made against it?

[peewee's lovechild]

Einstein knew as much about God as the next Joe Blow... which is to say not enough for his opinion to be considered anything more than just that, an opinion.

Precisley.

[peewee's lovechild]

a 29 per day average is tough to get without posting lots of pointless crap, i understand.

The fact that you are here posting in this thread means what, exactly?

And, you're obsessive nature towards me (looking up my posting average) is bordering on gay obsession.

[peewee's lovechild]

An excellent observation. The original post commits the fallacy of "the appeal to authority." We're supposed to believe Einstein because, well, he's Einstein!

Einstein, as great and learned a man as he was, was not an expert or any special authority in religion. His expertise in physics has no bearing on his expertise in religion. And even if he were somewhat learned in the Bible and religion, is it possible that he was just wrong in this opinion?

Personally, I think the general theory of relativity did theism a huge favor.

That was not the intent of the post.

Really, why do you feel you have to defend religiosity??

Is that all you have??
Is that why you feel the need to do it?

Must you always misconstrue anything said about religion?

God doesn't need you to speak up for him/her/it. Because, if he/she/it does, then that's one weak deity, and one not worth following.


The intent of the post was to show how Einstein really felt about religion, in his own words no less. For years, faith based individuals assumed that he was pro-religion and faith. Well, it turns out that he wasn't.

There.

Do you need some more explaining?

[easjer]

Thank you for your mature and thoughtful approach. This is America, and I would never dream of denying anyone the opportunity to believe as they wish. God, however, does not operate that way. How could he? How could God say one thing in one text, and something totally contradictory in another? He can't. One has to be true, and one has to be false. Or they can both be false. But they cannot both be true.

There has to be a truth. And we rob ourselves immensely if we don't put forth an honest effort to find it. As for the reasonable arguments -- that's why I'm here :bking.

I think where I break from you is the idea that God said anything in text. I think that God's truth is a lot broader than you would seem to believe. In fact, if I can bring a childish book into play - I tend to agree with CS Lewis in the last book of the Narnia Chronicles, where at the end, Aslan welcomes that Tarkaanian into Narnia/Heaven because of his unwavering belief in and service to Tash.

[peewee's lovechild]

The representation of Einstein's beliefs should be clarified in light of his other statements. He was not an atheist per se, but he indeed rejected the notion of a personal God to whom mankind could relate.

I agree with what you're saying here, Stout.

I think he was probably disillusioned with religion as we have it, but no one knows if he believed in a higher power.

[Don Quixote]

No, when you post something on a message board, it is implied that people will comment on it and draw conclusions. I knew that the conversation would eventually go into the rationality of belief in God, which is an interest of mine, and I suspect, one of other people too. Message boards do this by nature, and you should not get upset when the conversation doesn't go the way you wanted it to.

What if all the posters had bashed religion? Would you still be mad that people weren't discussing Einstein?

Lastly, are you, then, okay with people "fervently" defending atheism against religious talk? Because you are obviously not okay with somebody defending theism. And I have been more than fair and gracious toward you and other atheists around here.

[Don Quixote]

I think where I break from you is the idea that God said anything in text. I think that God's truth is a lot broader than you would seem to believe. In fact, if I can bring a childish book into play - I tend to agree with CS Lewis in the last book of the Narnia Chronicles, where at the end, Aslan welcomes that Tarkaanian into Narnia/Heaven because of his unwavering belief in and service to Tash.

A good point. I never said, however, that God didn't reveal himself in "non-text" ways. He walked with Adam & Eve in the Garden, he met personally with Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and we have no idea about the content of their conversations. It's not recorded.

Second, I would agree, however, that the majority of the Bible went through various stages of oral transmission. This is particularly true for the Torah and the Gospels, and probably the Psalms as well. It was later that writers compiled these oral traditions and smaller documents into basically what we have today -- a written text. But, if you're implying a "dictation" theory of inspiration (God spoke directly to the author, who has to write it down exactly), what you're describing is something that fits Islam much more than it fits Christianity. In other words, there is "wiggle room" in our theory of inspiration that allows for differences in wording and detail.

But God surely has revealed himself to us!

[peewee's lovechild]

No, when you post something on a message board, it is implied that people will comment on it and draw conclusions. I knew that the conversation would eventually go into the rationality of belief in God, which is an interest of mine, and I suspect, one of other people too. Message boards do this by nature, and you should not get upset when the conversation doesn't go the way you wanted it to.

What if all the posters had bashed religion? Would you still be mad that people weren't discussing Einstein?

Lastly, are you, then, okay with people "fervently" defending atheism against religious talk? Because you are obviously not okay with somebody defending theism. And I have been more than fair and gracious toward you and other atheists around here.

You can rant all you want, but let me remind you that you started with a post saying "And your point is?"

You didn't want a rational conversation at all. You can pretend that you did, but that's just a load of shit and you know it.

A rational conversation would not have started with "And your point is?". No, the problem is that you feel you're god's little soldier and you feel the need to defend religion (christianity in your case) in a militant fashion.

Don't come around after the fact saying you were gracious and what not. That's bullshit.

Your fist post was nothing short of a smug response to what I posted.

And, all I posted was an article on Einstein's letter to a philosopher where he claims that the belief in god was childish.

[Don Quixote]

Fine. Goodbye.

[peewee's lovechild]

A good point. I never said, however, that God didn't reveal himself in "non-text" ways. He walked with Adam & Eve in the Garden, he met personally with Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and we have no idea about the content of their conversations. It's not recorded.

Not true, at all.

According to the bible, god "spoke" to Adam, Eve, Abraham, Jacob and Moses.

He never came down from the heavens and "revealed" himself.

[peewee's lovechild]

Fine. Goodbye.

Later.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Not true, at all.

According to the bible, god "spoke" to Adam, Eve, Abraham, Jacob and Moses.

He never came down from the heavens and "revealed" himself.

No one at Spurstalk has seen me.

Perhaps I'm not real either.

[Don Quixote]

I wonder what context the letter is in. Did Einstein define the Jewish belief in God as childish superstition, or the belief of God in general? I can't imagine it being the latter, judging his previous statements. I don't believe Einstein was atheist by any measure. However, I do believe his concept of God was beyond any literary interpretation, in part b/c his mind was different. I believe he tried to find a science behind God.

Interesting topic.

I wonder how much his beliefs were influence by his own religious tradition. I'm not sure he was a Reform Jew, but his beliefs seem similar to what they hold to. Reform Judaism has probably the weakest sense of a personal God who chooses to relate to people, whereas Orthodox and Conservative Judaism are stronger in this regard.

I'm not sure, however, how far physics, math, and chemistry can reveal a God who, indeed, reveals Himself to man. The order of the universe CAN reveal the existence of a designer, but not much beyond that. We call this "general revelation," a form of God's self-revelation that is available to every person.

It is the job of religion and theology, however, to get at who and what exactly this designer is. Some of God's qualities (his love, justice, holiness, etc.) are not available to be observed in nature. They must be given to us in scripture -- there's no other way to know about them.

So ... I would be interested to know where, exactly, Einstein got these ideas about a distant, impersonal god.

[Don Quixote]

No one at Spurstalk has seen me.

Perhaps I'm not real either.

I'll take that on faith. I'm certainly not in a position to know a priori that you are not real. :lol

I carry no anti-Helicopter bias.

[peewee's lovechild]

I wonder how much his beliefs were influence by his own religious tradition. I'm not sure he was a Reform Jew, but his beliefs seem similar to what they hold to. Reform Judaism has probably the weakest sense of a personal God who chooses to relate to people, whereas Orthodox and Conservative Judaism are stronger in this regard.

I'm not sure, however, how far physics, math, and chemistry can reveal a God who, indeed, reveals Himself to man. The order of the universe CAN reveal the existence of a designer, but not much beyond that. We call this "general revelation," a form of God's self-revelation that is available to every person.

It is the job of religion and theology, however, to get at who and what exactly this designer is. Some of God's qualities (his love, justice, holiness, etc.) are not available to be observed in nature. They must be given to us in scripture -- there's no other way to know about them.

So ... I would be interested to know where, exactly, Einstein got these ideas about a distant, impersonal god.

Or, perhaps, because of the knowledge he gained from physics, math, and chemistry led him to believe that such a being didn't exist.

Maybe he believed in an energy source where all things lead, and that doesn't have to be a "god".

[midgetonadonkey]

We get it. You are athiest.

/thread

[smeagol]

Or, perhaps, because of the knowledge he gained from physics, math, and chemistry led him to believe that such a being didn't exist.

Not really . . .

[velik_m]

Or, perhaps, because of the knowledge he gained from physics, math, and chemistry led him to believe that such a being didn't exist.

Maybe he believed in an energy source where all things lead, and that doesn't have to be a "god".

I think he rather came to conclusion, that belief in god is not needed, its pointless and thus childish.

[boutons_]

"Trends are not favoring the spread of atheism"

"So?"

Is it some kind of popularity contest?

[BacktoBasics]

"Trends are not favoring the spread of atheism"

"So?"

Is it some kind of popularity contest?
They're hoping the young boys think so

[Extra Stout]

"Trends are not favoring the spread of atheism"

"So?"

Is it some kind of popularity contest?

So, that's why there are an increasing number of anti-religious polemics. A fair number of atheists believe that religion is a toxic influence on society that should be done away with, and failing the spread of reason to disabuse people of their religious beliefs, some atheists are trying shame and humiliation instead.

[clambake]

So, that's why there are an increasing number of anti-religious polemics. A fair number of atheists believe that religion is a toxic influence on society that should be done away with, and failing the spread of reason to disabuse people of their religious beliefs, some atheists are trying shame and humiliation instead.

is that what einstein did?

[Extra Stout]

is that what einstein did?

No, a private letter is not the same thing as an anti-religious polemic, such as Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins might publish. In a private letter, you might express your personal opinions to a confidant. This is not the same as the trend to which Don Quixote was referring earlier, wherein atheists are becoming increasingly hostile in their public pronouncements against religious people in general, as opposed to just the fundamentalist extremists.

[Phil Hellmuth]

LOL I have had this einstein quote in my sig for like a month now, it almost contradicts what the original poster is trying to say LOL.

I hate when people suppose that science is fact and can ultimately explain metaphysical ideas.

Science explains a lot, but it doesn't explain why, how, and leaves many gaps.

To try to mix science to prove/disprove religion is incredibly dumb.

[Don Quixote]

As always, I am open for intellectual (and not-so-intellectual) discussion about God, man, the universe, and the nature of things. I look forward dialog from any worldview (Christian or otherwise), provided it is respectful and intellectual honest, with a good measure of humility from all.

[dallaskd]

Einstein's bullshit views do not change my opinion on anything. People try to hard to back religion up with science.

John 3:16

Einstein is in hell right now, sitting right next to Darwin.

[PixelPusher]

Einstein is in hell right now, sitting right next to Darwin.

Yep, you're either a member of the Jesus Club or you're not. All of your thoughts, actions, choices, hopes, dreams, regrets, epiphanies...the sum total of your life on earth from the moment you were born till the day you die doesn't mean squat - it's all about whether you joined the Jesus Club.

[Shaolin-Style]

Einstein was a demon.

[Jimmy Bobby]

I believe in Mike Taylor and Arbitron. Nuff said.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Einstein was a Creationist. I have scientific credentials.

ROFLROFL yoo tink dets beddd....Rememba tha time Hegamboa said Einstein was a creationist and 6 people instantly replied to him from ChumpDumper to Gtownspur telling him what a giant douche he was?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

*****calling Hegamboa For A Dense, High Vocabulary, Scientifically Sound Comeback*********

*****calling Hegamboa For A Dense, High Vocabulary, Scientifically Sound Comeback*********

*****calling Hegamboa For A Dense, High Vocabulary, Scientifically Sound Comeback*********

[Nbadan]

Religion 101: Zeitgeist (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=zeitgeist&ei=xnAqSM2iMZ_UrQKa2NWbCg&hl=en)

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

[Fillmoe]

Religion, the biggest bunch of bullshit to ever be followed by sooooooooo many fucking SHEEP!

BAAAAA BAAAAA

[remingtonbo2001]

The truth is constant.

How you percieve it, is the variable.

There is a God. If you want to define God as a ball of energy, fine. If you want to call God Yehew, or Allah, whatever. It still doesn't change what God is. God is still God. God will always be God. If you want to place your head in the sand, and pretend that nothing beyond ourselves exists, by all means. It doesn't change the existance of God. Somethings in life are just true. I don't know why or how,nor will I attempt to expain them beyond my life expierences. The only thing I can do is let my actions speak for themselves.

[peewee's lovechild]

As always, I am open for intellectual (and not-so-intellectual) discussion about God, man, the universe, and the nature of things. I look forward dialog from any worldview (Christian or otherwise), provided it is respectful and intellectual honest, with a good measure of humility from all.



And your point is?


Is this how you start intellectual conversations?

Your genius shines.

[peewee's lovechild]

No, a private letter is not the same thing as an anti-religious polemic, such as Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins might publish. In a private letter, you might express your personal opinions to a confidant. This is not the same as the trend to which Don Quixote was referring earlier, wherein atheists are becoming increasingly hostile in their public pronouncements against religious people in general, as opposed to just the fundamentalist extremists.

Don Quixote started with a hostile post to begin with, others responded in kind.

We could have a very good conversation about all this, but there is too much passion on both sides to have a rational conversation.

[marini martini]

I believe! If that makes me childish, then all for the better!

[TDMVPDPOY]

http://www.nataliedee.com/080105/the-jeez.jpg

[clambake]

The truth is constant.

How you percieve it, is the variable.

There is a God. If you want to define God as a ball of energy, fine. If you want to call God Yehew, or Ali, whatever. It still doesn't change what God is. God is still God. God will always be God. If you want to place your head in the sand, and pretend that nothing beyond ourselves exists, by all means. It doesn't change the existance of God. Somethings in life are just true. I don't know why or how,nor will I attempt to expain them beyone my life expierences. The only thing I can do is let my actions speak for themselves.

you might want to go check commandment #1.

[smeagol]

If you want to call God Yehew, or Ali, whatever.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Am I the only one who found calling God, Ali, funny?

[marini martini]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Am I the only one who found calling God, Ali, funny?

No:toast

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[remingtonbo2001]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Am I the only one who found calling God, Ali, funny?

:lol

Oh com'n guys. It was 5 AM. Cut me some slack.

I couldn't sleep due to storms passing through.

Ok, I changed it. Are we happy now?

[marini martini]

:lol

Oh com'n guys. It was 5 AM. Cut me some slack.

I couldn't sleep due to storms passing through.

Ok, I changed it. Are we happy now?

Us smart fellers, knew what you were talkin about:lol

[Ignignokt]

Religion, the biggest bunch of bullshit to ever be followed by sooooooooo many fucking SHEEP!

BAAAAA BAAAAA

aren't you a sikh?

[Ignignokt]

Religion 101: Zeitgeist (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=zeitgeist&ei=xnAqSM2iMZ_UrQKa2NWbCg&hl=en)

never thought athiest would used a faith based argument against religion.

[Don Quixote]

The truth is constant.

How you perceive it, is the variable.

There is a God. If you want to define God as a ball of energy, fine. If you want to call God Yehew, or Allah, whatever. It still doesn't change what God is. God is still God. God will always be God. If you want to place your head in the sand, and pretend that nothing beyond ourselves exists, by all means. It doesn't change the existence of God. Somethings in life are just true. I don't know why or how,nor will I attempt to explain them beyond my life experiences. The only thing I can do is let my actions speak for themselves.

I've been mulling your post for a few days now, and thinking of how to respond. I tend to agree with much of it. Judging from it, you seem to be in the "fideist" camp -- you begin with faith, and work outward from there. This is not a bad thing, for you would join Kierkeggard and Luther in this school. My own approach tends to be more evidential -- I start with the rational reasons for belief and go from there.

I do have a couple of questions, though. (1) Given your skepticism over our ability to "prove" God (beyond a reasonable doubt), how can you justify your first statement, "there is a God"? What makes you so sure?

And (2) What is your basis for knowing that something outside ourselves indeed exists? You and I agree that there is "something out there," namely God, but how did you come to know this? Did you travel outside the universe? Who told you?

I expect a 3-page typed response on my desk by Monday morning. :lol

[peewee's lovechild]

I've been mulling your post for a few days now, and thinking of how to respond. I tend to agree with much of it. Judging from it, you seem to be in the "fideist" camp -- you begin with faith, and work outward from there. This is not a bad thing, for you would join Kierkeggard and Luther in this school. My own approach tends to be more evidential -- I start with the rational reasons for belief and go from there.

I do have a couple of questions, though. (1) Given your skepticism over our ability to "prove" God (beyond a reasonable doubt), how can you justify your first statement, "there is a God"? What makes you so sure?

And (2) What is your basis for knowing that something outside ourselves indeed exists? You and I agree that there is "something out there," namely God, but how did you come to know this? Did you travel outside the universe? Who told you?

I expect a 3-page typed response on my desk by Monday morning. :lol


It took you 10 days to respond to that?

[Marhq]

And, Einstein's religious beliefs mean what to us, exactly?

Einstein knew as much about God as the next Joe Blow... which is to say not enough for his opinion to be considered anything more than just that, an opinion.

Einstein's atheism doesn't prove or disprove God, that would be indeed a fallacy. Einstein's letter, among other quotes from him, is relevant in the context of the theism vs atheism debates, where theists persistently tried to claim Einstein as one of their own, as a way of saying that highly intelligent, educated, logical people could also be theists.



Faith in religion has been, historically, THE most resilient aspect of human nature. No amount of scientific evidence to the contrary will ever change that. People believe in God because they need to.
Faith needs no proof and because of this, is also immune to all proof to the contrary. Trying to argue for or against it is pointless.

I fully agree. Faith in god is a matter of belief not evidence, and thus outside of science's scope.
I don't think that's quite so. There are different reasons to have some kind religious belief. Science won't comfort you in difficult times or ease your fear of dying, if you have it. But if you are looking for answers about how the universe works or how to interact with it, science will work much better for you than religion. There are some religious claims that may very well fall outside of science's scope, but that's not because those claims are based on faith. Other claims fall right into the scientific field, how can the origin of the universe, the solar system or life on earth, for example, not be scientific questions?

About faith being immune to all proof, one thing is to believe in something without any backing evidence and another, very different, thing is to believe in something against existing evidence. There are many fields in which religion had to back down in face of contradicting evidence provided by science. But imagine the opposite, imagine that science comes up with strong evidence for the existence of God, its role in creation and his involvement in everyday life. Do you think that religion would dismiss this evidence as biased, or irrelevant, because religion and science are “non overlapping magisteria”?



But let's not pretend, either, that science has disproven God. First, that is a HUGE statement to make. How could one prove that statement? Second, 20th century science has often helped theism. Indeed, one could argue that Einstein's own general theory of relativity (which proved an expanding universe) had theistic implications -- there was a beginning!
Scientists do not claim to have proven that God doesn't exists. They say that resorting to the idea of a God doesn't answer any question (in fact it increases the number of questions), that there is no need for a God to explain the universe and there is no evidence of a God. But they don't say that is a scientific fact that God doesn't exists because such a claim would be unscientific. Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence.
Off course, that doesn't mean that you can only be a theist or a 50-50 agnostic, you can assign different probabilities to each hypothesis.

Another thing, a bit off topic: Einstein didn't discover that the universe is expanding. It was Edwin Hubble (perhaps some others as well) that noted the red shifting in the electromagnetic spectra of the stars in other galaxies. Einstein, in fact, refused at first to believe that the universe was not static. He even theorized about a new force, a kind of anti gravity that would maintain the universe static and prevented it from collapsing under its own gravity.



I hate when people suppose that science is fact and can ultimately explain metaphysical ideas.
Science explains a lot, but it doesn't explain why, how, and leaves many gaps.

If anything, science thrives in explaining the HOW's of nature. It is in this very field that it blows religion out of the water, both explaining and predicting.

Science doesn't claim to have a complete and definite knowledge of the universe, that attitude is more prevalent among mystics. It acknowledges the gaps and it works in closing them. It also accepts that tomorrow it can come upon an observation that disproves some previously firmly held idea, and scientists will be willing to modify or throw away that idea if the evidence requires it. A certain bit of knowledge is not nearly as important as the way that knowledge is constructed, the scientific method, because that's what enables science to advance.

And, off course, even if science couldn't explain a single thing, that would never “prove” that religion can.

Saludos.

[Don Quixote]

Overall, a good post. Allow me to make a couple of comments.

(1) I did not mean to say that scientists believe they have disproven God. I was writing in response to people (non-scientists) that think that science has done indeed done so. I am skeptical of that claim, or even of our ability to know when or if science has finally disproven his existence.

(2) I've always been ambivalent about Einstein's beliefs -- I've heard both that he was a believer and an agnostic. In the end, it doesn't matter. For every atheistic scientist out there, I can produce an equally smart and talented theist. So I would advise theists against "claiming Einstein as one of us." What is relevant, to me, is the ramifications of the expanding universe (which he predicted, not discovered, thanks for the clarification).

and (3) I don't mean to defend all religion. Indeed, there is a lot of bad religion and bad theology out there. My intent is to defend good religion based on the Christian Bible. Mankind has misinterpreted the Bible, and put their flawed understanding of it against new scientific discoveries -- this happened when Galileo was tried for heresy by the Catholic Church in the 17th century. Did Galileo's work contradict prevailing theology of the time? Yes. Did he contradict the Bible? No. In fact, Galileo was a believer! So, my task is not to defend every strange view held by every religious group. My task is to look at the results of science and interpret them against the backdrop of God's creation and Word.

A good, thoughtful post.