Reply With Quote
He just heard Palin say that Dinosaurs walked the Earth 4000 years ago and had to jump into the bandwagon... or you didn't hear? Palin is smarter than Einstein himself!
I hope this is a joke and not a true sign of laziness.
He just heard Palin say that Dinosaurs walked the Earth 4000 years ago and had to jump into the bandwagon... or you didn't hear? Palin is smarter than Einstein himself!
I think there is enough evidence to conclude that Einstein believed in a Creator.
I believe the question Einstein sought to answer was the relationship between the Creator and His creation.
Therefore, Einstein wasn't even agnostic, in so much that he did believe in Creationism.
As Einstein declared, in response to a rabbi who asked him directly whether or not he believed in God:
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists...not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
IRRELEVANT
Thats what Einstein's beliefs are one way or another. If you want to prove intelligence and faith go hand in hand you're not ever going to do it by pointing out smart atheists and believers. Try pointing out a few large scale psychological or sociological studies instead. At the very least back away from foolish anecdotal evidence which doesn't prove things one way or another.
If your faith system makes exclusive claims of itself, you forfeit the "besides objective evidence" part...unless you want to wander into the sibling of intellectual laziness; intellectual dishonesty.
I only used Einstein as the most famous example of an intelligent atheist to shoot down Bo's ridiculous assertion that 'intellegence and faith go hand in hand'.
Do you have trouble reading your own quote....
Einstein did not believe that God shared a personal relationship with His creation, as you've brought up. However, I've brought you evidence that Einstein did believe in a Creator.
There's a difference.
I never compared Manu's statements with that of racism, Nazi's or the KKK. That was a direct reference to someone saying that people have freedom to say what they want. I said if one does then all do. In the case of the Nazi's and KKK it shows that things can get taken to the extreme.
I never said he would get a backlash and I even said that it is no where near what Josh Howard said because YouTube is much more popular than Manu's forum. I said it caught me off guard because the other questions where so light-hearted, I just though he would avoid it because you do not see stars open up that frequently. So I am not upset at all, just more confusion on your part.He's done is best to say that Manu's statement does not bother him, but if thats the case why does he compare it directly with the most vile things he can think of? Its so ridiculous to sit here and try to paint a case where Manu will see some sort of Christian backlash as a result of his statements when a) most of the people who will find out about this already have through this forum and Manu's - NBC isn't going to run this on the nightly news and Katy Couric isn't going to sit down for a four part interview series on what Manu ing Ginobili thinks - and b) (this should have given him a ing clue) THE ONLY PERSON UPSET IN ANY MANNER OVER THESE STATEMENTS IN THIS THREAD HAS BEEN DPG!!!! How one does not automatically rethink their stance when the target demographic is the one thats arguing AGAINST is a sign of complete idiocy. It shows that you're not paying attention and doing your best at ignoring the reality that keeps repeatedly slapping you in the face.
I agree whole-heartedly I did not do a good job of making clear what I said. Which led to mass confusion and then off-topic debates.I know that he kept saying that everyone in the thread mis understood him but never once did he stop to think that it wasn't a comprehension problem on the part of anyone else (although he did his best to through that out every chance he got) but maybe a communication error on his own part. Here's a hint: if almost everyone is coming to the same conclusion based on what you write its not a comprehension problem but a clarity problem.
There are two sides to every coin of course. There are examples of stars that opened up and it turned out good. Being gay falls into religious beliefs sometimes so it does encompass it. See, people like you turn it into an "America is founded on..." argument when that is not the point. The point is that he should not lie or hide, the point was that it SURPRISED me that when most famous people do hide, that he just answered so honestly and directly in context of the rest of the light-hearted questions.In any event he also failed to take into consideratino at any point that people also understood his view but still throught it was completely re ed. Why does he continously compare Manu's statments to those of Josh Howard and the backlash Howard has recieved but never brought up an athletee like John Ameechee who came out and said he was gay and did not recieve a negative backlash but a POSITIVE one. His argument is also fundementally one of cowardice. To censor what you say because you are a public figure is a stance that Americans in general shy away from because we have been able to grow as a country due to the exact opposite!!!!! How can one sit there and continously defend such a gutless position without feelng gross?
Bum could be smarter than me, but to state that you know this as fact is wrong. Unless Baseline has a doctorate (which baseline could) then it is untrue about education.And to finish off, I think Bo is completely incorrect. He got what he deserved in this thread because once you start calling people uneducated (which is ironic because I know for a fact that Baseline Bum is smarter than DPG and has had more education) and you start throwing around your intelligence as a shield all bets are off. I can't remember if its Travis or EHJ that says but one of them says the forum is self correcting. This thread is an excellent example of that at work.
I refute the premise that what Pascal said applies equally to atheists and agnostics. The question at hand is where to go next upon realizing that empirical theism is false. The remaining options are either that God does not exist, or that he exists, but does not reveal himself to the senses.
The atheist regards empirical theism as the only kind. He is enslaved to his rationalism; if it cannot be observed and measured, it cannot exist.
The agnostic, at least, understands that the fork in the trail exists. He may at that point lose interest in exploring any further. Such a person is not lazy so much as indifferent.
Perhaps you may have in mind the agnostic who simply lays back and waits for some empirical evidence, which will never come, before exploring further. I would ascribe to him the same laziness on the subject as the atheist.
Can you with any honesty place Einstein in either of those two categories? In my perusal of his writings, I read a man who at least thought through the implications of a personal God, the interaction of a Creator with scientific theory, the religious experience of gaining understanding of the workings of the universe, all within an at ude of epistemic humility.
Do have trouble with reading comprehension?
In order for Faith to be defined (as anything else), an individual/mankind must have some level of intellegece.
If by Creator, you mean the laws of physics, then yes, Einstein may believe in a creator. The fact that you capitalized it means you're referring to the supernatural man in the sky you believe in.
Besides:
Sounds like a budding intelligent design proponent to me.
One thing we do know...he wasn't an atheist, and he was offended at being quoted by atheists in support of their views.
What's your test of god's existence? Stick a shotgun in your mouth and pull the trigger and see if you retain consciousness?
Besides:
Sounds like a budding intelligent design proponent to me.
One thing we do know...he wasn't an atheist, and he was offended at being quoted by atheists in support of their views.
Go Rays!
Why am I re ed?
For using Eintstein's own words to refute the idea he was an atheist?
Tell me one untrue point I have made in this thread.
Every single thing in existence of zero intelligence is an atheist. There is not a single thing of zero intelligence that posseses spiritual beliefs.
You'll definitely know the answer then...therefore it's not untestable.
Fact.
Edit: Retaining conciousness is not important.
How exactly does that help your case that only an advanced mind could conceive of a higher power?
Isn't it accepted as a historical fact that Jesus did in fact exist. Even non Christians site Jesus as a great prophet.oh really?
So in that case, since we can't scientifically disprove that hobbitts, trolls, mermaids and santa claus don't exist. Then we should conclude that they do exist?
So the real question when it comes to Jesus, it would appear, is not" Did He exist" but rather " Do you believe Jesus is who He said He was?"
Intelligence is not the ability to conceive, it is the ability to choose.
It's like trying to explain to children how there isn't really a Santa Claus.
No being of zero intelligence is spiritual = god must exist because we can conceive of him/her/it
That makes a heap of sense
To my knowledge he is only seen as a prophet in Islam.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
