Supernatural religion and dishonesty....

[Rod]

You are fairly egocentric and far-sighted, no truth what so ever into viewing things the way they are, Now about this 1 Wine - I stick to the best tasting and the one that has given me results my entire life, So like i said, If you don't know, it's best you close your mouth and listen.

because, It's pure logic that God is Love and IF God tells me to kill someone, I know that it isnt God telling me it, .. geez, I think 1x1 is harder than that.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Rod You are fairly egocentric and far-sighted, no truth what so ever into viewing things the way they are, Now about this 1 Wine - I stick to the best tasting and the one that has given me results my entire life, So like i said, If you don't know, it's best you close your mouth and listen.

How do you know I haven't tasted it and spat it out for the dishonest distasteful brew that it is? You know nothing about me. Are you the type of person that will pretend to be a wine expert when they have only tasted one or a few wines? That kind of person is dishonest.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Rod because, It's pure logic that God is Love and IF God tells me to kill someone, I know that it isnt God telling me it, .. geez, I think 1x1 is harder than that.

Do you understand what you have posted? So now you know when god is and is not speaking to you? I suppose you can read the mind of god as well? And I suppose you ask god if he is talking to others that claim to be hearing god?

The funny dang thing about it is that for all you know I could be god. Why can’t god post as an atheist on a discussion board? No wait let me guess, because you Rod know that god would not do that.

Do any of you idiot magical thinkers realize just how crazy your religion has made you?

Starboy

[Rod]

You are totally missing your purpose in life ..

and Im sorry I missed to say About that Einstein comment, Look again do your research. He was a Believer. Book says it.

[Rod]

Hahaha, you make me laugh, double check your prev post and read it carefully, you are so un-smart. I restate it, Faith, and yes God speaks.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Rod You are totally missing your purpose in life .. and Im sorry I missed to say About that Einstein comment, Look again do your research. He was a Believer. Book says it.

I am sure that I have read more about Einstein and of Einstein than you have. I am a physicist. He was not a god believer in any sense of a personal god. God to him was not a being but a principle. Einstein saw perfect order in the universe. But you know what. Einstein was a fallible human. He also didn't like quantum mechanics. Well too bad because in the form of QED it has become the most successful explanation in physics. So I guess Einstein was wrong about at least two things.

Starboy

[Rod]

Doesn't really matter, he's dead, and the good thing He was a Believer, I restate it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Rod Doesn't really matter, he's dead, and the good thing He was a Believer, I restate it.

Say it all you like. It doesn't make it so.

Quote by: Einstein "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." From Skeptic vol. 5, no. 2, 1997, pp. 62ff.

But hey if it makes you feel better to claim him as one of your own then have at it. But you will have to get in line because all sorts of religious magical thinkers like to think that he was one of their own.

Starboy

[Rod]

So this prooves my book wrong i will go into further information about this at a later time.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Einstein first page of his Autobiographical Notes (1949, pp. 3-5): "Thus I came--despite the fact I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived...Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude... has never left me..."

The difference between Einstein and me is I never believed it. My relatives have told me that I was arguing the atheist position since the age of five (even though I attended religious education till the age of fourteen). But then I also started studying science at a very early age as well. I had my first real telescope when I was six.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Here is more from his coorespondence.

On 22 March 1954 a self-made man sent Einstein in Princeton a long handwritten letter-four closely packed pages in English. The correspondent despaired that there were so few people like Einstein who had the courage to speak out, and he wondered if it would not be best to return the world to the animals. Saying "I presume you would like to know who I am," he went on to tell in detail how he had come from Italy to the United States at the age of nine, arriving in bitter cold weather, as a result of which his sisters died while he barely survived; how after six months of schooling he went to work at age ten; how at age seventeen he went to Evening School; and so on, so that now he had a regular job as an experimental machinist, had a spare-time business of his own, and had some patents to his credit. He declared himself an atheist. He said that real education came from reading books. He cited an article about Einstein's religious beliefs and expressed doubts as to the article's accuracy. He was irreverent about various aspects of formal religion, speaking about the millions of people who prayed to God in many languages, and remarking that God must have an enormous clerical staff to keep track of all their sins. And he ended with a long discussion of the social and political systems of Italy and the United States that it would take too long to describe here. He also enclosed a check for Einstein to give to charity. On 24 March 1954 Einstein answered in English as follows: I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable. It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. I have no possibility to bring the money you sent me to the appropriate receiver. I return it therefore in recognition of your good heart and intention. Your letter shows me also that wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it. From p. 66 There is in the Einstein Archives a letter dated 5 August 1927 from a banker in Colorado to Einstein in Berlin. Since it begins "Several months ago I wrote you as follows," one may assume that Einstein had not yet answered. The banker remarked that most scientists and the like had given up the idea of God as a bearded, benevolent father figure surrounded by angels, although many sincere people worship and revere such a God. The question of God had arisen in the course of a discussion in a literary group, and some of the members decided to ask eminent men to send their views in a form that would be suitable for publication. He added that some twenty-four Nobel Prize winners had already responded, and he hoped that Einstein would too. On the letter, Einstein wrote the following in German. It may or may not have been sent: I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. From pp. 69-70 A Chicago Rabbi, preparing a lecture on "The Religious Implications of the Theory of Relativity," wrote to Einstein in Princeton on zo December 1939 to ask some questions on the topic. Einstein replied as follows: I do not believe that the basic ideas of the theory of relativity can lay claim to a relationship with the religious sphere that is different from that of scientific knowledge in general. I see this connection in the fact that profound interrelationships in the objective world can Ije comprehended through simple logical concepts. To be sure, in the theory of relativity this is the case in particularly full measure. The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere. Einstein on the Soul On 17 July I953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein in Princeton a warmly appreciative evangelical letter. Quoting several passages from the scriptures, she asked him whether he had considered the relationship of his immortal soul to its Creator, and asked whether he felt assurance of ever lasting life with God after death. It is not known whether a reply was sent, but the letter is in the Einstein Archives, and on it, in Einstein's hand writing, is the following sentence, written in English: I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. From p. 40 In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death. There were other questions of a similar sort. On 5 February 1921 Einstein answered at some length. Here in part is what he said: The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

That book was lying to you and you were just passing them on. The question you should be asking yourself is what other lies have you been told?

Starboy

[Rod]

So you're trying to get me on the Atheist side, Not a good idea. I said ill post exactly what the book says later, im quite busy now.

[Rod]

It's all about testimony, apprently you havent had any.

Something very Brief - >

I've had Drug Addict, Assasins and Robbers as Families 1 year ago and now they are doing so damn Fine, it's amazing how A person can change so fast, from total Evil to Goodness. So if that isnt MY GOD, then you give me a logical explination who is.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Rod So you're trying to get me on the Atheist side, Not a good idea. I said ill post exactly what the book says later, im quite busy now.

No I am not. I am trying to get you to see the dishonesty of your religion. If you have to become atheist to do so then so be it. Being an atheist is really not much at all. It is not a philosophy or a "faith" or a religion. An atheist is just someone that lacks a belief in god(s). It says nothing about what they think just what they don't think. My view of reality is shaped by the discoveries and explanations of science. But you want to know the funny thing about it, so is yours. You live in the twenty-first century. You are typing on a computer connected to a global communication network attached to the power grid based on all sorts of science. Your very life relies on it. We do not explain what goes on inside your auto engine with demons, we use thermodynamics. When you are ill we look for infections of bacteria or phages or genetic or environmental damage. The fix is not to exorcise the evil spirits from your body but to give you CAT scans and drugs. Yet you for some reason you live in this severe disconnect. You know all this and yet you want the universe to be controlled by demons, angels, sin, souls and such. It is all very amazing just how crazy and dishonest you all have become. You lack the honesty to see this severe disconnect when it is right in front of your very nose.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Rod It's all about testimony, apprently you havent had any. Something very Brief - > I've had Drug Addict, Assasins and Robbers as Families 1 year ago and now they are doing so damn Fine, it's amazing how A person can change so fast, from total Evil to Goodness. So if that isnt MY GOD, then you give me a logical explination who is.

Hey good for you. We have come back to your first post. If you found a group that could help you then fine. But I didn't come from an awful background. My family and I lived decent lives without the threat of eternal torture or reward. We always thought that being responsible, intelligent and caring for your family and yourself was its own reward.

Starboy

[Rod]

ok upon my small research ->

SAID BY EINSTEIN ::
----
However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
----
Small quote ->
" Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

He probobly did not believe in a Personal God, but He did believe in a Creational God. But im sure he wasnt very far away into being a Personal God believer. All who believe shall be saved.

Here's Newton ->
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding from the Bible God's plan for history. He did a lot of work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Here's Copernicus ->
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and Copernicus was urged to publish around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Faraday ->

The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. The Sandemanians originated from Presbyterians who had rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.


And the most Amazing one "Georges Lemaitre" The creator of the Big Bang Theory, he was a Catholic Priest.

I could go on and on naming very well known scientist who have realised the Truth. This is Testimony.

[MerlinsByte]

<!--QuoteBegin-Starboy Oh and for the record I've been an atheist for at least fifty years. I guess that trumps your forty.]Are you really an adult? That honestly comes as a bit of a surprise.

Merlin replies...I have been a atheist (in between religious convictions) a Christian (birth to 17) a Buddhist, Hindu, (17.5 to 22) Wicca (22-30) pagan and wiccan (30- 40somthing), (Satanist 40 to 41) fundamental Christian Baptist , 42-48 years of age) 48- today....I am a blended Christian...don't ask! or maybe a composite Christian, some might call me a composted Christian or worse. These ages are my best reckoning .

Science and some religion are different sides of the same coin. There are faction on both sides too dumb to comprehend that simple truth.

I received my masters degree adage 40. So!

I am a slow learner and I cheated , I bribed, yes, I know it shows. English grammar and creative writing as well as related subjects necessitated a huge outlay of resources. Just get er’ DONE and quit whining! As the "redneck tour" poster boy says . This is getting off topic….where is that moonshine?

Anyway, as I related in another post, science and religion will be merged in the near future. Or at least science and metaphysical science will be merged. I cant wait, the true TOE the ultimate GUT…yea! Mayne both sides can fill in the blanks, with real bullets most likely..

Now where is that homegrown bud….. none the wiser.

mb

[tusaki]

The problem is not Christianity/atheism. For me, I'm agnostic, which means that I do think there is something more, but not that we can know in what form it is, we can only strife to understand it better. I do believe that all religions get some things "right", and if religion X is your fix, who am I to take that away with scientific honesty. On the other hand, don’t come barging down my door with your "truths", if I want to, I’ll research it and pick whatever I think is more.. honest.. so far, the "religion" (although it's not really a religion) which, in my opinion, has come closest to being honest is Buddhism. The first thing Buddha said when he was teaching his followers was "don’t take my word for it, by all means do your own research and improve our teachings". (Buddha is not God btw, Buddha is just the name of the first person who became "enlightened", which means "to see things as they truly are". Buddhism is about striving to BECOME Buddha, to BECOME enlightened, not to pray to it in order to fix some worldly need). The funny thing is, you can explain all the metaphors used in other religions using Buddhism. For example: going to heaven is nothing more than becoming one with the universe, which is what "being" enlightened is all about. Going to hell in Christian terms means being "removed" from god. which in Buddhist terms would mean having to live through a reality (yes, Buddhism allows for multiple realities to exist) which is worse than the last one you've lived through (reincarnation until enlightenment, at which point it becomes a choice instead of a forced move). doing good deeds, increasing the overall happiness, will bring you closer to enlightenment, or at least allow you to reincarnate in a world where you will be happier and wiser and have more opportunity to become enlightened. doing bad deeds will do the opposite. actually this is all a very simplistic explanation, as real Buddhists will certify, but the fact that (a) Buddhism does not send people into oblivion simply because they do NOT follow the teachings of some book. and (b) Buddhism is constantly adapting and reinventing itself in order to find the truth, instead of sticking to the mundane words and scriptures of dogmatic religions. These two attributes make it, in my eyes, the most truthful of them all. BYMMV

[Starboy]

Quote by: Rod ok upon my small research -> SAID BY EINSTEIN :: ---- However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. ----

What is the source of this quote? In any case it says nothing about a personal god nor is the "faith" he is talking about anything like the "Christian" faith.

Small quote -> " Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Everyone knows that Einstein used to say things like that. It was a joke. The famous rebuttal to that is also another joke where Bohr tells Einstein to "stop telling god what to do."

He probobly did not believe in a Personal God, but He did believe in a Creational God. But im sure he wasnt very far away into being a Personal God believer. All who believe shall be saved.

He did not. He said so. When he spoke of god it was more like a principle.

Here's Newton -> In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding from the Bible God's plan for history. He did a lot of work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Well yes of course. Newton was a freemason. Look that up sometime. They were all deists. No personal god. To a deist god was a fire and forget creature. It created the universe and then just let it happen. The god of the deist was the god of nature. You should read Thomas Paine, "The age of reason" some time. They say all sorts of nasty things about "Christians". Jefferson and Adams didn't like them at all.

Here's Copernicus -> Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and Copernicus was urged to publish around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

So? What about Galileo?

Faraday -> The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. The Sandemanians originated from Presbyterians who had rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

So?

And the most Amazing one "Georges Lemaitre" The creator of the Big Bang Theory, he was a Catholic Priest.

My bet is that Lemaitre also supported the theory of evolution. After all he knew that the universe was very very old. Old enough for such a thing to happen.

I could go on and on naming very well known scientist who have realised the Truth. This is Testimony.

I know you could. I could add to your list. So what? People have believed in all sorts of things. Aristotle believed in the Greek gods. Been to the temple of Apollo lately? I would also like to add that since the turn of the century a majority of the scientists in the world have been atheist. The membership of the National Academy of Science is at least 70% atheist and most of the rest is agnostic. Among recent Nobel Prize winners in science, most are atheist. The fact is if you are a scientist you do not think that demons run the world. Such people that think that are just plain kooks. The fact is the more educated and accomplished you are the more likely you are going to be an atheist. You have to be a profound ignoramus to be a spirit in my heart, immaterial soul "Christian".

Starboy

[Gorgo]

This is interesting.

What you seem to be saying is that certainty in the supernatural is dishonest. But if someone merely says, "I believe" is that dishonest?

I can't quite grasp the whole concept. If I think I didn't kill someone that I actually did kill, and I say I didn't kill someone, even if there are clues that I ignore because I don't know they're cluesj or even how to look for clues, then is that dishonest?

If I believe in god, because I was taught that "there just must be a god" and I ignore clues to the contrary, not because I know that I am lying but because I don't know that they are clues, then why is that dishonest?

This may not be for this thread, but I don't understand the concept of personal god. A god is superstitious idea, why worry about the distinction between personal and non-personal gods? Or does the distinction just mean that he really didn't believe in a supernatural god, but just the impersonal laws of the universe, and that was the polite way to put it at that time so that he wasn't hanged?