You cant prove he wasnt an atheist
What, beyond the fact that he himself said that he was not?
As for 'having him on my team', well, it's the atheists that have tried to 'claim' him, actually, something he objected to!
Atheists just can't accept the fact that someone so intelligent might actually think a little different to themselves....
What, beyond the fact that he himself said that he was not?
Atheists just can't accept the fact that someone so intelligent might actually think a little different to themselves....
Nothing like sweeping generalisations.
Atheistist!
Atheistist!
Atheististist!
Lamb Bhuna
It's always interesting to see how Einstein gets adopted into these debates (and trotted out ad nauseum). It's almost as if people think, “quick, who sounds really clever? I'll quote them to justify what I want to believe”. I'm pretty happy to accept that Einstein was an incredible genius in many ways, but unlike some appear to I don't reckon I'd value his views above all else on every subject- I wouldn't ask him for advice on "wot tires 4 mad skillz sik 2 da maxx?" for example.
Anyway, I digress, and although I don't really agree, to say that The most anyone can glean from your [Rudeboy's] quotation (which I suspect was around 1952?) was that Einstein was an agnostic on the subject [of existence of god]doesn't appear to hold up. If Rudeboy's quote is correctly attributed, then I would argue that all you could say of it is that Einstein was definitely not an atheist- quite different. It would be fascinating to see Einstein's take on Spinoza's metaphysics, which I would argue are fairly radical in attempting to reconcile scientific understanding with morals and god, and ultimately led to his excommunication- make of that what you will (on either side of the debate).
[EDIT] PS. Not that I'm really trying to support Rudeboy, but if you're trying to trump each other with quotes, his fairly clearly justifies his postion IMO.
I did the stupidest thing of my life last night: I tried to reason with a Jehova's witness about creationism, the bible etc. A totally pointless exercise as these people are totally brainwashed. Incapable of thinking for themselves and intimidated by their peers if the deviate from the correct path.
Her argument about creationism was that everything has to be created by someone. She actually said "a cake doesn't make itself" I gave up at this point!
Do you realise that there are seven million other Jehova's Witnesses? I found out on wikipedia. Shocking how gullible people are!
So you agree with the point he's making, but your prejudices (based solely on what Monbiot and a wiki entry which appears to be written by Monbiot say about him rather than having actually read anything by him which wasn't cherry picked) mean you read what you think he says rather than what he actually does?
Yes, I'm a Christopher Bookerist.
spongebob did you ask who/ what created the creator?
where did all the tags go?
spongebob did you ask who/ what created the creator?
[devil's advocate mode]Presumably, one could expect science to explain the essence of the similar questions- what is existence and why is it so? Or be able to account for concepts such as emergence, creativity or the infinite...? 
[/devil's advocate mode]
but science doesn't do why it does how!
thomthumb - Memberbut science doesn't do why it does how!
No.
No! That concept would be way too difficult for them to understand!
When god created a man she was joking
[1879-1955] German born American threoretical physicistFrom a correspondence between Ensign Guy H. Raner and Albert Einstein in 1945 and 1949. Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest: "I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
Who is claiming who for who?
As I said above trading quotes for quotes is meaningless. If Einstein was a religious man then that hasnt impacted his mathematical contribution.
Not having had the time to read all the way through this thread, I'd quickly like to apologise if this has already come up.
I don't have any intelligent design friends, so could any of you as one of yours as to how lower backs and knees could possibly be deemed as "intelligent" design. Considering their failure rate, I would consider them a botch job, at best.
Oh, and re: all the Einstien stuff, I've always wondered why we haven't heard more about Jesus' skill as a carpenter.
Good point.
When you consider that around 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct, this is a strong argument against intelligent design.
Presumably, one could expect science to explain the essence of the similar questions- what is existence and why is it so? Or be able to account for concepts such as emergence, creativity or the infinite...?
I think you will find this is at the heart of science. It cant! It may or may not achieve this one day, however it is honest about the fact that it cant and doesn't invoke a "god of the gaps" explanation for things we don't understand.
From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
Einstein was a clever bloke, that's true, but that's all he was. He doesn't need to be quoted and disseminated as some kind of authority on all things intellectual. This is a nice quote though since it illustrates his cleverness. He says he's an atheist, but he qualifies that with "from the point of view of a Jesuit priest". So he's really recognising that any position you hold on a subject can only be held relative to other points of view - this seems to be a pretty smart way of thinking about things. The Jesuit for example might think that he's an unbeliever because he doesn't follow their doctrine; however you might still believe in something that you personally can identify with the Jesuit's god.
Maybe this philosophical idea could be called... relativity.. or something
Molgrips- well put (that's what I was trying to get at above).
Surfer- My points were regarding Rudeboy's argument that Einstein held Spinoza's conception of god (small g) in some regard. To me that is interesting as Spinoza (as I understand) is an example through which philosophy tried to bring science, the physical world, mind and god together in a rational manner (ie in mathematical and scientific terms). For you to claim that this may prove Einstein was agnostic is fairly absurd. As I tried to make out though, blindly holding onto any other individual's hand (even Einstein, gasp!) as justification for your own beliefs is fairly silly.
As an aside, just there are problems with religious fundamentalism, I'd be worried about anyone who believes that 'science' is fundamentally abstract, singularly true and devoid of ideology, and the potential implications that this faith has.
Maybe this philosophical idea could be called... relativity.. or something
Hey, catchy name!
Thing is, it doesn't matter what you believe in, you are still exercising blind faith. If you believe in science and nothing else, that is still blind faith; science still has more questions than answers, but you believe that eventually science will prove everything - that is FAITH.
At one point we believed that the Earth was flat. How ridiculous does that seem now? At the time it made sense, but were those people deluded? I don't think so. Was there belief based in blind faith? Yes. We can see that now. Science is full of "everything we thought we knew is wrong moments", and there will be more to come. Point is our current collective train of scientific thought could well be deluded.
I believe in science, but who pressed the start button in the first place? For me that was God. Also, I believe that science and curiosity have given us knowledge and abilities that we as a race have no idea how to handle. We need morals and guidance, because we have half a brain cell, and we are dangerous. For me, that comes from Christinaity.
I hate to hear people talking about any belief system as wrong, or delusional. We are ALL working with a belief system that works for us, and we are ALL making leaps of faith, because NONE of it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Not only that, but ee all think we have the truth; we are all, by definition orthadox, we have to be, otherwise what's the point in holding a belief system?
OP, your friend is troubled and looking for peace. Continue to challenge her, and try to get her to accept your challenges. By doing this, and as long as she really, honestly meets your challenges, you will help her to find peace. Don't make it your mission to talk her out of it, but to help her figure out what she trully believes in.
Good one feenster.
However I think it's a little misleading to compare the scientific search for answers with a religious one. The two things aren't really the same, which is why people can do both. Religion isn't (despite what some on here seem to think) the search for the origin of the world. There are some "creation scientists" that occupy themselves, but really a debate on the validity of creationism is really a completely different thing from one on the value of religion.
Btw, Rudeboy, we're still waiting for your definition of proof. I'm not being facaetious, it really is crucial when having the kind of debate you're having 
Hello, waves at surfer, I'm back after my 24hr STW ASBO.
For me, that comes from Christinaity.
This is a dangerous idea - the idea that religion, christianity in your case, gives us morals. Can you tell me exactly what morals christianity gave us that we had not already evolved for ourselves? There are some quotes loosely attributed to some fella called Jesus who roamed the middle east sometime around 2000 years ago (nobody's sure) such as "Man hath no greater love...", "Do unto others..." and "Blessed are the children..."
These are all simple rules which human beings had evolved and applied for thousands of years before JC arrived on the scene. A Jew will tell you that the Torah (or whatever fairy stories his particular sect believes in) gives him his morals, a Muslim will tell you they come from the Qur'an - and you say Christianity. The bible is filled with stories of rape, incest, mass slaughter if innocents, fathers preparing their sons for sacrifice to some "Thou shalt have no other gods" big mean nasty fellow, who loves the bejesus out of us by the way....but hey, they're all just myths to help us aren't they. Now, the beardy bloke arriving down from the mountain with stones carved by the boss...that was true. For the love of jesus....ooops, there I go!
because NONE of it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
But don't you see that any of the fairy stories haven't even been proved to within an asses arse of an unreasonable doubt. When you talk about belief, you are referring to it in a philosophical sense...I don't "believe" in science - nor, for that matter, does science necessarily believe in science. I said much earlier in this thread that nothing questions science more than science itself...so calling that "faith" is patronising. Therein lies the secret. Religions just don't question themselves at all....merely a once a generation re-interpretation of the rules by the catholic church and a never in your lifetime re-interpretation by the more primitive religions. Now thats blind faith.
The-flippin-ology? Who ever gave that an "ology" then? Makes it sound like a science (I know "ology" doesn't necessarily mean "science of" but you know what I'm getting at).
Great quote, either by Franklin or Jefferson - "Theology has no place at our university."
Darcy, I'd like to refer you to my post just above yours.
I was typing it at the same time molgrips...and my 24 hours off has given my typewriter diarrhoea. Anyway, my main point was this idea that morals come from religion, then I digressed after spotting a spelling mistake and went off on another one. Guilty m'lud.
At one point we believed that the Earth was flat.
Who did, and when?
What, you mean to tell me that if I go from Bristol to Norwich, and then keep going, I'm not going to fall off the edge of the world? Because that's what it feels like.
For you to claim that this may prove Einstein was agnostic is fairly absurd. As I tried to make out though, blindly holding onto any other individual's hand (even Einstein, gasp!) as justification for your own beliefs is fairly silly.
You seem to be trying to back me into a corner. I never brought Einstein up somebody else did. I felt he was being misrepresented and religion has been the most guilty of all at trying to put words into the mouths of other people. I thought it was right to redress the balance.
I have no need to wheel Einstein to reinforce my arguments, somebody else was doing that.
You are right to say I was wrong to call him an agnostic, I was doing this to help balance the argument. By all of the definitions you and others have used above he appears to be an atheist.
On this subject however I care not.
However I think it's a little misleading to compare the scientific search for answers with a religious one. The two things aren't really the same, which is why people can do both. Religion isn't (despite what some on here seem to think) the search for the origin of the world. There are some "creation scientists" that occupy themselves, but really a debate on the validity of creationism is really a completely different thing from one on the value of religion.
That would be all well and good if religion was not prescriptive in our daily lives from the relatively harmless "thought for the day" to more insidious preachings of the Pope.
These religious beliefs impact us socially and economically each day and that is why atheists are becoming more vocal. If you decide to give a tax break to a religious movement then close a hospital wing though lack of funds you have a responsibility to qualify your beliefs!
Surfer- not trying to back you into a corner, just a bit bored as work is slow. Anyway, not trying to go back over old ground but I realised a typo in my last post- I meant that Einstein could be described as agnostic, but not atheist, rather than the reverse as I typed. A fairly crucial error
Anyway, as we both agree that what he reckons is neither here nor there it shouldn't matter. The only reason I got involved in this is that both sides claiming that quoting someone else could validate their beliefs seemed ridiculous, especially when there appeared to be some misunderstanding.
[Apologies for the confusion btw]
Seems to me that the concept of God can be pretty personal.
So it's not fair to slam the entire concept of religion of any kind based on the problems with certain parts of it. That was my point last time this lot came up too
Apologies for the confusion btw
Apologies not necessary! 
Ok, so why jolly well have not chimpanzees 'evolved' anywhere like Humans?Because you're working on the assumption that everytime a species evolves, the old species dies out, ie, chimps become humans then die. It doesn't work like that. Some chimps could have evolved to suit a different habitat/ set of conditions whereas another colony 100 miles away, had no need to. One set evolves, the other stays the same.
You're also working on the assumption that 'better' in the context of evolution is directional, which it isn't. Put another way, why should chimps evolve anywhere like humans? Or grow wings? Or gills? Or lose their legs?
Evolution involves some sort of selection pressure acting on a population. Evolution could just as easily work to make chimps more primitive if that pressure makes it beneficial.
Also, man did not evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor. I know somebody has said this already but it obviously needs repeating!
Now, the irony of followers of Science, dismissing religion as something which lacks 'proof', are happy to accept, as the Truth, stuff which is equally unproven.Like, Jupiter is a big planet X miles from Earth, and consists of X chemicals and what not.
No Human has ever been to Jupiter, to collect any samples. So how can they claim, as gospel, stuff for which they have no evidence?
So presumably you think that gravity and the FSM/fairies in your garden should be be treated as equally plausible? Because there's about the same amount of evidence for gravity as there is for the chemical composition of Jupiter.
I don't follow the logic that says that a theory with a solid body of evidence to back it up should be regarded as no more valid than some speculation with absolutely no observable evidence, if it still has some gaps.
Now, the irony of followers of Science, dismissing religion as something which lacks 'proof', are happy to accept, as the Truth, stuff which is equally unproven.Like, Jupiter is a big planet X miles from Earth, and consists of X chemicals and what not.
No Human has ever been to Jupiter, to collect any samples. So how can they claim, as gospel, stuff for which they have no evidence?
I really cringe when I see stuff like this.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
