Albert Einstein, among other things, said that the Christian and Jewish god "a product of human weakness" and said the bible is "a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." This is stated in a letter he wrote, which is being auctioned. The article about it is here.
[QUOTE="famicommander"]I share Einstein's perspective, but this proves nothing. Einstein's opinion on the existence of god is no more valid than mine or yours.Engrish_Major
I think it is. I would trust Einstein's explanation of how the universe works over any random religious leader.
Faith and science are not mutually exclusive though.
[QUOTE="famicommander"]I share Einstein's perspective, but this proves nothing. Einstein's opinion on the existence of god is no more valid than mine or yours.famicommander
I think it is. I would trust Einstein's explanation of how the universe works over any random religious leader.
Faith and science are not mutually exclusive though.
To me they are. Science should be able to explain everything. I do not believe in ghosts.
[QUOTE="famicommander"]I share Einstein's perspective, but this proves nothing. Einstein's opinion on the existence of god is no more valid than mine or yours.Engrish_Major
I think it is. I would trust Einstein's explanation of how the universe works over any random religious leader.
:lol: Sorry science can't answer that question....Einstein notwithstanding. And he believed in a God....just not that particular interpretation.
[QUOTE="famicommander"]I share Einstein's perspective, but this proves nothing. Einstein's opinion on the existence of god is no more valid than mine or yours.Engrish_Major
I think it is. I would trust Einstein's explanation of how the universe works over any random religious leader.
Faith and science are not mutually exclusive though.
To me they are. Science should be able to explain everything. I do not believe in ghosts.
That still doesn't make Einstein's opinion definitive proof of anything.
[QUOTE="famicommander"]I share Einstein's perspective, but this proves nothing. Einstein's opinion on the existence of god is no more valid than mine or yours.LJS9502_basic
I think it is. I would trust Einstein's explanation of how the universe works over any random religious leader.
:lol: Sorry science can't answer that question....Einstein notwithstanding. And he believed in a God....just not that particular interpretation.
Huh? Science cannot answer how the universe works? So, then, we have to make up storys for the things we do not have the capability to explain yet?
To me they are. Science should be able to explain everything. I do not believe in ghosts.Engrish_Major
But if we're still talkning about religeon and faith... Shouldn't everyone's reasoning for it be faulty to you? Regardless of who they are? Or did Einstein think of a scientific way for a greater power to poop out existance?
[QUOTE="famicommander"]I share Einstein's perspective, but this proves nothing. Einstein's opinion on the existence of god is no more valid than mine or yours.famicommander
I think it is. I would trust Einstein's explanation of how the universe works over any random religious leader.
Faith and science are not mutually exclusive though.
To me they are. Science should be able to explain everything. I do not believe in ghosts.
That still doesn't make Einstein's opinion definitive proof of anything.
I'm not taking it as proof. I'm just saying he is far more qualified to explain the world than you or I. So therefore we should trust his opinion.
To me they are. Science should be able to explain everything. I do not believe in ghosts.Engrish_Major
Science can only provide answers to the questions that are directed towards it: what, where, when, and how. Science can't answer the question of why. That's left to the faith, religion, and philosophy crowd.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]To me they are. Science should be able to explain everything. I do not believe in ghosts.IcyToasters
But if we're still talkning about religeon and faith... Shouldn't everyone's reasoning for it be faulty to you? Regardless of who they are? Or did Einstein think of a scientific way for a greater power to poop out existance?
He did not think of a scientific way for the beginning of existance. He just said that Christianity's explanation is childish.
I'm not taking it as proof. I'm just saying he is far more qualified to explain the world than you or I. So therefore we should trust his opinion.
Engrish_Major
But he isn't more qualified. He's more qualified to talk about physics than we. But who's to say that religion has to violate any known laws of physics?
[QUOTE="famicommander"]I share Einstein's perspective, but this proves nothing. Einstein's opinion on the existence of god is no more valid than mine or yours.Engrish_Major
I think it is. I would trust Einstein's explanation of how the universe works over any random religious leader.
:lol: Sorry science can't answer that question....Einstein notwithstanding. And he believed in a God....just not that particular interpretation.
Huh? Science cannot answer how the universe works? So, then, we have to make up storys for the things we do not have the capability to explain yet?
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]To me they are. Science should be able to explain everything. I do not believe in ghosts.Oleg_Huzwog
Science can only provide answers to the questions that are directed towards it: what, where, when, and how. Science can't answer the question of why. That's left to the faith, religion, and philosophy crowd.
He also didn't want people like you to use him in your atheist argument (I'm also atheist by the way) since he found these arguments pretty 'childish' too.
[QUOTE="IcyToasters"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]To me they are. Science should be able to explain everything. I do not believe in ghosts.Engrish_Major
But if we're still talkning about religeon and faith... Shouldn't everyone's reasoning for it be faulty to you? Regardless of who they are? Or did Einstein think of a scientific way for a greater power to poop out existance?
He did not think of a scientific way for the beginning of existance. He just said that Christianity's explanation is childish.
Which goes back to his OPINION and his OPINION is not more informed since there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for it.
The thing is that science and religion aren't necessarily intertwined. Why does so many of you believe that you can't be a scientist while being religious? Why does one rule out the other?
I for one, believe that there must be more to this world than we are able to touch, smell, taste, see and hear. I hope so. But while believing this, i also study math/physics in college.
I'm with him on "product of human weakness". Every successful person says that it was their own willpower that got them there, but the down-trodden turn to God, unable to do anything for themselves.
[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]Science can only provide answers to the questions that are directed towards it: what, where, when, and how. Science can't answer the question of why. That's left to the faith, religion, and philosophy crowd.
Engrish_Major
I do not believe there is a why.
You not believing there is an answer to the why, doesn't stop the question from being asked. I'd go so far as to say "there is no answer" is in itself an answer - one that requires deliberation to arrive at.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]To me they are. Science should be able to explain everything. I do not believe in ghosts.Engrish_Major
Science can only provide answers to the questions that are directed towards it: what, where, when, and how. Science can't answer the question of why. That's left to the faith, religion, and philosophy crowd.
[QUOTE="famicommander"]I share Einstein's perspective, but this proves nothing. Einstein's opinion on the existence of god is no more valid than mine or yours.Engrish_Major
I think it is. I would trust Einstein's explanation of how the universe works over any random religious leader.
You know he didn't believe in quantum mechanics right? I don't think you should take Einsteins word for everything, think for yourself.
Just saying that he might not have been right about everything he said. :P He's still only human.
Which goes back to his OPINION and his OPINION is not more informed since there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for it.
LJS9502_basic
There is a scientific basis for arguing against the bible. Why do you think that for most of Christianity's history, they have tried to cover up and end scientific progress? Because it started to unravel the storys of the bible.
Which goes back to his OPINION and his OPINION is not more informed since there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for it.
Engrish_Major
There is a scientific basis for arguing against the bible. Why do you think that for most of Christianity's history, they have tried to cover up and end scientific progress? Because it started to unravel the storys of the bible.
No, Biblical literalists always can fall back on appeal to the supernatural. Of course, anyone (believer or not) who gets hung up on whether or not the Bible is a collection of facts is utterly missing the point of the book, IMO.
Which goes back to his OPINION and his OPINION is not more informed since there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for it.
xaos
There is a scientific basis for arguing against the bible. Why do you think that for most of Christianity's history, they have tried to cover up and end scientific progress? Because it started to unravel the storys of the bible.
No, Biblical literalists always can fall back on appeal to the supernatural. Of course, anyone (believer or not) who gets hung up on whether or not the Bible is a collection of facts is utterly missing the point of the book, IMO.
It's the point of the book NOW because science has made most of it unbelievable. Centuries ago, people were supposed to take everything word-for-word. The stories there are meant to explain things that could not be explained with the tools of the day.
Which goes back to his OPINION and his OPINION is not more informed since there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for it.
Engrish_Major
There is a scientific basis for arguing against the bible. Why do you think that for most of Christianity's history, they have tried to cover up and end scientific progress? Because it started to unravel the storys of the bible.
No, Biblical literalists always can fall back on appeal to the supernatural. Of course, anyone (believer or not) who gets hung up on whether or not the Bible is a collection of facts is utterly missing the point of the book, IMO.
It's the point of the book NOW because science has made most of it unbelievable. Centuries ago, people were supposed to take everything word-for-word. The stories there are meant to explain things that could not be explained with the tools of the day.
Since we don't live centuries ago, I'm not sure what you are arguing at this point?
Which goes back to his OPINION and his OPINION is not more informed since there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for it.
xaos
There is a scientific basis for arguing against the bible. Why do you think that for most of Christianity's history, they have tried to cover up and end scientific progress? Because it started to unravel the storys of the bible.
No, Biblical literalists always can fall back on appeal to the supernatural. Of course, anyone (believer or not) who gets hung up on whether or not the Bible is a collection of facts is utterly missing the point of the book, IMO.
It's the point of the book NOW because science has made most of it unbelievable. Centuries ago, people were supposed to take everything word-for-word. The stories there are meant to explain things that could not be explained with the tools of the day.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]To me they are. Science should be able to explain everything. I do not believe in ghosts.Oleg_Huzwog
Science can only provide answers to the questions that are directed towards it: what, where, when, and how. Science can't answer the question of why. That's left to the faith, religion, and philosophy crowd.
um yes it does...
why do people sweat?
because the evaporating water cools the body down.
Which goes back to his OPINION and his OPINION is not more informed since there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for it.
Engrish_Major
There is a scientific basis for arguing against the bible. Why do you think that for most of Christianity's history, they have tried to cover up and end scientific progress? Because it started to unravel the storys of the bible.
Then provide some scientific evidence that God doesn't exist. I'll wait. If you're going on about the way the story was told...that isn't intended to be a literal scientific work.
Log in to comment