Einstein called bible "pretty childish." Turns out he is pretty smart

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

What is stunning about proof not needed to make a valuable opinion?

CptJSparrow

That is not true. Some opinons are subjective and some are objective. However, when using an opinion as he has in this thread as a higher opinion he needs to bring something substantial into the subject.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

How about the fact that you call the Bible "laughable?":|

Engrish_Major

A lot of it is pretty laughable to me, yes.

Why?

ljs9502_basic

I reread here(yawn,lol) an you are playing the Devils advo/juggler here say many ways ...

Engrish Guy is right what he says !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.........you are just trolling him ....

Please dont make a fool an carry on this trolling ! .. you been told... move on ...

Rgt15

:lol: Sorry.....I don't troll. Those with alt accounts do that.

That is not true. Some opinions are subjective and some are objective. However, when using an opinion as he has in this thread as a higher opinion he needs to bring something substantial into the subject.

LJS9502_basic

ljs9502_basic

I reread here(yawn,lol) an you are playing the Devils advo/juggler here say many ways ...

Engrish Guy is right what he says !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.........you are just trolling him ....

Please dont make a fool an carry on this trolling ! .. you been told... move on ...

Rgt15

lol "Prove it!!" "Do you have proof!?!?" "Where is your proof to back up that claim!?" "Proof Proof Proof Proof Proof!!!"

can you Prove to me that he is trolling?

lol

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

How about the fact that you call the Bible "laughable?":|

Dracargen

A lot of it is pretty laughable to me, yes.

Why?

A man coming back from the dead, and rescuing lost souls... one omniprescient being creating the world with the wave of his hand... all of mankind coming from two people... then eating an apple and being banished from paradise... the ark, etc. etc.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

How about the fact that you call the Bible "laughable?":|

Engrish_Major

A lot of it is pretty laughable to me, yes.

Why?

A man coming back from the dead, and rescuing lost souls... one omniprescient being creating the world with the wave of his hand... all of mankind coming from two people... then eating an apple and being banished from paradise... the ark, etc. etc.

Explain why they sound ridiculous to you.

A man coming back from the dead, and rescuing lost souls... one omniprescient being creating the world with the wave of his hand... all of mankind coming from two people... then eating an apple and being banished from paradise... the ark, etc. etc.

Engrish_Major

The Genesis stories are symbolic. And since we have only been in this plane of existence we can't say what happens when it ends.

ljs9502_basic

I reread here(yawn,lol) an you are playing the Devils advo/juggler here say many ways ...

Engrish Guy is right what he says !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.........you are just trolling him ....

Please dont make a fool an carry on this trolling ! .. you been told... move on ...

Rgt15

Engrish major is stating just because Einstien is smart that we have to believe his opinion on religions.

LJ is saying that we don't have to because Einstien's opinion to him is as valuable as my opinion or yours. I agree with LJ. Although I have respect for Einstien, I have my own opinion on Religion and just because Engrish Major says Einstien "knows all" even if Einstien never claimed to be a religious expert, I can't agree with him. imo, Engrish is the one trolling this out.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

How about the fact that you call the Bible "laughable?":|

Dracargen

A lot of it is pretty laughable to me, yes.

Why?

A man coming back from the dead, and rescuing lost souls... one omniprescient being creating the world with the wave of his hand... all of mankind coming from two people... then eating an apple and being banished from paradise... the ark, etc. etc.

Explain why they sound ridiculous to you.

They sound like children's storys that were made thousands of years ago in order to explain things that science was not yet evolved enough to explain. Science still has not been able to say how life or the universe started, but at least does not make up storys and pretend to know everything.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

A man coming back from the dead, and rescuing lost souls... one omniprescient being creating the world with the wave of his hand... all of mankind coming from two people... then eating an apple and being banished from paradise... the ark, etc. etc.

LJS9502_basic

The Genesis stories are symbolic. And since we have only been in this plane of existence we can't say what happens when it ends.

So, since they are 'symbolic', then I should believe the bible? I do not understand... how are we supposed to know what to believe and not to believe? Are the commandments 'symbolic'?

So, since they are 'symbolic', then I should believe the bible? I do not understand... how are we supposed to know what to believe and not to believe? Are the commandments 'symbolic'?

Engrish_Major

No....the commandments were the rules they lived by. That is not symbolism. Apples and snakes are symbolism.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

So, since they are 'symbolic', then I should believe the bible? I do not understand... how are we supposed to know what to believe and not to believe? Are the commandments 'symbolic'?

LJS9502_basic

No....the commandments were the rules they lived by. That is not symbolism. Apples and snakes are symbolism.

How about Jesus' resurrection? God himself? What if they were symbolic?

They sound like children's storys that were made thousands of years ago in order to explain things that science was not yet evolved enough to explain. Science still has not been able to say how life or the universe started, but at least does not make up storys and pretend to know everything.

Engrish_Major

What makes science more appealing to you? Why do they sound like childrens' stories if proof is not required for a valuable opinion?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

So, since they are 'symbolic', then I should believe the bible? I do not understand... how are we supposed to know what to believe and not to believe? Are the commandments 'symbolic'?

Engrish_Major

No....the commandments were the rules they lived by. That is not symbolism. Apples and snakes are symbolism.

How about Jesus' resurrection? God himself? What if they were symbolic?

If you can explain what they could have been symbolic for, and how that would affect Christianity at all, then we'll talk.;)

How about Jesus' resurrection? God himself? What if they were symbolic?

Engrish_Major

That would come down to faith and belief......not symbolism dude.:|

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

They sound like children's storys that were made thousands of years ago in order to explain things that science was not yet evolved enough to explain. Science still has not been able to say how life or the universe started, but at least does not make up storys and pretend to know everything.

Dracargen

What makes science more appealing to you? Why do they sound like childrens' stories if proof is not required for a valuable opinion?

There is more compelling evidence for evolution, the big bang, etc. and not enough evidence for ghosts. That's what I base my opinions on.

alt accounts .. ? Ffs .. lol ???

Fact is Engrish is right ..

stop being a foolish troll there ..........get with the flow .. ..... .... ;) .......................................... ;) ok

Rgt15

from what i've noticed of your posting history, you do give the impression of an alt. I wonder what the mod's opinions would be on that.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

How about Jesus' resurrection? God himself? What if they were symbolic?

LJS9502_basic

That would come down to faith and belief......not symbolism dude.:|

It could be symbolism if Adam and Eve were symbolic. Plenty of Christian believe that stuff verbatim as well. Why do you believe it was symbilic?

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

They sound like children's storys that were made thousands of years ago in order to explain things that science was not yet evolved enough to explain. Science still has not been able to say how life or the universe started, but at least does not make up storys and pretend to know everything.

Engrish_Major

What makes science more appealing to you? Why do they sound like childrens' stories if proof is not required for a valuable opinion?

There is more compelling evidence for evolution, the big bang, etc. and not enough evidence for ghosts. That's what I base my opinions on.

Then you contradict yourself. You place higher value in opinions that have more evidence, and look down on opinions that do not, even though you stated that an opinion does not need proof to be valued.

There is more compelling evidence for evolution, the big bang, etc. and not enough evidence for ghosts. That's what I base my opinions on.

Engrish_Major

actually the ghost thing is just making you look dumb cause that's the only "proof" your giving for the "disproof" of the bible.

Edit: the big bang has already been discarded by the majority of the science community. Many of the other ideas of our creation are stated as "possibilities" because there is no solid proof to support them. any scientist you talk to will say that.

Then you contradict yourself. You place higher value in opinions that have more evidence, and look down on opinions that do not, even though you stated that an opinion does not need proof to be valid.

Dracargen

Where did I contradict myself? Evidence =/= proof.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

How about Jesus' resurrection? God himself? What if they were symbolic?

Engrish_Major

That would come down to faith and belief......not symbolism dude.:|

It could be symbolism if Adam and Eve were symbolic. Plenty of Christian believe that stuff verbatim as well. Why do you believe it was symbilic?

Plenty? I'd say the fundamentalists would...but they are a small minority. Adam and Eve were symbolic for the first humans.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

There is more compelling evidence for evolution, the big bang, etc. and not enough evidence for ghosts. That's what I base my opinions on.

princess1087

actually the ghost thing is just making you look dumb cause that's the only "proof" your giving for the "disproof" of the bible.

Then I'll keep looking dumb. An all-knowing being that is everywhere, but we cannot see him, and a man reappearing after death, and the Holy Ghost all sound like ghosts to me.

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

To me they are. Science should be able to explain everything. I do not believe in ghosts.

LJS9502_basic

To be correct....science hasn't provided any proof. So I guess science DOESN'T explain everything.

Being given explanations to how things possibly work in the universe rather than "God did it in six days and then rested on the seventh" is more sensible, in my opinion.

Plenty? I'd say the fundamentalists would...but they are a small minority. Adam and Eve were symbolic for the first humans.

LJS9502_basic

Then what is the resurrection symbolic of? Why should I believe one supernatural event but not another?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

How about Jesus' resurrection? God himself? What if they were symbolic?

Engrish_Major

That would come down to faith and belief......not symbolism dude.:|

It could be symbolism if Adam and Eve were symbolic. Plenty of Christian believe that stuff verbatim as well. Why do you believe it was symbilic?

The Adam and Eve story was written in a symbolic styIe. Here's an example of symbolism.

Just because one story is symbolic does not make the whole thing symbolic. The Bible is 66 books (not one) that were written across countries over a period of thousands of years. Language is going to change a little here and there during that time.:|

You do realise that Einstein believed in God.spark5050

This thread = FAIL

Albert Einstein was a great man. Trying to kill his name with this mis-quoted nonsense just pisses me off.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Then you contradict yourself. You place higher value in opinions that have more evidence, and look down on opinions that do not, even though you stated that an opinion does not need proof to be valid.

Engrish_Major

Where did I contradict myself? Evidence =/= proof.

Duh. . . .what is proof, and what is evidence?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Plenty? I'd say the fundamentalists would...but they are a small minority. Adam and Eve were symbolic for the first humans.

Engrish_Major

Then what is the resurrection symbolic of? Why should I believe one supernatural event but not another?

The only symbolism in the NT is the parables....

[QUOTE="princess1087"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

There is more compelling evidence for evolution, the big bang, etc. and not enough evidence for ghosts. That's what I base my opinions on.

Engrish_Major

actually the ghost thing is just making you look dumb cause that's the only "proof" your giving for the "disproof" of the bible.

Then I'll keep looking dumb. An all-knowing being that is everywhere, but we cannot see him, and a man reappearing after death, and the Holy Ghost all sound like ghosts to me.

a man coming back to life does not make him a ghost. whether it is true or not, even some christians will admit to not knowing. the holy ghost isn't possession or anything like that either according to the bible. an all knowing being everywhere that we cannot see would make him a deity, not a ghost. there is a HUGE difference.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Plenty? I'd say the fundamentalists would...but they are a small minority. Adam and Eve were symbolic for the first humans.

Engrish_Major

Then what is the resurrection symbolic of? Why should I believe one supernatural event but not another?

The Resurrection wasn't necessarily symbolic because the Creation was symbolic. :|

If you can show how it could have been symbolic, what it could have been symbolic for, and how it changes Christianity, then it will actually matter whether the Resurrection is symbolic or not.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Then you contradict yourself. You place higher value in opinions that have more evidence, and look down on opinions that do not, even though you stated that an opinion does not need proof to be valid.

Dracargen

Where did I contradict myself? Evidence =/= proof.

Duh. . . .what is proof, and what is evidence?

Many pieces of evidence are put together to form proof. You can have evidence that supports your argument but not proof. Ever watched court proceedings?

a man coming back to life does not make him a ghost. whether it is true or not, even some christians will admit to not knowing. the holy ghost isn't possession or anything like that either according to the bible. an all knowing being everywhere that we cannot see would make him a deity, not a ghost. there is a HUGE difference.

princess1087

Sounds like ghosts to me. But to each their own.

Many pieces of evidence are put together to form proof. You can have evidence that supports your argument but not proof. Ever watched court proceedings?

Engrish_Major

Nonetheless, your thesis statement was that without any evidence or proof one man's opinion is more valuable because he had a high IQ. Not true....

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Then you contradict yourself. You place higher value in opinions that have more evidence, and look down on opinions that do not, even though you stated that an opinion does not need proof to be valid.

Engrish_Major

Where did I contradict myself? Evidence =/= proof.

Duh. . . .what is proof, and what is evidence?

Many pieces of evidence are put together to form proof. You can have evidence that supports your argument but not proof. Ever watched court proceedings?

You didn't answer the question.

What is evidence, and what is proof?

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Many pieces of evidence are put together to form proof. You can have evidence that supports your argument but not proof. Ever watched court proceedings?

LJS9502_basic

Nonetheless, your thesis statement was that without any evidence or proof one man's opinion is more valuable because he had a high IQ. Not true....

We have evidence to support his beliefs. Christianity, on the other hand...

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Many pieces of evidence are put together to form proof. You can have evidence that supports your argument but not proof. Ever watched court proceedings?

LJS9502_basic

Nonetheless, your thesis statement was that without any evidence or proof one man's opinion is more valuable because he had a high IQ. Not true....

Well, it certainly is more valuable than someone with a very low IQ. If there was a proof of anything, anyone who wouldn't believe it would be stupid so why are we talking about proofs/evidence?

You didn't answer the question.

What is evidence, and what is proof?

Dracargen

I'll help:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Many pieces of evidence are put together to form proof. You can have evidence that supports your argument but not proof. Ever watched court proceedings?

Engrish_Major

Nonetheless, your thesis statement was that without any evidence or proof one man's opinion is more valuable because he had a high IQ. Not true....

We have evidence to support his beliefs. Christianity, on the other hand...

And that evidence would be?

And that evidence would be?

LJS9502_basic

Are you asking for evidence to support scientific belief?

Well, it certainly is more valuable than someone with a very low IQ. If there was a proof of anything, anyone who wouldn't believe it would be stupid so why are we talking about proofs/evidence?

bloodling

Nope. In the absence of proof/evidence every opinion is worth the same. I've known people with high IQ's and no common sense. I've known people with high IQ's and no wisdom. I've known people with high IQ's and no education. IQ is good to a point but utterly worthless in this discussion. Second....we're not talking about people with very low IQ's. I'd imagine we're in the normal to high range for discussions sake.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

And that evidence would be?

Engrish_Major

Are you asking for evidence to support scientific belief?

I'm asking for the evidence you said Einstein had in regard to his opinion on this subject. NOTE: it's not scientific.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

You didn't answer the question.

What is evidence, and what is proof?

Engrish_Major

I'll help:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

You still didn't answer the question. Is it because evidence and proof are the same exact things? Maybe. Let's see what the all-knowing Internet has to say.

Definitions of evidence on the Web:

• attest: provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one's behavior, attitude, or external attributes; "His high fever attested to his illness ...
• your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling"
• an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear"
• testify: provide evidence for; "The blood test showed that he was the father"; "Her behavior testified to her incompetence"
• tell: give evidence; "he was telling on all his former colleague"
• (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Definitions of proof on the Web:

• any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it"
• a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it
• validation: the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

We have evidence to support his beliefs. Christianity, on the other hand...

Engrish_Major

he proved many things in the field of science. He was NEVER acclaimed as a Religious expert nor did he claim to be. How many times do I have to say that? That, in all honesty, makes his opinion on the matter as valid as mine or yours.

So your judgement of whether or not Einsten was smart, centers mainly on his belief in god? Brilliant :roll:sonicare

Isn't it, though? :D