Just clarifying
Famous Scientists - Creationists
#41
Posted 23 February 2005 - 05:00 PM
#42
Posted 23 February 2005 - 07:12 PM
I responded to this train of thought. I can also say that for the many who do not believe in a religion. It means nothing. And who says they thought about it at all? It is not a prerequisite.
#43
Posted 23 February 2005 - 07:40 PM
Domino (or Quebecer, I should say ) is Fadixist a person who believes in multiple universes? Did you come up with that? You use the word "Fadixism" quite a lot lately.
A Fadixist is someone that follow Domino, even when he contradict himself.
#44
Posted 24 February 2005 - 01:51 PM
1) Isn't a "creationist" different from your average Christian? Don't they believe that the world is 10,000 years old or so and that sort of stuff?
2) There may be scientists who kept slaves or nurtured racist ideas, sometimes basing their ideas/practices on their religious beliefs. Irrelevant?
#45
Posted 24 February 2005 - 08:44 PM
1) Isn't a "creationist" different from your average Christian? Don't they believe that the world is 10,000 years old or so and that sort of stuff?
I think creationists are not at all same with religious Christians, which follow the literal explanation of the Bible by church. They can be Muslim, Hinduist etc.
You're basically saying that there may be people like Bush who say they are Christians. So? There are many.
Well, I don't think people of Einstein's calibre would ever fool themselves and be hypocrite. And here is why. Can you imagine how small was the tilt his mind that made him not to discreadit the idea of creation entirely. He knew exactly that he could discreadit this idea for lot of people and show the might of material science. It would be very tempting to do that actually. For example for the fun of it. To mock the church. And yet he was true to himself. I don't think people of that kind can fool themselves. This is why they were the greatest scientists. They never fooled themselves.
#46
Posted 25 February 2005 - 02:40 AM
Folks, have the decency not to drag Einstein into the "religioust" crowd. This is basically what his belief was about:
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. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation 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. // The Human Side, 1954
#47
Posted 25 February 2005 - 11:11 AM
Let's see how much of your statement corresponds to the reality about religions.
He disagrees with the typical primitive explanation given by Christian churches. This is only a part of all religions, not all religions have the same idea of direct influence of God on individuals.
This is exactly the way some major branches of Hinduism view God - as an infinite and supreme spirit. Not to forget the Christian concept of the Holy Ghost. (Possibly other religions also agree on that, I don't know)
This view is shared by all religions. All religions without exceptions have moral codes that are very important for their followers.
Now, does it matter that Eistein was not part of a formal religion?
I don't think anyone is trying to portray Einstein as a religious individual, but the fact remains that he had ideas that are common in various theologies around the world.
Edited by Sasun, 25 February 2005 - 11:14 AM.
#49
Posted 25 February 2005 - 11:55 AM
Yes and if you want to call me something intimate call me "Benito". I prefer it to "Folks"
Bullst, it disgust me when people that are dead, their positions are hijacked to support their convictions.
Let make that clear for you, so you stop using Einstein.
"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."
Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.
Einstein was a Pantheist, like a great many scientists, he is not on your side, stop hijacking his position to support your beliefs.
Einstein did believe in the "supernatural" but he as well believed that science was a tool that will one day able to answer all those questions.
There are Pantheist theists and Pantheist atheists, Einsteins Pantheism was neither pointing to one or the other position.
#50
Posted 25 February 2005 - 12:06 PM
Let make that clear for you, so you stop using Einstein.
"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."
Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.
Einstein was a Pantheist, like a great many scientists, he is not on your side, stop hijacking his position to support your beliefs.
Einstein did believe in the "supernatural" but he as well believed that science was a tool that will one day able to answer all those questions.
There are Pantheist theists and Pantheist atheists, Einsteins Pantheism was neither pointing to one or the other position.
QB, I am just showing what some of the guys do. Exactly, that is disgusting. Like claiming that "technology" supports some arguments. Using highly doubtful theories to undermine the creadibility of faith.
Now, you can feel how disgusted I feel. And I don't need Einstein. You might guess that he is not the only great authority I turn to.
#51
Posted 25 February 2005 - 12:13 PM
Now, you can feel how disgusted I feel. And I don't need Einstein. You might guess that he is not the only great authority I turn to.
You were the one posting Einstein name first.
As for what you have raised here, I will not advanture there, because I disagree with both positions, but what I can say is that in my opinion Solaris arguments are stronger, while Sasun main points are about calling others ignorants and shouting the word knowledge here and there.
#52
Posted 25 February 2005 - 12:22 PM
That was meant to make some people disgusted. Because there are people who do not understand what they do until you put them in your shoes forcefully.
I think you're very unfare towards Sasun. As far as I can see they still debate. Some of Solaris arguments are strong but Sasun has some very strong points as well. So it is just your personal choice which arguments you like. For me it has no difference.
QB, you think YOU have knowledge? Like what? Paradoxical Singularity? Yeah, right.
Edited by Armen, 25 February 2005 - 12:50 PM.
#53
Posted 25 February 2005 - 12:22 PM
Yes and if you want to call me something intimate call me "Benito". I prefer it to "Folks"
No, Benito, Einstein is not on your side. See Quebec's quotation below.
And this is also one of my Einstein quotes:
But perhaps Einstein'll help you to resign to the idea of BB, if you like him so much:
Einstein on the big Bang theory:
Brevity is the soul of wit, Benito!
Edited by Solaris, 25 February 2005 - 12:24 PM.
#54
Posted 25 February 2005 - 12:34 PM
Solaris, you feel realy insecure with this whole "Einstein" stuff, eh? You can have him back.
How about the other people? Like Maxwell and others.
But perhaps Einstein'll help you to resign to the idea of BB, if you like him so much:
Einstein on the big Bang theory:
Yet, he was not sure as that previous quote where he speaks about creation shows.
I love that! More...
Edited by Armen, 25 February 2005 - 12:43 PM.
#55
Posted 25 February 2005 - 03:29 PM
Yes it does, at least to me. I call myself an atheist for the sole reason of emphasizing that I don't believe in a personal god and the pious mumbo-jumbo of "formal" religions. I don't have any objection whatsoever against abstract pantheism.
I am convinced humans don't need a God and a religion to be moral, kind, honest, brave, conscientious or generous. The French existentialists, notably Sartre in his essay on Existentialism as Humanism, argued this point most brilliantly amidst the crazed "God is dead" refrain of the 1960s.
In fact, you should consider reading stuff like that, before devoting your precious time to championing the cause of stigmata.
Edited by Solaris, 25 February 2005 - 04:02 PM.
#56
Posted 25 February 2005 - 04:18 PM
This sounds quite a bit like my beliefs. An agnostic who hates organized religion. I think you have chosen the wrong word, especially since I believe atheism is illogical.
#57
Posted 25 February 2005 - 04:34 PM
It basically depends on what you mean under "god". If atheism is lack of belief in god, and god is the personal god – the character from the scriptures, then it basically makes me an atheist. I use the word to put that straight and clear any doubts in that account (without having recourse to that upside-down cross that Armjan & Sasun "adore" ).
But in a broader context – yea, I am surely a "regular" agnostic.
#58
Posted 25 February 2005 - 04:37 PM
I showed that Einstein had common ideas with religions, and for that it does not matter that he was not religious.
Look, if you give importance to morality the same way the religions do, then there is at least one thing in common. So I don't understand why you are so antagonistic to religions.
In fact, you should consider reading stuff like that, before devoting your precious time to championing the cause of stigmata.
I have read stuff like that (but I can't say I have been a big fan of Sartre), and influenced by them, had opinions like your opinions and attitude towards religion and the idea of God and even worse than that, etc... But this is not a one dimensional world. I have "grown up" now
#59
Posted 25 February 2005 - 04:38 PM
I think you're very unfare towards Sasun. As far as I can see they still debate. Some of Solaris arguments are strong but Sasun has some very strong points as well. So it is just your personal choice which arguments you like. For me it has no difference.
QB, you think YOU have knowledge? Like what? Paradoxical Singularity? Yeah, right.
I did not profess any "knowledge" of a god, neither use the term ignorance where it does not fit, I refer here to the thread in which both of us participated, and where I developped regarding the term knowledge in what regard a god.
#60
Posted 25 February 2005 - 04:47 PM
Because it is precisely only that one thing in common. All of the "benefits" organized religion has to offer humanity are not dependant on it but much of the trouble organized religion causes is exclusive to it.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users