Armen Posted February 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 but just wanted to say that the title of this thread is misleading as it implies some sort of religion style_images/master/snapback.png I don't think it implied religion but I could be interpreted by some a such, so I changed the title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 I don't think it implied religion but I could be interpreted by some a such, so I changed the title. I owe you a beer. Or non alcoholic juice if it'll tickle your fancy more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Here is another link on the subject, which inludes the modern scientists: Creation scientists and other biographies of interest http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 I owe you a beer. Or non alcoholic juice if it'll tickle your fancy more style_images/master/snapback.png buy him the juice and me the beer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 I owe you a beer. Or non alcoholic juice if it'll tickle your fancy more style_images/master/snapback.png Wine Sip, wine. It is a Christian thingy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Don't fight, I will take the juice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Because he received a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect I have to accept everything Einstein? Not a chance. That is absurd. style_images/master/snapback.png No, but you could consider why a whole bunch of leading scientists (not only Einstein and even in modern days) believe in creationism. Don't you think they have thought about it A LOT more than yourself using their much more advansed logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 (edited) First of all, as I have stated, Einstein was more a Pantheist, the only times he used the term god, it was to refer to the laws of nature... his position about a god was the one of Spinoza as he himself wrote... so the claim that Einstein believed a classic god is simply untrue. QB, you said it is irrelevant what Einstein thinks and yet you continue to expand on what he said and thought. Classic or non classic, Spinoza or whoever. And Einstein was not the only one. And I repeat again, god is something personal for everyone, it is not Quantum mechanic, it is not thermodynamic... naming scientists doesn't support or "disprove" the existance of a god. You believe in a god, it exist in your universe, Solaris does not believe in a god, god des not exist in her universe, there is a universe for everyone, your universe is not the same as Einsteins universe, in his a god may or may have not existed, this doesn't mean in yours it does not. style_images/master/snapback.png QB, name it what you want. As far as I can see the "multiverses theory" is a highly sophisticated attempt to conceal a creationist view of the universe Edited February 23, 2005 by Armen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 no one can know and therefore "believing" one way or another is just stupid. style_images/master/snapback.png I think none of them is stupid. Both are valid and should be applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 (edited) Wine Sip, wine. It is a Christian thingy style_images/master/snapback.png Hmmmm ... wine is kind of dangerous ... before you know it, something could lead to another and eh Unless you can bring several HOT girls with you at which point I'll even get Haykakan Nuri gini!!!! Edit: And the requirement is they have to be HOT before drinking starts Edited February 23, 2005 by Sip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Edit: And the requirement is they have to be HOT before drinking starts style_images/master/snapback.png See Sip, how mersiful is Chrsitianity towards females. It invented wine so that every female gets some no matter what And girls are ungrateful enough to even question the existence of God. Give me a brake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtraHye Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 See Sip, how mersiful is Chrsitianity towards females. It invented wine so that every female gets some no matter what And girls are ungrateful enough to even question the existence of God. Give me a brake! style_images/master/snapback.png The guy must not be getting some in the first. Or else he wouldn't be getting a not so hot looking girl drunk to get "some". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Or else he wouldn't be getting a not so hot looking girl drunk to get "some". style_images/master/snapback.png Extra jan, I don't need to get drunk. So ... not my problem I guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armjan Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 See Sip, how mersiful is Chrsitianity towards females. It invented wine so that every female gets some no matter what style_images/master/snapback.png good pt. ah yes, I mean everybody needs lovin man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtraHye Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Extra jan, I don't need to get drunk. So ... not my problem I guess style_images/master/snapback.png Never said it was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Never said it was style_images/master/snapback.png Just clarifying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 No, but you could consider why a whole bunch of leading scientists (not only Einstein and even in modern days) believe in creationism. Don't you think they have thought about it A LOT more than yourself using their much more advansed logic. style_images/master/snapback.png 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 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. style_images/master/snapback.png A Fadixist is someone that follow Domino, even when he contradict himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 Two questions: 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Two questions: 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. 2) There may be scientists who kept slaves or nurtured racist ideas, sometimes basing their ideas/practices on their religious beliefs. Irrelevant? style_images/master/snapback.png 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Well, I don't think people of Einstein's calibre would ever fool themselves and be hypocrite. style_images/master/snapback.png 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) Folks, have the decency not to drag Einstein into the "religioust" crowd. This is basically what his belief was about: Let's see how much of your statement corresponds to the reality about religions. 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. 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. 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. 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) Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God. style_images/master/snapback.png 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 February 25, 2005 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Folks, have the decency not to drag Einstein into the "religioust" crowd. style_images/master/snapback.png Einstein is on my side! Yes and if you want to call me something intimate call me "Benito". I prefer it to "Folks" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Einstein is on my side! Yes and if you want to call me something intimate call me "Benito". I prefer it to "Folks" style_images/master/snapback.png 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 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. style_images/master/snapback.png 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.