Science verses Truth and Religion

So was the thread title a mistake since the truth wasn't with the religious claim?

 

Albert Einstein rejected religion as being illogical while in school by the age of 16. He never recanted on that rejection of religion throughout the rest of his life.

 

wow.......................

I like it,
i love it,
i want some more of it!





ps.....perhaps we could all lose the idea of a 'commandment' being the reason to not 'lie' but best to consider it a human empathy of compassionate responsibility.

 

Would this fit the bill?

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

 

But,,,,,,,,,,, Can you PROVE that he never recanted from that rejection?

 

There is no public record that I'm aware of that would establish he ever recanted and it is hard to believe that a person who's entire life was based upon logical deduction would suddenly throw facts and logic completely out the window.

 

I'll try to address the actual "arguments" here.

Not so much measure so much as detect in any way at all. Even thoughts had that on god in Einstein’s time. If we can detect it but not measure it, it’s more a matter of a lack of scientific sophistication than a problem with science per se. If we cannot detect it but can only imagine it and pretend it’s definitively real, it’s more like schizophrenia.

Death is the cessation of previously existing life, not the absence. Absence of life is a much broader term than death. Thus light:dark is not analogous to life:death.

Well we see micro and macroevolution in microorganisms and microevolution in larger organisms, but beyond that there are multiple lines of evidence for evolution, from the fossil record to vestigial remnants to comparison of DNA between species. Even at that time there were multiple lines of evidence for evolution. It is a best fit explanation for all of biology. Being unable to explain how it all began and then concluding there is a god is a very different approach.

We don’t assume he has a brain based upon faith, we assume he has a brain based upon the fact that we know people have brains and brains are required to function as he is doing. If we removed his brain he would cease to live and cease to lecture, and this would be a reproducible result. This is not applicable to the concept of god because there is no indication of god’s existence in the first place, except as a fallback explanation to what we don’t understand.

I suppose faith exists in the same way darkness exists. The presence of thought with the absence of reason.

Depends on how you define it.

Perhaps if there were some positive correlation between belief in god and not hurting other people, this would be… at least plausible. There is probably no correlation, maybe a negative correlation. Prison inmates are more likely to be religious, meaning that religious people are either less good, more likely to be caught, or that people who go to prison need religion to cope. It’s probably the latter, maybe the second to some extent. Being religious is more correlated with what household you were born into and how bereaved you are. This would fit better with religion being a defense mechanism for dealing with difficult-to-bear facts of life, such as being in prison and then not existing after death.

 

That was WAY too long... Can anyone paraphrase all that please...

 

Not that I care much about the apologetics' tugging war on Einstein, there is of course the letter he wrote to Eric B. Gutkind in the age of 74, where he came down pretty hard on the Abrahamic religions:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish... . For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people..."

The Guardian article
Image of letter

Since he only lived a year and 3 months after having written this letter, I would say he never really recanted the rejection of theistic gods.

 

Poor attention span?

The letter actually mentions that he upbraided atheist extremists too for claiming him for their cause as well. Just not so much.

 

And you call that 'proof'? Proof of what? That someone constructed an image of a teapot? Wow! You are really on top of it today.

 

Again.... sheer speculation. You might as well just own up to the fact that you were not at his bedside at the time of his death, and have no factual information that you can attest to ... other than what others have said.... TSK TSK... leaning on unsubstantiated information... not a very scientific approach.

 

We are not talking about 'beliefs', we are talking about facts. You speak of public records as though those public records make something factual. Well, I can accept that. Public records (in the form of manuscripts which later became recognized as the Bible) dictate that Jesus was the Son of God. There, now that is settled.

 

True facts about Albert Einstein life....
1. He wasn't joined at the hip with anyone else 24/7 from birth till death.
2. There hasn't been found a tape recording of his voice 24/7 from birth till death.
3. There hasn't been found video tape of him in every move he made 24/7 from birth till death.
So you see it is all sheer speculation!

 

It is not speculation that Einstein in an age of 74 years saw the word God as a product of human weakness, the Bible as childish legends and the Jewish religion like all other religions as an incarnation of childish superstitions. He wrote it quite clearly in a letter.

It is speculation, though, that he didn't recant after that letter. So you can of course cling on to that since it apparently has some worth to you.

 

It is true that in the New Testament which was written by men, one of which had never even met Jesus, claimed that a man that had been dead for over 30 years was son of god. We also have documents written by men that claim that Hercules was the son of a god as well. Of note we don't have a single document written by either Jesus or Hercules where they claimed to be the son of god. We do have letters written by Einstein where he states that he does not believe in a personal god as he found it completely illogical to hold such a belief.

BTW Statements that Jesus was the son of god in the New Testament would be considered as second-party hearsay in a court of law but Einstein's letters would be considered as evidence.

 

a solid argument.


likewise, when fools claim, they know jesus; they are lying (of false witness) which is against the very 'god' they profess acceptance of, per the commands

 

If you say you know the tooth fairy, it is simply a matter of you knowing your own fantasy. Since that's not even an issue (either you have a knowledge of your fantasies or you have no fantasies), you cannot be lying about knowing the tooth fairy.

Hence, people who say they know Jesus are not lying, either.

 

Seeing that you have thrown in the name of Hercules (a mythical creature), let us throw in another one (one which does not have anything to do with God but does have a lot to do with philosophy). That name is Socrates: Let us look a little closer: http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/People/Socrates/
"Socratic problem

Scholars and historians who try to gather accurate information about Socrates face a peculiar problem, known as the Socratic problem. This problems arise due to 3 key features - There is no proof that Socrates ever wrote anything, philosophical or biographical.
Whatever information we derive about Socrates is from the works of 4 scholars namely - Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, and Aristophanes.
The writings are in an artistic and creative style, therefore creating a doubt whether these details are truth or fiction.
So the information on Socrates that is available cannot be proved and has no historical evidence. If the evidence is only through the writings of his associates, there is doubt that Socrates ever existed or he was an imaginary character in his students writings to explain their philosophy."

A bunch of philosophy is used on this forum in varied attempts at disproving the existence of God, ridiculing Christians and other Theists... so why not take another look at the fantasies of those that subscribe to 'western philosophy'. Western philosophy.... founded on a fairy tale.

It is ironic that you should bring into this forum, those things that can be considered as juristic evidence. Are you ready to start a new thread dedicated to that subject? It is also a simple matter to get thrown out of court, the testimony of psychologists, sociologists, psychiatrists... why? Because their opinions (though expert opinions) are also based on 'belief'. None of the factors that they would use in describing a persons mental status can be attributed to every person... Read my signature line.

 

Was that infamous letter written on his death bed? No? Then yours is speculation, based on a letter that was written before he was confronted with the death issue at his bedside.

 

sure yu can; it's false witness, period!

it is like you claiming, you know president obama. you can read all the stuff, see him on TV and even vote for him, but do you know him?

sure they are.

they may know what the literature claims of jesus, but they have no idea who jesus is, nor what he looked like, and in most cases, what he himself believed of himself

idiots lie and use a persons name quite frequently when it comes to religious beliefs but actually have no idea WHO the person is other than by what other people have claimed

 

I have to agree with this logic. They maybe delusional but they're not lying.

Of course I used to know a guy named Jesus Hernandez so I did know Jesus at one time but he was a welder and not a carpenter and he never claimed to be god.

 

I see now that this discussion can lead into some really interesting perspectives.

What makes something a 'fantasy'? While you are sitting there at your computer, take a moment from the typing and close your eyes; with those eyes closed, visualize that special someone in your life; see him or her in all of his or her glory, beauty, splendor, magnificence or in all of his/her hatred, bitterness, jealousy, murderous rage, rampaging passion toward money, or sexual prowess... Was that chance encounter with your mind at work a matter of fantasy or was that chance encounter a matter of you seeing the person as he/she might actually be? Keep those thoughts in mind regarding that special someone and watch those various aspects manifest in the temporal world. Go ahead and plant the seed in your mind.

 

Can I take peyote first?

Just kidding of course.....