Adam,
Actual evidence? Where did my claim come from? voices? or a credible publication?
Kate xx
Phizzy Said this......And I am afraid I disagree
by KateWild 96 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
KateWild
cofty,
What have I said that is dellusional?
Kate xx
-
KateWild
Your insistence on forcing your concept of an intelligent God onto Einstein meets the criteria of delusional-Adam
No it doesn't I am just quoting fro Max Jammer because that is what I am reading now. I have read three chapters of Dawkins too. I am expanding in knowledge.
I am not forcing any concepts Adam, I am stating an opinion. My opinion is valid about Einstein, as it is based on factual testimonies and accounts. There is plenty of evidence to find that confirms Einstien was never an atheist. Cofty was humble enough to look at all the evidence I presented along with others and state words to the effect of
"Ok he was a Deist, but Kate you need to define the God you believe in"
Adam, my conclusions are sound and evidence based, I am afraid I disagree with your point, that I am dellusional.
love Kate xx
-
adamah
TEC said- But truth is truth even if it has not yet been tested and verified by the scientific community.
"Truth is truth"?
Self-referential definition much, TEC? Yes, lies are lies, dogs are dogs, trees are trees, etc. It's called the law of identity in logic and has been accepted for 2,500 yrs. Yes, things are what they are. That's a fundamental presupposition that we need to accept, in order to identify things.
The problem enters when someone uses a law of identity statement in their argument as if to prove their point, since it's often actually 'begging the question', simply repeating the question at stake without answering the question (in this case, "Is what you have claimed as 'the truth' actually THE 'truth'?")
Point being, it's as useless as saying 'God created everything', since the next question is, so who created God? It creates an an infinite regression, which is a time-waster.
TEC said-
It is 'safe'... albeit limited to the currently accepted scientific knowledge, which will change as evidence and tools to find newer evidence are discovered/created. (not necessarily reverse, but grow and expand and become fuller, and possibly shed new light - not a pun on the jw nu lite - on other things as well) That is not a rebuke against science at all. It is simply a fact.
Not even rebuke against science, at all: in fact, it's WHY science is better than following religious dogma. Science and secular thinking leads religion, as it did for a flat Earth, geocentrism, slavery, evolution, homosexuality, etc., and religion is constantly playing catch-up.
Heck, here's a book called "the half-life of facts" written by a scientist, and he suggests that ALL ideas accepted as "facts" today should be considered as having invisible expiration dates on them (half-life), as a reminder to scientists not to rest on their laurels and get lazy:
(The first chapter is downloadable for free previewing).
TEC said- Putting a spin on Laika's comment, I could say this: "I am willing to accept that you believe I am deluded; but I cannot honestly agree with your belief."
Which only begs the question: how would someone who was truly deluded be able to have the insight needed to recognize that they ARE deluded?
That's the entire point of a delusions: the people who hold the beliefs actually and honestly DO believe they ARE right, despite readily-available external evidence that might indicate to others that they're wrong. Graveyards are FULL of people who genuinely believed they unloaded the gun before cleaning it, truly believed their "loved one" wouldn't stab them, etc. The brain's capacity for delusion is real, and examples of it are prevalent....
BTW, there's a difference between delusions based on following the ideas of others (who may be similarly deluded, eg JWs may actually believe the schtick, but it doesn't make it true), vs self-delusion (where we manage to convince ourself).
Adam
-
tootired2care
Einstein lived in a completely different time than us, and didn't have nearly as many facts as we do today, whose to say his beliefs in the great cosmic order would not have been altered knowing what we know today that the Andromeda galaxy was on a collision course with the Milky way?
Additionaly, why does it matter what Einstein believed or not? Speculating on his personal belief's in god to support your own belief system is a logical fallicy - an appeal to authority. In a way, It's this same fallacy, that got us all stuck in a cult. If you want to believe in god, your free to do that, if you want to defend god, it should be based on logic, facts, or personal experience and observervations, not based on whether or not someone else of stature believed or not.
-
tornapart
Cofty: A perfect example of a superstitious delusion, and of the way faith is the enemy of the pursuit of knowledge.
Just your opinion Cofty.
-
KateWild
When Einstein stated that he knew there was a God in Heaven, he was talking from the perpective of the beauty in music. I don't share Einsteins perspective music doesn't make me feel the same as chemistry.
Einsteins statement wasn't about intelligent design at all, I have faith in an intelligent Creator, this is not a dellusional statement.
Kate xx
-
adamah
Kate said- No it doesn't I am just quoting fro Max Jammer because that is what I am reading now. I have read three chapters of Dawkins too. I am expanding in knowledge.
thumbs up to that!
Kate said- I am not forcing any concepts Adam, I am stating an opinion. My opinion is valid about Einstein, as it is based on factual testimonies and accounts. There is plenty of evidence to find that confirms Einstien was never an atheist....
And it also doesn't mean you can conclude he was a theist who believed in most people's definition of 'religion' and 'God' (as theists are known to do).
Unfortunately, you are NOT entitled to an opinion when you're misrepresenting his beliefs, by CP quotes that seem to 'fit'. That's intellectually-dishonest, AKA lying, a form of deception. This was discussed on the last page of this very thread: did you read it in full?
I'm not re-doing yesterday's post, but Einstein himself made his point of his beliefs in Gods in 1930 article that ran in the NY Times, and the 'God' he describes sounds exactly like my God (and unlike Einstein, I don't need to play word or relabelling identity games to hide my meaning, but then again I'm not a famous Jewish public figure who likely was concerned of experiencing repercussions for publicly stating one's atheism, esp in light of the later NAZI genocide of Jews):
Read it, but more importantly, really TRY to understand what Einstein is actually saying, and not inserting your own thoughts into his words.... Many believers do it automatically, which is a serious mistake to not let the Bible speak for itself (exegesis) but insert their own doctrine into the readings (eisegesis).
Adam
-
KateWild
inserting your own thoughts into his words.-Adam
I will read all of Max Jammer's book. I will try and read it without any bias. But I am bias as we all are. So it is likely Mr Jammer will confirm my bias. You read it too Adam and we can compare notes. What do you think?
Kate xx
-
KiddingMe
Marked for later