"friend" sends me email about Einstein and God...

by tetrapod.sapien 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  MerryMagdalene

  ~Sorry to butt in~
  
  LT:
  I think Google was just accusing you of being in the same box with those who misquote and whatknot, not of actually doing it yourself ( I hope). [edited to add: I'm slow and my mouse is goofin *grumble grumble*]
  
  Google:
  I agree with LT that if God exists then not believing in him doesn't automatically absent him/her/it/them from you...and if God doesn't exist then saying evil is his/etc. absence is meaningless.
  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  Einstein Proves That God Exists in a Confrontation with a Professor- Fiction!
  Summary of the eRumor This is an account of a classroom encounter between young Albert Einstein and a professor who was arguing that the Christian faith is a myth. Einstein argues that evil is the absence of God in the same way that darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat.
  The Truth Last updated 8/25/04

  
  
• 

  ellderwho

  funny how christians (well, that's the box you put yourself in, littletoe, that's not our fault ;-)) just like to misquote, misinterpret or even make up stories bout einstein or other scientists...

  LOL, yeah every scientist that has lived on earth has always in every instance been truthful and ethically without spot.
• 

  googlemagoogle

  I'm afraid you're going to have to cite examples of where I've done that.
  
  hmm, got me wrong. you didn't misquote, but christians do. but you don't like it when people say "christians do" because you put yourself in the "christian" box. just let us have some prejudices and generalizations, will you?
  
  You're starting yout assumption from a false premise.
  
  not from a traditional christian/biblical point of view about good and evil. but thats where the problem begins - you actually are not in the "christian box". that's great, but thus you shouldn't feel attached to the label "christian". i think you are more than that.
• 

  googlemagoogle

  LOL, yeah every scientist that has lived on earth has always in every instance been truthful and ethically without spot.
  
  really?
• 

  LittleToe

  Google:

  hmm, got me wrong. you didn't misquote, but christians do. but you don't like it when people say "christians do" because you put yourself in the "christian" box. just let us have some prejudices and generalizations, will you?

  But non-Christians misquote, too, regardless of belief or lack thereof. Why should I be tolerant of that kind of prejudice against aspects of my own belief system? I see it all too commonly, and there seems to be a groundswell here, recently. Should I sit on my ass while it gets misrepresented? If I don't stand up for it, will you?

  I similarly stand up for things which appear to be established fact, like evolution. Should I keep quiet when fundamentalists come crashing through the door spouting ridiculous nonsense? You know that I'm often one of the first to jump on them!

  not from a traditional christian/biblical point of view about good and evil. but thats where the problem begins - you actually are not in the "christian box". that's great, but thus you shouldn't feel attached to the label "christian". i think you are more than that.

  Of course I'm more than that, as is every human being of whatever persuasion. How much do you actually know about Christianity? I've spouted none of my unorthodox views here...

  Maybe the title means something different to you, but to me it means someone who has a personal relationship with Christ. I claim that title boldly. If you have a problem with that then maybe you need to reexamine what it means to have empathy...
• 

  cypher50

  also would like to know why it is seemingly impossible for young Einstien to have held radically different views from an older Einstien. Do we not give him credit for the ability to change his opinion, if he so wished?

  Seems poor ole Einstien has posthumously been placed in a very confining box, by those who admire his work but cannot tolerate those things which may (or may not) be at odds with their own flavour of visualisation of how the world is...

  
  

  
  Notice the part I highlighted? Noticed how you said "if he so wished"? Where in that piece of glurge that was originally posted did it give a reference to prove that Einstein ever said anything like what that email story said? Those who are admirers of Einstein don't put him in a "very confining box"...instead, they tend to only use reason & proof when it comes to stories concerning his life. There is no reason & no proof that can back this story up so why should anyone take it seriously?

  There are plenty of real life scholars who have equally nice little tales that are true and to even try to justify made up urban legends like this is intellectually dishonest.
• 

  cypher50

  I fail to see how the defense that was made in that excerpt identifies any particular faith group, so why are y'all calling down on us Christians, again? Bigotted b*st*rds!!!

  OK, you live in the UK so maybe you don't quite get the same thing but here in the US these type of emails are sent out by many fundamental Christians trying to support their Intelligent Creation theories. So, it isn't so hard to see why a lot of backlash against fundamental Christians will come up when a email like this is shown...
• 

  LittleToe

  Believe me, we get it here, and I hate unsolicited mail as much as you do (which makes it kinda ironic that I can't even avoid it here!).
  I usually place such things on auto-reply, with a very specific message to leave my mailbox alone!

  Given the fact that there are indeed plenty of folks who could be quoted, where is the evidence that this is fabricated (and yes, I did read that website)? Notwithstanding that, I don't see that it really matters if it was Albert Einstien, Richard Dawkins, or Kylie Monogue - the kid was a smart arse - but it does raise a very good point for debate!

  On another note, I was interested to read this from Dawkins:

  "Most of us have had our lives saved my medical science, probably more than once, and I am all for it," he said in the interview. "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, in the sense that I believe Darwinian natural selection is the explanation for all life. But as a citizen I am an anti-Darwinian! I do not want to see the ruthless callousness of natural selection taking its toll of human life and happiness."

  And:

  Dawkins admits to feeling frustrated that so many Americans appear to reject Darwin's theory of evolution in favor of the creationist concept that God created humans in their present form.
  He said, "I know perfectly well that these people are not stupid but ignorant. Ignorance is no crime and it is easily cured by education. What annoys me is the religious groups who actively work to prevent scientific education. And it doesn't just annoy me. It annoys respectable theologians who worry that creationism besmirches the reputation of true religion."

  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1115_041115_dawkins_darwin_2.html
• 

  Spook

  The points raised are NOT good ones. It's scientistic flap doodle that begs linguistic symantics.

  Heat:Cold

  Does not eqaul

  Light: Darkness

  Does not equal

  Good:Evil

  Though that last one is completely socially constructed. Heat is a measure. Hot/Cold are relative. Darkness/Light is a little better. Since darkness is "made up" and is no more meaningful than "Having bread/Not having bread." We just don't define space as being "not filled with bread" because that is not relevant to the information class that the logic is relating to.

  The philosophy of the argument is so week. My first line of counter questioning would follow as:

  "Since your arguents are contradictory, I would ask you if you'd like me to reply to your 'measurable continuum' point or your 'this and not this' point?

  Then again, I wouldn't have made a statement attaching to good and evil in the first place.
• 

  DannyBloem

  Hi, Littletoo, they are intersting quotes:

  "Most of us have had our lives saved my medical science, probably more than once, and I am all for it," he said in the interview. "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, in the sense that I believe Darwinian natural selection is the explanation for all life. But as a citizen I am an anti-Darwinian! I do not want to see the ruthless callousness of natural selection taking its toll of human life and happiness."

  But what point did you want to make? I think most evolutionists think like this. Evolution is not a religion.

  Dawkins admits to feeling frustrated that so many Americans appear to reject Darwin's theory of evolution in favor of the creationist concept that God created humans in their present form.
  
  He said, "I know perfectly well that these people are not stupid but ignorant. Ignorance is no crime and it is easily cured by education. What annoys me is the religious groups who actively work to prevent scientific education. And it doesn't just annoy me. It annoys respectable theologians who worry that creationism besmirches the reputation of true religion."

  Here in europe atheism is much more common then in America. It is considered 'weird' to believe in God here. Why is it in the states so much different?

  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1115_041115_dawkins_darwin_2.html