this was covered a little on another thread and interested me.
i have always been convinced einstien believed in god.
i assumed what i had learned was correct and never thought i was taught something wrong.. i have seen some points posters have made.
Why are Einstein's views on god any more significant than my postman's views on Manchester United?
That would depend on your postman's knowledge of football - and of course on which aspect of ManU he was referring to. As. 'blue' of course it's a very tedious topic (Unless we're discussing the last Derby) :)
[it gets under my skin when people post that a jw was df'd for being homosexual.
if one ever was df'd simply for being homosexual, one would have ample grounds for a lawsuit.
the comments in brackets are mine.].
hm. Surely sucking and celibacy are mutually exclusive? :)
this was covered a little on another thread and interested me.
i have always been convinced einstien believed in god.
i assumed what i had learned was correct and never thought i was taught something wrong.. i have seen some points posters have made.
For me, what a person believes is of less interest than why they believe it. Einstein had such an impact on our view of the way the universe works he will always be an interesting person. The value of his opinions on a particular subject depend perhaps on how much interest and thought he devoted to it, and on what evidence that opinion is based.
have you heard what the "big announcement" is to be this week.
supposedly the bethel homes will get some announcement today and the congregations will announce the new something by the end of the week..
Blood Transfusions are ok as long as the donor wasn't strangled?
i have published more than 200 'daily text' comments in german, and will now start translating those into english.
they will be published here:.
http://dailytext2.wordpress.com/.
Np@kate. The stuff from processor is often very funny. Hope your day improved.
read this comment by bertrand russell:.
that man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought or feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system; and the whole temple of mans achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy that rejects them can hope to stand.
only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the souls habitation henceforth be safely built.. .
I never really understood the "I live on through my children" idea. It doesn't make much sense to me.
i have published more than 200 'daily text' comments in german, and will now start translating those into english.
they will be published here:.
http://dailytext2.wordpress.com/.
@kate - you know it's a spoof right? :)
about which we know very little.
so how can atheists make assertions about reality when they challenge religious reality?.
I think it's true that some atheists take religious examples and highlight the conflicts with what is now known. Personally I see that as a service to believers, or at least a believer could choose to see it that way. I'm not sure there are brands of atheism; as far as I can see, one either believes that gods are at least possible (however unlikely) or that they definitely don't exist. I am no expert on atheism.
The paths by which people arrive at their atheism on the other hand seem to me quite diverse. What they do with it seems equally diverse to me too from passive disinterest to almost fundamentalist zeal and the apparent need to convert others.
about which we know very little.
so how can atheists make assertions about reality when they challenge religious reality?.
Perhaps wrongly, I view the 'dark matter/energy' as simply a page marker meaning 'we don't know what it is yet'. I can't see there's a problem in this instance which requires a change to the way scientists approach their work.
Also, there seems to me a significant difference between science per se, and the way individual scientists may practice it. Scientists are simply people after all with egos, prejudices, virtues and failings.
With regard to the OP: as cofty pointed out there is no necessary connection between atheism and science. Provide an honest atheist with adequate evidence of the existence of a god and expect that person to be convinced. To react otherwise would be illogical. By adequate, I mean sufficent for the person concerned. The standard of proof required to convince each person may vary considerably.
if you are a professed atheist, i ask you the question: do you believe in aliens?
could not god be an alien?
how do you know that there is no alien life?
I do think the OP question is reasonable, the gaps in science can be filled with God and Aliens. The point being we don't have all the evidence to prove either, we are speculating on both.
Hm. I'm not sure that the equivalence implied in that statement is true. We know for a fact that sentient life exists in at least one place. Therefore in speculating whether aliens exist we are simply extrapolating from a known fact based on probabilities aren't we?
We do not however, know for a fact that god exists. All the evidence cited for the existence of a god may equally be explained by other reasons.
