Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

Seems people like to take his words out of context too. From what I've always read about Einstein, he never once explicitly stated, "I do not believe in the existence of God."

Not only that, but he specifically provided his own definition of god on several occasions (as we have seen in the quotes above.)

[|iR|Focalor]

Basically what I was getting at is that he never did "pick a side" really, it seems that everyone else always picked the side that best benefited their argument and threw him there in order to add weight to it. Atheists read "I am an Atheist" and say, "Einstein was an atheist and a genius, and since I'm also an atheist, it stands to reason that I must be a fuckin' genius!" Unfortunately, there are many religious zealots out there who'd rather discount all his life accomplishments by slapping the label of HERETIC on him just because he fell in line with Voltaire, yet another labelled enemy of the church. And then there are others who conveniently ignore the specifics of his beliefs and and say, "Einstein was a good Christian man who believed in God, and one of the smartest minds man has ever known. If a genius like him believed in God, then anyone who doesn't is obviously dumber than a box of rocks!"

[reaper]

It's like if you feel the evidence mounts in favor that there is no god:
multiple different gods prove they can't be all true
religious thinking shows fallacies in cases x,y,z etc
god has not interviened
religion is backtracking
no evidence for a god
etc etc etc

That's a good list, but we should remember these points don't constitute "mounting evidence".  The lack of evidence for god, is not the same as evidence for the lack of god.

well I also forgot to put some stuff in there, that is "evidence" for an alternative explanation

I'd be interested to know what you have in mind.  (All I'm currently aware of is that there appears to be no need for any supernatural interferance since the big bang.)

I think that's quiet a stretch to say, as if we know exactly what's going on everywhere throughout history. Aren't we saying, when the big bang started out we don't even know how it works..it doesn't match up with current equations that govern the universe, and there might even be 20 some odd dimnesions?

But I guess you could say, for all these theories we have so far, we haven't encounted a need for god to intervene in the natural world.

"well I also forgot to put some stuff in there, that is "evidence" for an alternative explanation"

The natural explanation of how things work, and that the universe doesn't really have a beginning, in other words, it's self contained and exists forever.  That said i'm pretty sure you're aware, I consider god self-evident and intrisic to humans, not just a byproduct of human emotion during times of stress, or the reminents of explaining away phenomena.


 

[DaHanG]

I found a glaring inconsistency.

you should either believe in god or not. although if you feel it's similar to 50/50 that seems reasonable.  So looking back at the quotations it appears he said he doesn't know what's going on.  In other words, he's not going to discount that some higher power might exist because of the way things are on earth, yet he thinks the idea of a god who is interviening and hence personal is ridiculous, because that is not the case in everyday life.  So I would say that's 50/50, and I can deal with that..

Reaper just conceded that an active, intervening god is self-evidently not the case in every day life. It is "ridiculous".


He then goes on to say god is self-evident and intrinsic to humans:

The natural explanation of how things work, and that the universe doesn't really have a beginning, in other words, it's self contained and exists forever.  That said i'm pretty sure you're aware, I consider god self-evident and intrisic to humans, not just a byproduct of human emotion during times of stress, or the reminents of explaining away phenomena.

It's not really disputable that historically, and currently most "believers" believe in [a] personal, intervening god(s). There are and always have been far more theists/polytheists than deists/atheists (although in the developed world the latter has grown significantly).

Theism, by definition, declares god to be active in human affairs (as distinct from deism).

Reaper basically said that intervening gods [who answer prayers, break laws of physics for specific human benefits, etc.] is not the case in every day life.

He then goes on to say, in the more recent quote, that humans' belief in god is evidence of god....yet he just said that the notion of an intervening god, which most believe in, is ridiculous.

So most people believe in something "ridiculous", but it is "intrinsic" and constitutes as evidence in favor of a god.

 

[reaper]

Einstein could of easily said  he believes it's definitely a "we are the universe" type thing (which he did), that is what he considered his religion.   And it's simpler that everything just exists forever which would be atheism, but he stated he's not athiest.  It does appear he may have thought that, and spelled out what he believed were hypocrisies and fallacies in religion.  But if you believe the only possibility is the universe just exists, and understanding the wonder is your religion, i'm sure you'd want to be clearer.  I'm sure he knows a god existing, is not considered feeling like nature is god, personal or not.  In any event, he was wrong about quantom theory, what does he know.

But I am interested in whether you believe there's a 50/50 chance the Easter Bunny is real.  And if you don't think it's 50/50, then what reasoning do you use to arrive at a different likelihood?

I consider it a 100 percent chance the easter bunny is not real, therefore it is prooved to me. I gave you an honest answer before.  If there is not a 100 percent chance the easter bunny is real, as far as i'm concerened, we should eliminate facts, because they don't matter. 2+2=4..nope

But for the sake of the questioning, i'll give another answer:
I cannot proove to you the easter bunny exists

[reaper]

I found a glaring inconsistency.

The people were all forced into war, brainwashed into believing the emporer is god.  It's not like they were believers, and that's what caused japan going through what it did.   I don't even trust the numbers, and what they're trying to represent as a start for those statistics.  Just like the prisoners, they'd be even crazier without fearing god.

you should either believe in god or not. although if you feel it's similar to 50/50 that seems reasonable.  So looking back at the quotations it appears he said he doesn't know what's going on.  In other words, he's not going to discount that some higher power might exist because of the way things are on earth, yet he thinks the idea of a god who is interviening and hence personal is ridiculous, because that is not the case in everyday life.  So I would say that's 50/50, and I can deal with that..

Reaper just conceded that an active, intervening god is self-evidently not the case in every day life. It is "ridiculous".


He then goes on to say god is self-evident and intrinsic to humans:

I can still believe in god like most other people, and not believe god is actively stopping some car accident and not others.  It's still the same type of belief.  god works in mysterious ways

 

[DaHanG]

I can still believe in god like most other people, and not believe god is actively stopping some car accident and not others.  It's still the same type of belief.  god works in mysterious ways

Completely missed the point. Re-read please.

[haunted]

Mind bending.. 

[|iR|Focalor]

I can still believe in god like most other people, and not believe god is actively stopping some car accident and not others.  It's still the same type of belief.  god works in mysterious ways

Completely missed the point. Re-read please.

I'm not quiet sure he did miss the point. You just need to quiet picking on him and be quite.

[reaper]

So most people believe in something "ridiculous", but it is "intrinsic" and constitutes as evidence in favor of a god.

I said Einstein beleived god wasn't active because he isn't active in everyday life, i.e, he's not out stopping some car accidents and not others.  If god created everything, everything is, in a certain sense, attributed to god.  For example, someone recovers from cancer, yes some others don't, but people thank god, because they are so happy for the existence of life.  God is active to them, in one sense (he created everything), therefore you can attribute events to god, yet he didn't actually change the mechanics of things.

I never said what I personally thought.  But people saying they believe god is active, has varying meaning.

[|iR|Focalor]

I never said what I personally thought.  But people saying they believe god is active, has varying meaning.

But...

Shouldn't they pick a side? Like Stephen Hawking did?

[reaper]

I never said what I personally thought.  But people saying they believe god is active, has varying meaning.

But...

Shouldn't they pick a side? Like Stephen Hawking did?

It looks like all the believers are saying they believe in some type of god.  God is working as they expect.

[|iR|Focalor]

If they expect nothing, sure. But Joe Pesci will always get shit done.

[quadz]

I said Einstein beleived god wasn't active because he isn't active in everyday life, i.e, he's not out stopping some car accidents and not others.  If god created everything, everything is, in a certain sense, attributed to god.  For example, someone recovers from cancer, yes some others don't, but people thank god, because they are so happy for the existence of life.  God is active to them, in one sense (he created everything), therefore you can attribute events to god, yet he didn't actually change the mechanics of things.

I can still believe in god like most other people, and not believe god is actively stopping some car accident and not others. It's still the same type of belief. god works in mysterious ways

There's no way the lady laying her hands on the hood of her stalled car, imploring Jesus to fix the carburator, has a compatible concept of god with someone who shares a view akin to Einstein's.

As Einstein said, from that lady's point of view, he would be an atheist.

It looks like all the believers are saying they believe in some type of god. God is working as they expect.

And I think claiming "God is working as they expect" is quite a cop-out.  God doesn't work like they expect at all.  That's why when Jesus doesn't fix the carburator, they fall back on the "god works in mysterious ways" weasel-words.




And for those who believe god 'created everything' but does not take an active role in physics, what is the difference in practical terms between that, and a purely naturalistic view of events since the big bang?  Seems to me if god isn't taking an active role, then, from the big bang forward, you might as well be an atheist.



Regards,

[Whirlingdervish]

Seems to me if god isn't taking an active role, then, from the big bang forward, you might as well be an atheist.

You'd think that, but the fabrication of a conditional afterlife based on your life actions and beliefs covers that base.

Even if God himself doesn't take an active role in life from the big bang forward, apparently he expects everyone else to do so, or be punished eternally based on a set of rules that we were 'given' to us in a miraculous game of telephone, thousands of years ago, in a different language.