I bet that the people who don't belive in GOD are the who never went in a church.The feeling that covers you when in there is beyond description.What do you lose if you belive in GOD ?Nothing.But what do you lose if you don't belive in Him ?Everything
@zaaltar1 It's not about the feeling, its the knowledge. What do I lose if I believe in God? The wisdom, that was given to us by God. What do I lose if I don't believe in him? In parallel to my first answer, why would he gave us wisdom that would just create division if He is omniscient, and being omnipotent he could create a world were all people believe in him for the fact that he is a jealous. In the first place, God forgives then why not forgive Eve who just ate an apple? Just being skeptic.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
I get sick of Atheist trying to clam people like Einstein. Einstein was a agnostic and so was Carl Sagan. he might have criticize religion. But Einstein felt that atheism was a close minded stance. Sagan said atheism was stupid. I find a lot Atheist to be very close mind. Having an open mind means is to leave your mind open until there is more then enough evidence to prove it wrong. Humans know maybe 2% of everything. So until we have 99.9% knowledge. Atheism is stupid and close minded.
This is just more dishonesty and misrepresentation from the goons that pick fights on the Huntington Beach pier. Ray Comfort doesn't have an honest bone in his body.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Albert Einstein March 22, 1954. Check it out!
Einstein used the word "god" to describe nature. But hey good job misrepresenting him, it's not like you should be honest or anything. And I've seen you fuck faces on the HB pier. You don't preach, you just look for fights to satisfy your ego. And by the way, It does not matter what Einstein was, it still does not prove god.
Einstein was an old and young same time matematicer wich began to think and tok 2x3 drawn heasorls wich passed 3 young human lifes. So that were a big mistake?
Einstein was a PANTHEIST, not a theist - Hawking is as well, as was Sagan. All three are/were agnostic atheists. That is, they used 'God' figuratively or poetically, not literally.
For example, when Einstein says 'God does not play with dice' he is only saying that 'there is often more to nature than mere chance'.
To those fundamentalists still struggling with the idea that most written work needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, this is 'out of context', to use your favourite argument.
it's a childish thing for a person to think like: "if Einstein (or anyone) says he doesn't believe in a god, then i won't believe, or if he says he believes i will believe"
Also he never "thought up" what lead to the revolution of our understanding of space and time, he DISCOVERED it, he FOUND it. Whoever narrated this...
No, he was, as most scientists, "spiritual" he saw the sheer amazing BEAUTY of nature and the universe. He believed in the god of spinoza, not a christian god, of course..
"in view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. " i am an atheist and i think this quote is a very good one, atheism isnt about saying there is no god, its about doubting and disbelieving it, not closing your mind to it completely, this quote in no way proves einstein wasnt atheist, but he wasnt he was agnsotic
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
@lordandprotector I'm having a hard time finding Einstein's exact position. I do remember seeing somewhere that Einstein wasn't a Christian, but every source I find is saying something different. Do you know of any good links?
@MrTwistedHawk Read an einstein book or "his life and universe" they really are very good, he never agreed with christianity thats a certainty and had no belief in any of the theistic religions claims he was in fact an agnostic, he said "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professionall athesit"
@mauriciohavok As fun as it is to disbelieve and question what we hear, doing your own research can prove more reliable. I suggest you do your own if you doubt what this video states.
@JoshuaFVrooman And one important part of doing a research is knowing what sources are reliable, and both The History Channel, and The Way of The Master are completely unreliable sources.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@FreeSilio How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
@1tabligh How could it be believed that this reality, which is easy to explain through the simple laws of phisics, requires a complex sky daddy to exist?
The only contraddictory idea is that a god (which is infinitely much more complex than everything we know!) came into existence without being created.
Truth is that every complex thing have to come from something simpler, and in this process there's no room for magical bogus "creators".
Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined. There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes,
and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from His Person. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is IGNORANT and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination like "sky daddy" as his god.*
Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he my try. There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being ***YET*** He has not prevented them from realising His Presence.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....
either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
@1tabligh You're still quoting from your propaganda sites!
Of course religious leaders don't want you to understand that complexity EVOLVED from simplicity, otherwise you won't believe in their bogus and they'd lose their power, so they made up metafisical arguments to divert your attemption from reality.
But every single informations we have about hte history of the known universe confirms that it started with only sub-atomic particles and energy, and only after complex structures EVOLVED!
@1tabligh Yes, it is. To explain how the known universe gave origin to stars, solar systems and galaxies all we need is GRAVITY. Similarly we need only natural processes (physics, chemistry) to explain the origin of life, and simple evolution to explain the development of complex life forms like us. That's the path on which scientists are working.
In all of those cases NO magical sky daddies are required. That's just bronze age superstition.
@FreeSilio Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
@1tabligh Yes. The most of them know that complexity is a process rising "bottom-up": from simplicity to complexity.
The opposite process (top-donw) makes no sense, cause it requires something much more complex (a god) to create something simpler (the universe), which is nonsensical since we can't explain how that starting complexity come into existence.
Complexity rises from semplicity, taht's the only logica explanation we have, and all the data we get about reality drives in this direction.
@FreeSilio Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
@1tabligh No. Reality is NOT the case you're talking about.
That's just the fairy tale written in some ancient books by semi illitterate shepherds wondering about how reality works without having any scientific knowledge.
The only reason why people is still *pushing* that crap in our mind is because of their fanatic ignorance about scientific method, and/or to preserve the power of similarly ignorant (but crafty!) religious leaders which are able to teach us nothing but bronze age miths.
@FreeSilio What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
@1tabligh Indeed the vast majority of them could! :D
Anybody who's aware about how kidneys EVOLVED can confirm you that no intelligence is required by nature, but mere NATURAL SELECTION.
Science has a metodology to explain reality without the need of wondering about the magical intervention of a tame and puerile bronze age "god", whose existence can't be proven.
...and that's why the rate of atheists is always growing up, between eminent scientists, buddy! :P
@FreeSilio Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
@1tabligh "Whether [...] organic changes result from the use of that organ" was the hypothesis of Lamarck, and it's been disproven ...in 19th century!
You should update your informations.
You're un-informed on the the most of scientific topics, and MIS-informed on the rest, cause all you know is from religious apologetic web sites, which will never tell you the truth or they risk you lost the faith in their bogus.
Get some independent SCIENTIFIC source for your information about science.
The theory of evolution on the whole has a long history. Lamarck enunciated certain principles in this connection. But it was Charles Darwin, who carried out extensive studies of the living organisms and the way of their birth, and gathered enough scientific evidence to show that evolution has taken place actually.
...and completely not related to the topic I was replying to. Yes, Darwin made extrensive studies, which also disproved Lamarck hypothesis about heredity of acquired characteristics.
It looks like you really don't understand what we're talking about, but still need to reply just not to admit (stubborn as every theist!) you're not well informed.
...and once more: you keep on quoting from PROPAGANDA SITES! :D
(a) Every living being, wherever it may be, gradually adapts itself to its environment, and meets its natural needs, such as obtaining food and defending itself in accordance with the conditions prevailing in that environment. This effort sometimes causes changes in its body, like the appearance of the web uniting the toes of the duck when it was forced by its environment to swim in order to look for its food in the lakes, or the lengthening of the neck of the
giraffe when it was forced to make use of the branches of lofty trees.
(b) Though these organic changes take place gradually over many generations, they later pass from parents to offspring.
(c) Among the living beings there is a severe struggle for the continuation of their life, for procuring food and for selecting a suitable mate. This struggle for existence, that is a clash with the factors of the environment of life and rivalry with other living beings
is a firm principle in the life of the animals and the plants and is one of the factors which lead to the change of their form.
(d) As the result of this struggle only those organisms survive which can adapt themselves better to their environment and can obtain the conditions necessary for their life in their natural abode. The weaker and the less suitable organisms gradually die out.
This way gradually the various species are transformed, and only the fittest ones among them survive. That is how the evolution of the species takes place. The dissemination of the theory of the development of the living organisms, including man, on the basis of these principles, roused a great deal of controversy during the time of Darwin and afterwards, and views in support of it and against it were openly expressed.
At some times the tone of the debate in this connection was scientific but on other occasions it was rooted in religious or anti‑religious prejudices, for it was said that what Darwin had asserted was in conflict with the Biblical account of the beginning of the world and the birth of man as given in the book of Genesis.
Anyhow, with new discoveries in archaeology and the expansion in the field of experiments, the theory of evolution has been considerably modified since the time of Darwin, especially in regard to the questions relating to anthropology.
@1tabligh More stupid quotes from stupid fanatic religious people trying to explain evolution (which they don't understand) to stupid believers (which understood less).
Wanna learn about Evo? Go reading something written by SCIENTISTS!
@FreeSilio The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
@1tabligh I replyed 2 days ago to your question, anyhow I'll repeat:
Acquired qualities (the ones developed through the life) can't be inherited. That was Lamarck's hypothesis, and it's been disproven. Only GENETIC characters (the ones encoded in DNA) can be inherited.
So giraffs don't inherit long necks because their parents spent a life stretching the neck, but only because the ones with long necks have a greater offspring, and the process is repeated on every generation.
@FreeSilio We find that the wild animals and plants are alike and of average type, whereas the artificial selection gives the animals and plants more variety and leads them to better evolution. There are many other questions of this sort. Anyhow, in spite of all the objections raised to discredit it, the theory of evolution has been accepted by the scientists as an objective principle of natural sciences. At the same time it is also certain that prominent and unbiased naturalists do not consider
this theory to be final and incontrovertible. The way to further scientific investigation is not closed. All that they say is that the scientific inquiry has not so far discovered any new principles which may take the place of the principle of evolution.
Now it may be said that if an unbiased investigator carefully examines the results of the observations in regard to the genesis of the living organisms, he will come to the FOUR conclusions.
Not just a single theory, in science, is regarded as "final and incontrovertible"! :D
That's in hard contrast with the same concept of science, which requires a theory to be FALSIFIABLE. Evidently the creationists you are "learning" from don't know anything about SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGY.
Anyway, evolution is the best explanation we have about life diversity, and every eminent scientists knows that.
Please, dont believe to the lies of creationists: they're ignorant and deceptive.
(1) The living organisms in accordance with their degree of evolution have a historical succession. In other words, the more developed species have usually appeared over history after the less developed ones.
(2) This historical succession is similar to that found in all other things of the world. The entire cosmos has evolved from a simple state and gradually galaxies and solar systems have been formed in the environment devoid of all traces
of life. Conditions conducive to the appearance of life have developed gradually. Similarly development has taken place successively from the plants to the developed animals. On the whole, the more complex organism have followed the simple ones.
(3) There exists complete organic similarity between the first living organism and the most developed living organism known to us.
(4) The stages through which a human embryo passes during its embryonic development are fully akin to the stages through which living organisms have passed over history.
When we put all this evidence together, we can scientifically presume that the various species of the living organisms are the progeny of one another (transformism) and have not come into existence independently (fixism).
@ChadMault Mechanics tells us that a motionless body is always motionless *unless* it becomes subject to a force *external* to itself. This law represents an inviolable principle in our material world, and we *cannot*, therefore, believe in a theory of probability *or* accident. ....
Not a *single* motionless body has entered in motion up to now *without* being subject to an *external* force. So, based on this mechanical principle, a force *must* exist which being other than the world of matter, creates that world and imparts it with energy so that it takes shapes, differentiates itself, and acquires various aspects.
@1tabligh Seems like we're on the same team so to speak. If you don't believe in GOD being the Abraham God of brimstone and fire... What would you define as a "motionless body"? Is it in the cosmic macro, the earthly micro sense or both?
@ChadMault The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was *necessary* for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature.
How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@FreeSilio Religious crap? You mean things like when the bible says' Like stone sharpens stone so does men?' The Bible is written by righteous people like yourself who too take in positive thoughts only and keep out the junk(sin) ie King David who as a Young Boy slayed the Giant of Philistine with a sling and stone wrote Psalms etc He experienced the super natural from ~GOD~ he killed a Lion as well with a stone. The Bible reveals ~GOD~ it doesnt religiously speak of ~GOD~
@sunshine9672 What the bible says is irrelevant.. It's just an ancient book written by superstitious bronze age people, and its aim was to convince people about this alleged god.
Once more: show me some true EVIDENCE. Your prittle-prattle will never convince me.
@FreeSilio I dont like the word religon. There is no such thing. That is a lie. You are only looking at science to provide all the answers. Science is not the only way in which one can obtain information and knowdledge about the world.
@sunshine9672 In fact I don't think all scientists are honest (e.g: a very little few of them are creationists, and -of course!- they're not even honest with themselves). But science has a method to allow us to discern truth from lies, and that's reliable ..and there's nothing like that in religious mindset, and that's why you cant trust religious people.
I think you'd need to study about scientific method (which I'm sorry to say you seem to utterly ignore) to understand that.
@FreeSilio I majored in biology. You seem to completely ignore scientism and what science is and cant and can not do and what scientists can influence people to believe. Specially the 1% of the population tha control the country.
@sunshine9672 objective morality exists. Believing is God is not a matter of being intellectual or scientific. Scientists often make people believe that they are too stupid to think for them selves, therefore they should just listen to what they have to say. I think its obvious when one is not blinded. Unfortunatelly, there is more bad than good in the world. Few stand up. The ones who trully want the truth will find it. Its not hidden.
@sunshine9672 Your major in biology is worhtless, if you still believe in objective morality even if science have better explanation for morality.
Science has nothing to say about an alleged god, since there's not a single shred fo evidence for its existence, but the same concept of god has been created by bronze age people looking for explanations about reality. Today science can give us better explanations for the same facts, so god is only an useless conjecture.
@sunshine9672 I'm glad you agree with the Bible, esp the part where god commands virgin girls to marry men that rape them, what an easy way to get a virgin to marry you.
@MyFaceBurns Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward, ....
@1tabligh If you didn't know, The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster is made up. It's used as a tool to show how stupid religion is, as it follows all the principals Islam does... but with The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of Allah.
@MyFaceBurns Those who refuse to worship God find themselves prostrating before their inner idol; passion and desire rule every dimension of their beings.
Self-worship is a dangerous sickness that with its different manifestations in the individual and social life of man entails the most tragic misfortunes and disorders. It creates a powerful barrier between man and the truth and results in the breakdown of man's capacities of perception and the blinding of his inner being. ....
The Qur'an says: "Do you not see the one who takes his own desires as god? God has made him go astray, despite his possession of knowledge; He has placed a seal on his ears and his heart and drawn a curtain of darkness over his eyes. Who other than God can guide him? Will you then not take heed?" (45:23)
unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead. Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, ...
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy ....
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@1tabligh Indeed science is not as you're representing it and, although the knowledge it offers its limited, it's the best mean we have to undersand how the world really is. That's why scientists have to agree on its conclusions regardless to their "religious" background.
Statistics say that people from muslim countries give only minimal help to science progress. Are you proud of that? Smart people shouldn't be.
Einstein, anyway, was not a theist: his formula drove you to a wrong conclusion.
@FreeSilio Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh In fact I dont believe that, nor any scientist does! :D
Once more you're misrapresenting science. You're applying religious mindset to science, and it can't work: to understand science (and you don't) you need to approach reality in a different way.
Scientists got no explanation about why reality ...exist! They merely observe and try to find out.
The ones thinking a magical sky man (whose origin you can't explain and is way more complex than oxygen) did it are believers like you! :D
@FreeSilio Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
He believed in Spinoza's god which is the univese is simply is god. Spinoza is regarded as the most effective of all atheist. It's is basically the univese didn't have a creator it was all natural process. Nice going idiot.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that Einstein was a believer, and advocate, of your precise belief in a personal god who sent his son to be tortured to death as a scapegoat for the disobedience of the "first humans", whom he incanted into existence on the same week he "spake" the rest of the universe up too?
Einstein shared the same NON-acceptance of your superstition and dogma, or any other personal god, as any atheist.
from what research I have done i can conclude that einstein believed in Spinoza's God and rejected the idea of a personal god, not the best way to back your point up
yes but einstein did believe in a creator that did not burden himself with peoples faith or personal prayers. he was stateing that he did not believe in a personal god as me, a christian believe. because he was jewish.
@dickchaineysrevenge No einstein did not believe in a 'creator.' He often turned to spinoza's god. That is a pantheistic interpretation of the universe. The universe being a wonderful awe inspiring thing that existed, almost to a religious level he saw the universe being wonderful. He was an atheist believe he did not believe in deities
@iliveon actually he was jewish, born and raised, infact in WWII he ran from germany because of his jewish faith and because hitler was the rascist, he did not have einstein become a scientist for the nazi regiem. therefore because of that einstein joined our side and gave us his E=mc2 and helped in the development of the atom bomb. he was jewish. he beieved in the torah. but he did not believe in a personal god i.e. jesus.
@dickchaineysrevenge no, being Jewish is completely different than believing in the Torah. Being Jewish has to do with your mother being a Jew. If your mother is a Jew, you are automatically a Jew and that is how the system works. He of course was a jew, and there are jew atheists, and jew deists, jew pantheists and jew theists. Most being theists, I think. But not believing in any gods, and I know this is a lot of camps, but i consider him agnostic, because he was a scientist out for the truth
@dickchaineysrevenge “My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
- Albert Einstein"
He is rational enough for me to bring him to the free thinker's side. agnostic/atheism/freethinkers
that is taken out of context, he said that because, that is what people thought of him because he was not a kocher/practicing jew. he is jewish through and through, its just he did not believe in a god who burdened themselves on the things people do, or morality. he knew that there was no way the universe could have just sprung out of nothingness. and he detested atheism, but didnt really care if people called him agnostic, because he would rather let people sit in their ignorance.
@dickchaineysrevenge he was agnostic and didn't rule out the possibility. He did not believe in any gods. Therefore as a scientists and skeptic, he waited for evidence, he did not want to be called an atheist because he felt atheists made up their minds and this is hard to do in science. In science you have no biases. He was a free thinker, letting knowledge lead him. His awe for the universe and its laws had nothing to do with christianity, jewish tradition, etc.
@dickchaineysrevenge "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." He didn't believe in gods bro face it
@iliveon look at that quote a little closer. he said he didnt believe in a personal god i.e. jesus christ. he was stating that his belief in god is above all of what people think of god. he was stating that he believed god is the most complex thing in the universe, the thing that no matter how hard we try, we would never understand. and thats the truth of it. he did believe in a force that was so complicated, that all of our views of god would never do god any justice because of our tiny minds.
@dickchaineysrevenge "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
He said he does not share the crusading spirit of professional atheists who have been painfully extracted from religious indoc
@dickchaineysrevenge You may call me an agnostic... I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
He says he prefers an attitude of humility because we have much more to understand about nature.
@iliveon im just going to say that you win, but i've been studying einstein for 3 years and i know what im talking about but to each is own. plz dont rub your win by default in my face. i just have more better things to do than argue with people on the internet. sorry.
"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."... "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."- Albert Einstein January 3 1954 guardian.co (DOT) uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”
Einstein was a fucking traitor.He was born a German.Then he changed his citizenship to become a SWISS.after that he'd changed once more to become an American.In my book that is the greatest transgression of them all.Einstein a little insect.....And yet,the brain of a giant.Fuck you Einstein.God curse you.
"I Cannot Imagine A God Who Rewards And Punishes The Objects Of His Creation, Whose Purposes Are Modeled After Our Own, Who Is But A Reflection Of Human Frailty. Neither Can I Believe That The Individual Survives The Death Of His Body, Although Feeble Souls Harbor Such Thoughts Through Fear Or Ridiculous Egotism" ~ Albert Einstein
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Furthermore,
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
He's talking about the people who are adamant that there is no God and are certain about it. He doesn't want that label. He wants to be looked at as a guy who asks questions and doesn't rule out the possibility. Similar to me. I don't rule it out, but I am an atheist. If we use the correct definition of agnostic, I am an agnostic atheist. Scientists are vastly agnostic atheists, not gnostic.Same with Carl Sagan as with Einstein. You don't rule things out, you await evidence before you accept it.
@iliveon u talk about evidence but there is no evidence for non existence of god and for me there wont be in any way .u just choose to be an atheist. u dont wait for evidence because u know the evidence will never exist.
@dukulai I 100% agree with you dukulai, That is why many atheists run their judgements off of this statement: an atheist says there isn't a reason to believe that there is any gods, so thus they don't hold that belief. Most often than not, atheists are agnostic atheists because they are intellectually honest about what you said. It cannot be disproven, but the concept of it can be discredited if there isn't evidence for it. I say basing your life off of evidence is a rather good thing to do.
@nsofast Exactly, there is debate about it, which means there is at least some cause for a distinction between the two terms. Someone reading your original comment could assume the terms are exact synonyms, which I think you'd agree is incorrect.
@nsofast I really don't think so. Not believing and being unsure are completely different philosophies in my mind, and as long as there are people with both viewpoints, the distinction in language will exist. Maybe eventually they will have the same meaning and they will be considered different degrees of the same philosophy, but I would be surprised.
I bet that the people who don't belive in GOD are the who never went in a church.The feeling that covers you when in there is beyond description.What do you lose if you belive in GOD ?Nothing.But what do you lose if you don't belive in Him ?Everything
zaaltar1 2 months ago
@zaaltar1 It's not about the feeling, its the knowledge. What do I lose if I believe in God? The wisdom, that was given to us by God. What do I lose if I don't believe in him? In parallel to my first answer, why would he gave us wisdom that would just create division if He is omniscient, and being omnipotent he could create a world were all people believe in him for the fact that he is a jealous. In the first place, God forgives then why not forgive Eve who just ate an apple? Just being skeptic.
hellacezkie 2 months ago
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
-Albert Einstein 1950 in a letter to M. Berkowitz
MetalBru01 2 months ago
Ouch... More Banana-man propaganda.
ScienceFictionHairdo 2 months ago
I get sick of Atheist trying to clam people like Einstein. Einstein was a agnostic and so was Carl Sagan. he might have criticize religion. But Einstein felt that atheism was a close minded stance. Sagan said atheism was stupid. I find a lot Atheist to be very close mind. Having an open mind means is to leave your mind open until there is more then enough evidence to prove it wrong. Humans know maybe 2% of everything. So until we have 99.9% knowledge. Atheism is stupid and close minded.
Tuber77 3 months ago in playlist They were atheist.
Yes.
AmunRaRocks 3 months ago
This is just more dishonesty and misrepresentation from the goons that pick fights on the Huntington Beach pier. Ray Comfort doesn't have an honest bone in his body.
whanethewhip 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Albert Einstein March 22, 1954. Check it out!
villcara 3 months ago
Einstein used the word "god" to describe nature. But hey good job misrepresenting him, it's not like you should be honest or anything. And I've seen you fuck faces on the HB pier. You don't preach, you just look for fights to satisfy your ego. And by the way, It does not matter what Einstein was, it still does not prove god.
mormonvoices 3 months ago
If it's on the internet it must be true. Right?
Einstein was a pantheist/atheist. Do a little of your own research.
y67ujm 3 months ago
Jew.
JeffroTV 3 months ago
Einstein was an old and young same time matematicer wich began to think and tok 2x3 drawn heasorls wich passed 3 young human lifes. So that were a big mistake?
MrTheHobbits 4 months ago
Einstein was a PANTHEIST, not a theist - Hawking is as well, as was Sagan. All three are/were agnostic atheists. That is, they used 'God' figuratively or poetically, not literally.
For example, when Einstein says 'God does not play with dice' he is only saying that 'there is often more to nature than mere chance'.
To those fundamentalists still struggling with the idea that most written work needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, this is 'out of context', to use your favourite argument.
Grymbaldknight 5 months ago
it's a childish thing for a person to think like: "if Einstein (or anyone) says he doesn't believe in a god, then i won't believe, or if he says he believes i will believe"
CumSeNumesteMelodia 5 months ago
i was banned, lol
ilovetheview47 5 months ago
Also he never "thought up" what lead to the revolution of our understanding of space and time, he DISCOVERED it, he FOUND it. Whoever narrated this...
Etrajbe 5 months ago
@Etrajbe Looks like history channel
stephjh2006 5 months ago
No, he was, as most scientists, "spiritual" he saw the sheer amazing BEAUTY of nature and the universe. He believed in the god of spinoza, not a christian god, of course..
Etrajbe 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you guys are all NERDS!!!!!
TheMcdownload 5 months ago
Comment removed
newianpaice 5 months ago
"in view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. " i am an atheist and i think this quote is a very good one, atheism isnt about saying there is no god, its about doubting and disbelieving it, not closing your mind to it completely, this quote in no way proves einstein wasnt atheist, but he wasnt he was agnsotic
newianpaice 5 months ago
If you think that Einstein was a Theist, then Hitler was certainly a Theist by your criteria. (although not a Christian)
sulljoh1 5 months ago
This smart person said it
so it must be true
WitchHunter93 5 months ago
no
Dawgtha 6 months ago
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
-Albert Einstein 1954
lordandprotector 6 months ago 29
@lordandprotector I'm having a hard time finding Einstein's exact position. I do remember seeing somewhere that Einstein wasn't a Christian, but every source I find is saying something different. Do you know of any good links?
MrTwistedHawk 5 months ago
@MrTwistedHawk Read an einstein book or "his life and universe" they really are very good, he never agreed with christianity thats a certainty and had no belief in any of the theistic religions claims he was in fact an agnostic, he said "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professionall athesit"
newianpaice 5 months ago
@newianpaice Thanks man! I think I will check out that book sometime
MrTwistedHawk 5 months ago
@lordandprotector 1 year before he died he said that
Saradomin65 2 months ago
...the history channel, now that's reliable
mauriciohavok 6 months ago
@mauriciohavok As fun as it is to disbelieve and question what we hear, doing your own research can prove more reliable. I suggest you do your own if you doubt what this video states.
JoshuaFVrooman 6 months ago
@JoshuaFVrooman And one important part of doing a research is knowing what sources are reliable, and both The History Channel, and The Way of The Master are completely unreliable sources.
mauriciohavok 6 months ago
@mauriciohavok Ohhhh.... I'm not defending them, very one sided, like most if not all media sourced ad revenue hungry channels/papers/etc.
I'd believe Wiki as much as the history channel.
I'm just suggesting that you do your own research, because this video is awfully accurate in this case.
JoshuaFVrooman 6 months ago
@FreeSilio Answer the question!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh I made a lot of questions you didn't answer, so I'm not the "dodging and quibbling" one.
"that which is necessary in essence" is only a make up concept used by theologians. It doesn't mean it exists, so your question is uleless.
The problem, with theists, is they "believe" to get the answer, while in reality they don't even know the right questions.
I look at the world with both eyes open, but I carefully control that only good ideas get access into my brain. No religious crap.
FreeSilio 6 months ago 9
@FreeSilio How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh How could it be believed that this reality, which is easy to explain through the simple laws of phisics, requires a complex sky daddy to exist?
The only contraddictory idea is that a god (which is infinitely much more complex than everything we know!) came into existence without being created.
Truth is that every complex thing have to come from something simpler, and in this process there's no room for magical bogus "creators".
FreeSilio 6 months ago 3
@FreeSilio ..sky daddy...?
____
And where did you pull that from?
Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined. There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes,
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Once more: You're quoting from some propaganda website! :D
Can't you think by yourself?
Sky daddy, yes. I'm talking about your ridiculous imaginary friend.
FreeSilio 6 months ago 2
and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from His Person. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is IGNORANT and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination like "sky daddy" as his god.*
1tabligh 6 months ago
Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he my try. There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being ***YET*** He has not prevented them from realising His Presence.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh More quotes from religious propaganda websites: you really can't think by yourself, so it's useless to debate you.
Have a nice life with your delusion! :D
FreeSilio 6 months ago 2
@FreeSilio God and Empirical Logic.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....
1tabligh 6 months ago
either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh You're still quoting from your propaganda sites!
Of course religious leaders don't want you to understand that complexity EVOLVED from simplicity, otherwise you won't believe in their bogus and they'd lose their power, so they made up metafisical arguments to divert your attemption from reality.
But every single informations we have about hte history of the known universe confirms that it started with only sub-atomic particles and energy, and only after complex structures EVOLVED!
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Yes, it is. To explain how the known universe gave origin to stars, solar systems and galaxies all we need is GRAVITY. Similarly we need only natural processes (physics, chemistry) to explain the origin of life, and simple evolution to explain the development of complex life forms like us. That's the path on which scientists are working.
In all of those cases NO magical sky daddies are required. That's just bronze age superstition.
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Yes. The most of them know that complexity is a process rising "bottom-up": from simplicity to complexity.
The opposite process (top-donw) makes no sense, cause it requires something much more complex (a god) to create something simpler (the universe), which is nonsensical since we can't explain how that starting complexity come into existence.
Complexity rises from semplicity, taht's the only logica explanation we have, and all the data we get about reality drives in this direction.
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh No. Reality is NOT the case you're talking about.
That's just the fairy tale written in some ancient books by semi illitterate shepherds wondering about how reality works without having any scientific knowledge.
The only reason why people is still *pushing* that crap in our mind is because of their fanatic ignorance about scientific method, and/or to preserve the power of similarly ignorant (but crafty!) religious leaders which are able to teach us nothing but bronze age miths.
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Indeed the vast majority of them could! :D
Anybody who's aware about how kidneys EVOLVED can confirm you that no intelligence is required by nature, but mere NATURAL SELECTION.
Science has a metodology to explain reality without the need of wondering about the magical intervention of a tame and puerile bronze age "god", whose existence can't be proven.
...and that's why the rate of atheists is always growing up, between eminent scientists, buddy! :P
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio but mere NATURAL SELECTION.
___
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh So what?
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh "Whether [...] organic changes result from the use of that organ" was the hypothesis of Lamarck, and it's been disproven ...in 19th century!
You should update your informations.
You're un-informed on the the most of scientific topics, and MIS-informed on the rest, cause all you know is from religious apologetic web sites, which will never tell you the truth or they risk you lost the faith in their bogus.
Get some independent SCIENTIFIC source for your information about science.
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio Evolution
The theory of evolution on the whole has a long history. Lamarck enunciated certain principles in this connection. But it was Charles Darwin, who carried out extensive studies of the living organisms and the way of their birth, and gathered enough scientific evidence to show that evolution has taken place actually.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh More quotes from creationist sites!
...and completely not related to the topic I was replying to. Yes, Darwin made extrensive studies, which also disproved Lamarck hypothesis about heredity of acquired characteristics.
It looks like you really don't understand what we're talking about, but still need to reply just not to admit (stubborn as every theist!) you're not well informed.
...and once more: you keep on quoting from PROPAGANDA SITES! :D
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio He held that:
(a) Every living being, wherever it may be, gradually adapts itself to its environment, and meets its natural needs, such as obtaining food and defending itself in accordance with the conditions prevailing in that environment. This effort sometimes causes changes in its body, like the appearance of the web uniting the toes of the duck when it was forced by its environment to swim in order to look for its food in the lakes, or the lengthening of the neck of the
1tabligh 6 months ago
giraffe when it was forced to make use of the branches of lofty trees.
(b) Though these organic changes take place gradually over many generations, they later pass from parents to offspring.
(c) Among the living beings there is a severe struggle for the continuation of their life, for procuring food and for selecting a suitable mate. This struggle for existence, that is a clash with the factors of the environment of life and rivalry with other living beings
1tabligh 6 months ago
is a firm principle in the life of the animals and the plants and is one of the factors which lead to the change of their form.
(d) As the result of this struggle only those organisms survive which can adapt themselves better to their environment and can obtain the conditions necessary for their life in their natural abode. The weaker and the less suitable organisms gradually die out.
1tabligh 6 months ago
This way gradually the various species are transformed, and only the fittest ones among them survive. That is how the evolution of the species takes place. The dissemination of the theory of the development of the living organisms, including man, on the basis of these principles, roused a great deal of controversy during the time of Darwin and afterwards, and views in support of it and against it were openly expressed.
1tabligh 6 months ago
At some times the tone of the debate in this connection was scientific but on other occasions it was rooted in religious or anti‑religious prejudices, for it was said that what Darwin had asserted was in conflict with the Biblical account of the beginning of the world and the birth of man as given in the book of Genesis.
1tabligh 6 months ago
Anyhow, with new discoveries in archaeology and the expansion in the field of experiments, the theory of evolution has been considerably modified since the time of Darwin, especially in regard to the questions relating to anthropology.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh More stupid quotes from stupid fanatic religious people trying to explain evolution (which they don't understand) to stupid believers (which understood less).
Wanna learn about Evo? Go reading something written by SCIENTISTS!
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
1tabligh 6 months ago
Answer the questions!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
So much science for this brainless wannabe duped monkey pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh I replyed 2 days ago to your question, anyhow I'll repeat:
Acquired qualities (the ones developed through the life) can't be inherited. That was Lamarck's hypothesis, and it's been disproven. Only GENETIC characters (the ones encoded in DNA) can be inherited.
So giraffs don't inherit long necks because their parents spent a life stretching the neck, but only because the ones with long necks have a greater offspring, and the process is repeated on every generation.
Hope it helps.
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio We find that the wild animals and plants are alike and of average type, whereas the artificial selection gives the animals and plants more variety and leads them to better evolution. There are many other questions of this sort. Anyhow, in spite of all the objections raised to discredit it, the theory of evolution has been accepted by the scientists as an objective principle of natural sciences. At the same time it is also certain that prominent and unbiased naturalists do not consider
1tabligh 6 months ago
this theory to be final and incontrovertible. The way to further scientific investigation is not closed. All that they say is that the scientific inquiry has not so far discovered any new principles which may take the place of the principle of evolution.
Now it may be said that if an unbiased investigator carefully examines the results of the observations in regard to the genesis of the living organisms, he will come to the FOUR conclusions.
1tabligh 6 months ago
Comment removed
FreeSilio 6 months ago
Not just a single theory, in science, is regarded as "final and incontrovertible"! :D
That's in hard contrast with the same concept of science, which requires a theory to be FALSIFIABLE. Evidently the creationists you are "learning" from don't know anything about SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGY.
Anyway, evolution is the best explanation we have about life diversity, and every eminent scientists knows that.
Please, dont believe to the lies of creationists: they're ignorant and deceptive.
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio Principles which may be discovered
(1) The living organisms in accordance with their degree of evolution have a historical succession. In other words, the more developed species have usually appeared over history after the less developed ones.
(2) This historical succession is similar to that found in all other things of the world. The entire cosmos has evolved from a simple state and gradually galaxies and solar systems have been formed in the environment devoid of all traces
1tabligh 6 months ago
of life. Conditions conducive to the appearance of life have developed gradually. Similarly development has taken place successively from the plants to the developed animals. On the whole, the more complex organism have followed the simple ones.
(3) There exists complete organic similarity between the first living organism and the most developed living organism known to us.
1tabligh 6 months ago
(4) The stages through which a human embryo passes during its embryonic development are fully akin to the stages through which living organisms have passed over history.
When we put all this evidence together, we can scientifically presume that the various species of the living organisms are the progeny of one another (transformism) and have not come into existence independently (fixism).
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Which doesn't disprove the mechanism has a creator
ChadMault 5 months ago
@ChadMault Mechanics tells us that a motionless body is always motionless *unless* it becomes subject to a force *external* to itself. This law represents an inviolable principle in our material world, and we *cannot*, therefore, believe in a theory of probability *or* accident. ....
1tabligh 5 months ago
Not a *single* motionless body has entered in motion up to now *without* being subject to an *external* force. So, based on this mechanical principle, a force *must* exist which being other than the world of matter, creates that world and imparts it with energy so that it takes shapes, differentiates itself, and acquires various aspects.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh Seems like we're on the same team so to speak. If you don't believe in GOD being the Abraham God of brimstone and fire... What would you define as a "motionless body"? Is it in the cosmic macro, the earthly micro sense or both?
ChadMault 5 months ago
@ChadMault The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was *necessary* for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature.
How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
1tabligh 5 months ago
God and Empirical Logic.
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 6 months ago
@FreeSilio Religious crap? You mean things like when the bible says' Like stone sharpens stone so does men?' The Bible is written by righteous people like yourself who too take in positive thoughts only and keep out the junk(sin) ie King David who as a Young Boy slayed the Giant of Philistine with a sling and stone wrote Psalms etc He experienced the super natural from ~GOD~ he killed a Lion as well with a stone. The Bible reveals ~GOD~ it doesnt religiously speak of ~GOD~
NzTauranga 5 months ago
@FreeSilio The Bible says that we are with out excuse so your unbelieve in God is not due to lock of evidence.
sunshine9672 3 months ago
@sunshine9672 What the bible says is irrelevant.. It's just an ancient book written by superstitious bronze age people, and its aim was to convince people about this alleged god.
Once more: show me some true EVIDENCE. Your prittle-prattle will never convince me.
FreeSilio 3 months ago
@FreeSilio there is a lot of evidence such as objective morality. I just agree with the Bible
sunshine9672 3 months ago
@sunshine9672 Sorry, morality is NOT evidence for an alleged god, since there're good EVOLUTIONARY explanations based on science.
For a nice start on the argument watch:
1) Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?' by Dr. Andy Thomson, AAI 2009
2) Richard Dawkins On Morality
3) Hitchens on morality
4) Does Religion Make You a Better Person?
5) Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
6) Where do christians think they get their morals from?
...and that's only a start point.
FreeSilio 3 months ago 2
@FreeSilio I dont like the word religon. There is no such thing. That is a lie. You are only looking at science to provide all the answers. Science is not the only way in which one can obtain information and knowdledge about the world.
sunshine9672 3 months ago
@sunshine9672 Agreed: Science is not the only way to get knowledge, but it's the most affordable one we got.
E.g.: It clearly shows us that morality is not evidence for an alleged god, as you can see from the video I suggested you.
FreeSilio 3 months ago 2
@FreeSilio objective morality does not make any sense from an evolutionist world view
sunshine9672 3 months ago
@sunshine9672 Objective morality simply doesn't exist in real world.
The video i suggested you are an easy start to understand.
FreeSilio 3 months ago
@FreeSilio That is why you cant believe. At least one of the reasons. Dont think that all scientists are honest and are looking out for you.
sunshine9672 3 months ago
@sunshine9672 In fact I don't think all scientists are honest (e.g: a very little few of them are creationists, and -of course!- they're not even honest with themselves). But science has a method to allow us to discern truth from lies, and that's reliable ..and there's nothing like that in religious mindset, and that's why you cant trust religious people.
I think you'd need to study about scientific method (which I'm sorry to say you seem to utterly ignore) to understand that.
FreeSilio 3 months ago 3
@FreeSilio I majored in biology. You seem to completely ignore scientism and what science is and cant and can not do and what scientists can influence people to believe. Specially the 1% of the population tha control the country.
sunshine9672 3 months ago
@sunshine9672 objective morality exists. Believing is God is not a matter of being intellectual or scientific. Scientists often make people believe that they are too stupid to think for them selves, therefore they should just listen to what they have to say. I think its obvious when one is not blinded. Unfortunatelly, there is more bad than good in the world. Few stand up. The ones who trully want the truth will find it. Its not hidden.
sunshine9672 3 months ago
@sunshine9672 Your major in biology is worhtless, if you still believe in objective morality even if science have better explanation for morality.
Science has nothing to say about an alleged god, since there's not a single shred fo evidence for its existence, but the same concept of god has been created by bronze age people looking for explanations about reality. Today science can give us better explanations for the same facts, so god is only an useless conjecture.
FreeSilio 3 months ago
Comment removed
FreeSilio 3 months ago
@sunshine9672 I'm glad you agree with the Bible, esp the part where god commands virgin girls to marry men that rape them, what an easy way to get a virgin to marry you.
mormonvoices 3 months ago
@mormonvoices Why would Jesus die for sinners? you should study the Bible if you want to understand it.
sunshine9672 3 months ago
Virtually every great thinker from the past three centuries was not religious.
MyFaceBurns 6 months ago
@MyFaceBurns
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
Read below!
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh I am afraid you are incorrect. The real God is obviously The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. Don't be so ignorant!
MyFaceBurns 6 months ago 2
@MyFaceBurns Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward, ....
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh If you didn't know, The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster is made up. It's used as a tool to show how stupid religion is, as it follows all the principals Islam does... but with The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of Allah.
MyFaceBurns 6 months ago 2
@MyFaceBurns Those who refuse to worship God find themselves prostrating before their inner idol; passion and desire rule every dimension of their beings.
Self-worship is a dangerous sickness that with its different manifestations in the individual and social life of man entails the most tragic misfortunes and disorders. It creates a powerful barrier between man and the truth and results in the breakdown of man's capacities of perception and the blinding of his inner being. ....
1tabligh 6 months ago
The Qur'an says: "Do you not see the one who takes his own desires as god? God has made him go astray, despite his possession of knowledge; He has placed a seal on his ears and his heart and drawn a curtain of darkness over his eyes. Who other than God can guide him? Will you then not take heed?" (45:23)
1tabligh 6 months ago
unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead. Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
1tabligh 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 6 months ago
that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, ...
1tabligh 6 months ago
The atheist Delusion!
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy ....
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh So what? Why do you think about "atheist delusion"?
FreeSilio 6 months ago
@FreeSilio The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 6 months ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 6 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Indeed science is not as you're representing it and, although the knowledge it offers its limited, it's the best mean we have to undersand how the world really is. That's why scientists have to agree on its conclusions regardless to their "religious" background.
Statistics say that people from muslim countries give only minimal help to science progress. Are you proud of that? Smart people shouldn't be.
Einstein, anyway, was not a theist: his formula drove you to a wrong conclusion.
FreeSilio 6 months ago 6
@FreeSilio Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh In fact I dont believe that, nor any scientist does! :D
Once more you're misrapresenting science. You're applying religious mindset to science, and it can't work: to understand science (and you don't) you need to approach reality in a different way.
Scientists got no explanation about why reality ...exist! They merely observe and try to find out.
The ones thinking a magical sky man (whose origin you can't explain and is way more complex than oxygen) did it are believers like you! :D
FreeSilio 6 months ago 8
@FreeSilio Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
1tabligh 6 months ago
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 6 months ago
He believed in Spinoza's god which is the univese is simply is god. Spinoza is regarded as the most effective of all atheist. It's is basically the univese didn't have a creator it was all natural process. Nice going idiot.
nextgenvids 6 months ago 3
Are you seriously trying to suggest that Einstein was a believer, and advocate, of your precise belief in a personal god who sent his son to be tortured to death as a scapegoat for the disobedience of the "first humans", whom he incanted into existence on the same week he "spake" the rest of the universe up too?
Einstein shared the same NON-acceptance of your superstition and dogma, or any other personal god, as any atheist.
Your dogma requires much dishonesty!... Why?
What's wrong with it?
Tobytrim 6 months ago 2
You shit on his memory, you fuckers.
jlmdfnbo 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=o9ktS2U53Qg Write "Logical Evidences for Islam" and watch it...
There is A Creator. There a religion. Islam is the true religion.
shncsr 6 months ago
from what research I have done i can conclude that einstein believed in Spinoza's God and rejected the idea of a personal god, not the best way to back your point up
AntiMatterWave 7 months ago
atheistsblog.tumblr.com
m1nt101 7 months ago
yes but einstein did believe in a creator that did not burden himself with peoples faith or personal prayers. he was stateing that he did not believe in a personal god as me, a christian believe. because he was jewish.
dickchaineysrevenge 7 months ago
@dickchaineysrevenge No einstein did not believe in a 'creator.' He often turned to spinoza's god. That is a pantheistic interpretation of the universe. The universe being a wonderful awe inspiring thing that existed, almost to a religious level he saw the universe being wonderful. He was an atheist believe he did not believe in deities
iliveon 7 months ago 2
@iliveon actually he was jewish, born and raised, infact in WWII he ran from germany because of his jewish faith and because hitler was the rascist, he did not have einstein become a scientist for the nazi regiem. therefore because of that einstein joined our side and gave us his E=mc2 and helped in the development of the atom bomb. he was jewish. he beieved in the torah. but he did not believe in a personal god i.e. jesus.
dickchaineysrevenge 7 months ago
@dickchaineysrevenge no, being Jewish is completely different than believing in the Torah. Being Jewish has to do with your mother being a Jew. If your mother is a Jew, you are automatically a Jew and that is how the system works. He of course was a jew, and there are jew atheists, and jew deists, jew pantheists and jew theists. Most being theists, I think. But not believing in any gods, and I know this is a lot of camps, but i consider him agnostic, because he was a scientist out for the truth
iliveon 7 months ago
@dickchaineysrevenge “My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
- Albert Einstein"
He is rational enough for me to bring him to the free thinker's side. agnostic/atheism/freethinkers
iliveon 7 months ago
that is taken out of context, he said that because, that is what people thought of him because he was not a kocher/practicing jew. he is jewish through and through, its just he did not believe in a god who burdened themselves on the things people do, or morality. he knew that there was no way the universe could have just sprung out of nothingness. and he detested atheism, but didnt really care if people called him agnostic, because he would rather let people sit in their ignorance.
dickchaineysrevenge 7 months ago
@dickchaineysrevenge he was agnostic and didn't rule out the possibility. He did not believe in any gods. Therefore as a scientists and skeptic, he waited for evidence, he did not want to be called an atheist because he felt atheists made up their minds and this is hard to do in science. In science you have no biases. He was a free thinker, letting knowledge lead him. His awe for the universe and its laws had nothing to do with christianity, jewish tradition, etc.
iliveon 7 months ago
@dickchaineysrevenge "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." He didn't believe in gods bro face it
iliveon 7 months ago 2
@iliveon look at that quote a little closer. he said he didnt believe in a personal god i.e. jesus christ. he was stating that his belief in god is above all of what people think of god. he was stating that he believed god is the most complex thing in the universe, the thing that no matter how hard we try, we would never understand. and thats the truth of it. he did believe in a force that was so complicated, that all of our views of god would never do god any justice because of our tiny minds.
dickchaineysrevenge 7 months ago
@dickchaineysrevenge "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
He said he does not share the crusading spirit of professional atheists who have been painfully extracted from religious indoc
iliveon 7 months ago
@dickchaineysrevenge You may call me an agnostic... I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
He says he prefers an attitude of humility because we have much more to understand about nature.
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon im just going to say that you win, but i've been studying einstein for 3 years and i know what im talking about but to each is own. plz dont rub your win by default in my face. i just have more better things to do than argue with people on the internet. sorry.
dickchaineysrevenge 7 months ago
@dickchaineysrevenge It's all good dude. We all do
iliveon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Albert Einstein is an AGNOSTIC you idiots. Thumbs this up for everyone to see.
7Nexus21 7 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
"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."... "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."- Albert Einstein January 3 1954 guardian.co (DOT) uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
SkeenteaEstPotentea 7 months ago
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”
Albert Einstein
MrPennan91 7 months ago
"You know what? I don't think their is a god"
-Pope Benedict XVI
zooryanzoo123 7 months ago 2
Einstein was a fucking traitor.He was born a German.Then he changed his citizenship to become a SWISS.after that he'd changed once more to become an American.In my book that is the greatest transgression of them all.Einstein a little insect.....And yet,the brain of a giant.Fuck you Einstein.God curse you.
TOLTECAAZTECA 7 months ago
@TOLTECAAZTECA since when changing citizenship is equated to treason?
eleminatus 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eleminatus The fact that you are asking me that..............!
TOLTECAAZTECA 7 months ago
This is another fine example of ignorance about Einstein and his beliefs.
77Totems 7 months ago
"I Cannot Imagine A God Who Rewards And Punishes The Objects Of His Creation, Whose Purposes Are Modeled After Our Own, Who Is But A Reflection Of Human Frailty. Neither Can I Believe That The Individual Survives The Death Of His Body, Although Feeble Souls Harbor Such Thoughts Through Fear Or Ridiculous Egotism" ~ Albert Einstein
nextgenvids 7 months ago 2
This is so dishonest, he goes on to say:
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Furthermore,
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
bernzeppi 7 months ago 3
He's talking about the people who are adamant that there is no God and are certain about it. He doesn't want that label. He wants to be looked at as a guy who asks questions and doesn't rule out the possibility. Similar to me. I don't rule it out, but I am an atheist. If we use the correct definition of agnostic, I am an agnostic atheist. Scientists are vastly agnostic atheists, not gnostic.Same with Carl Sagan as with Einstein. You don't rule things out, you await evidence before you accept it.
iliveon 7 months ago 3
@iliveon you are brilliant. Thanks for sharing that.
ileto042 7 months ago
@iliveon u talk about evidence but there is no evidence for non existence of god and for me there wont be in any way .u just choose to be an atheist. u dont wait for evidence because u know the evidence will never exist.
esraretin 7 months ago
@esraretin If there isn't evidence for something, I have the right to not believe it.
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon u re absolutely rigth sorry
esraretin 7 months ago
@iliveon sometimes the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence.
dukulai 7 months ago
@dukulai I 100% agree with you dukulai, That is why many atheists run their judgements off of this statement: an atheist says there isn't a reason to believe that there is any gods, so thus they don't hold that belief. Most often than not, atheists are agnostic atheists because they are intellectually honest about what you said. It cannot be disproven, but the concept of it can be discredited if there isn't evidence for it. I say basing your life off of evidence is a rather good thing to do.
iliveon 7 months ago
@esraretin also, there is no evidence for anything that doesn't exist
iliveon 7 months ago
@nsofast Exactly, there is debate about it, which means there is at least some cause for a distinction between the two terms. Someone reading your original comment could assume the terms are exact synonyms, which I think you'd agree is incorrect.
millacol88 7 months ago
@millacol88
they will be synonyms by the time you are thirty
nsofast 7 months ago
@nsofast I really don't think so. Not believing and being unsure are completely different philosophies in my mind, and as long as there are people with both viewpoints, the distinction in language will exist. Maybe eventually they will have the same meaning and they will be considered different degrees of the same philosophy, but I would be surprised.
millacol88 7 months ago
@millacol88 You have several years to prepare yourself for the surprise.
nsofast 7 months ago
@nsofast You are really sure of this, aren't you? :P
millacol88 7 months ago