The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => Just for Fun => Topic started by: NEXUS7 on November 28, 2005, 03:54:00 AM
-
Just to mach like for like and I know that Belive my be the wrong word to use but ha what the HELL
A statistical analysis. I'm not saying something is right or wrong.
Sorry Harlas just needed to see how they mached.
-
As pointed out ealier, some scientist are religous. Hence the two things don't rule out each other. Galileo and charles Darwin would say that they believed in both...
-
Dont think I said any where it did :O) just looking to get an even data set
-
:)
-
How rude, you left out Albert :p
-
Einstein? he was an atheist, he was just jew by birth. (as far as i remeber)
-
Yup Einstein and nope, not an atheist ;)
Bah! by birth a priest tried to drown me when I was a wee lad, doesn't make me a catholique though, now does it :p
-
Einstein quotes
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... 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 being."
Just over a century ago, near the beginning of his intellectual life, the young Albert Einstein became a skeptic. He states so on the first page of his Autobiographical Notes (1949, pp. 3-5): "Thus I came--despite the fact I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived...Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude... has never left me..."
"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."
I think he was an atheist path... *dances around singing a song about being right*
crap I can't find a way to get rid of those backgrounds.
-
A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
If that is from someone that only believes in man and nothing else, yer a star balarina, lad ;)
-
The first qoute has nothing to do with a god as far as i can tell it is just about being good, and I am so open minded that i think people can be that witout being religious.
Second quote is about his admiration of science and its beuaty. That is his religion but not a religion in the common sence.
Well i guess i am a star ballarina then.
-
Path, why would Einstein lie about being religious in his own aoutbiografi? Doesn't make any sence to me.
-
An atheist is someone that believes in nothing but mans' power, we are alone and nothing else whether a deitie that has our well beeing in mind like the Christian god or a force that could be above and beyond even our comprehension right now.
Agnostic is someone that believes something is out there, beyond what man is, wether an all powerfulll beeing or a force. "edited:" but until he sees it wont believe in it.
A religious for lack of a better term is someone that believes in something wether one deity or a force
Now those two text makes you think of Albert like an atheist, an agnostic or a beleiver?
He didn't say he didn't believe in anything he said he didn't believe in one being creating all this...read the quotes I put there, I didn't have to look far they popped up as first picks in google, they speak of something beyond mans grasp and understanding. If you study Taoisme it will tell you basically the same thing Albert wrote and that is a religion. There are others that say the same and that are older then Christianity.
Do not restrict your view point by only taking, one or two religions, into accounts when defining something, take them all and logicaly see what's up. We have this great gift now a days to be able to read on most of them now, with little or no sensership. Brake them down, see the corollations and the incongruities, then make your opinion. I feel that yer only taking into account Christianities' teachings and that is but one of so many.
It isn't HIS religion it's what he managed to see and he is not the first nor will he be the last. In his later text do you see him defining himself as an atheist, or even in yer own quotes? Hells I don't even think he ever called himself that.
-
All the quotes put here makes me see Einstein as an atheist. Things beyond mans grasp as you call them is just things that we do not fully understand yet. As stated ealier i can't see the first quote (you write) as anything else but something written by a humanist, and as i stated ealier i don't see any direct link between humanism and religion.
Similarly to you the qoutes I put up there where among the first things that popped up when i googeled it. However, you can find internet pages that claim that he was an atheist an internet pages that claim he was religious. I just agree with the first ones, As I see it the only reason why he doesn't call himself an atheist is that he doesn't want to fight religion as many atheist do, and he doesn't want to put in the same group as them.
According to my dictionairies (oxford advanced learning dictionairy and Nudansk dictionairy) 1 an atheist is a man who doesn't belive in god (oxford) 2. a man who does not believe in a personal god (danish).
Hence Einstein is an atheist according to the danish definition at least, according to his own writings on the subject "a personal god". And as I read the rest of the quotes he doesn't believe in a god in general. This quote sums it all up very nicely.
"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."
-
I do not believe in science no I do not.
Lo! See me use this here keyboard to write up information on a place of knowledge, in the so called internet, using the magical powers inherent in this here computer sat in front of mine eyes, all given unto us by the lord hisself... Yes it is by belief and faith only that I can send messages over distant miles to people I have never laid eyes upon... *trails off going into fanatical rhythmic canting*
-
LoL for someone that accuses me of making assumptions left and right you seem to like doing it a lot. I think that assuming a man like Einsten was an atheist when he never said he was an atheist, had a dialogue very close to a Taoists or buddhist, is a pretty big one. This was a learned man do you seriously think he didn't pick his words carefully?
Since I don't assume things contrary to what you want to believe. I'll take what he said and didn't say instead.
What I do think, is that a man like that didn't care what others though in regards to what he believed or not. Also, I think that if he was an atheist he would have said he was one and that clearly, nothing more simple to do. But he never did and that quote of yours, that you felt the need to post twice, doesn't have him say he's an atheist, but that from the view point of a Jesuit priest, he was one and that he didn't believe in a personal god. A few religions believe in an impersonal "god" as well.
Oh, by the way in your own quotes he did say: "you may call me an egnostic" *shrugs*
By the way I believe in science but also that's it's constantly reworking itself, kind of like man ;)
-
Well, Einstein states that he has no other religion than science, that makes him an atheist in my worldview an according to how I understand the definitions of an atheist. If that makes him an agnostic in your understanding of the definitions. Well then we are back to the discussion, from the other thread about how different terms should be understood, perhaps your understanding of the words are closer to how Einstein understood them, I really can't tell. But no matter how we twist and turn this he was not a religious man, like Gallileo and Darwin who where both christians.
-
Ok let's start this again by what I do believe ;)
I beleive in Science as I stated but also that science is perpertually evolving like man. And like man is flawed.
Now am I religious in the sense of a Christians, hell no LoL what I do believe in and that little "in" makes all the difference in the world for anybody. Is that we where created by a force neither good, not evil and if sentient, way beyond our current knowledge. Now I believe in this force for various reasons that are my own *shrugs*.
But I beleive in it. And that to me makes me a Thiest...simply because I beleive in this thing, not that it, just could, exists like an egnostic would. But in it, which means that I have a certitude of having gotten a glimps of it, consciously. What others would call an act of faith on my part because they've not themselves *shrugs*
That is what I believe.
I also believe that Theist and Atheist are basicaly the same as both believe in what the other, would call an act of faith...But that's just my ironic, arrogant, french humor :p
Like I told you ealier in this thread, I think that taking only Christianity into account when talking about religion is reducting it to a lot of negative images. Actually that can be said about a lot of religions has they are created or at the very least put down on paper and directed by humans and humans aren't the best in making positive things LoL But all religions have messages and if you read even a few different ones you'll find some interesting simularities ;)
And it wasn't me that called him an egnostic, but himself, in your first quote.
If I was to guess on it I'd say he was a Theist, as what he writes and the way he writes it, seem to underline a force beyond mankind.
Now, hell yeah, this time, I totally agree with you saying that ALbert did not have the frock of a Christian LoL but you've just said that, now, to me ;)
As for Galileo he was excommunicated by the Catholic church and Darwin raised some hell with his book that still goes on today. So I wouldn't be calling them good Christians in front of a Catholic church, say after mess, unless you just feel like, a wee fight :p
He also said: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
But my all time favorite, has to be:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
-
freemen2 - 11/29/2005 5:03 PM But I beleive in it. And that to me makes me a Thiest...simply because I beleive in this thing, not that it, just could, exists like an egnostic would. But in it, which means that I have a certitude of having gotten a glimps of it, consciously. What others would call an act of faith on my part because they've not themselves *shrugs* That is what I believe. I also believe that Theist and Atheist are basicaly the same as both believe in what the other, would call an act of faith...But that's just my ironic, arrogant, french humor :p
*looks confused* hey where did that come from what is a Theist? And if theist a none believers that only believe in things that can be measured, then your are right we are alike. :P
freemen2 - 11/29/2005 5:03 PM As for Galileo he was excommunicated by the Catholic church and Darwin raised some hell with his book that still goes on today. So I wouldn't be calling them good Christians in front of a Catholic church, say after mess, unless you just feel like, a wee fight :p
Hah ha hah, now i have cought you. Galileo was not excommunicated he was put in front of a tribunal where he had to say that the earth was the center of the world (in order to survive, the loving christian church at work so to speak) (as far as i remeber it has been a while since i read that book abut him) an Darwin was not a catholic he must have been an anglican.
But I agree with you there are many similarities between religions, and i guess it is because the purpose is the same. E.i explaining the unexplained and setting up reasonable guidelines for peoples behavior. In the sence that it is hard to imagine a society where stealing and murdering is legal, hence these where classified as sins in order to control the masses. And the cunning bit of it is that you don't even need a police in order to inforce these rules, the "ever watching eye" will see it...
-
Gah! you ale soaked viking brain :p
Thiest = one who believes something exists, above and beyond mankind.
Agnostic = thinks it might be possible but isn't taking a stance, as he rather think of the due mortgage.
Atheist = one who believes in mankind and not that there is something beyond it.
And yeah as we believe in something and obviously are taking a stance on it when we can actually do stand, and not just slouch in pub chairs, we are alike. Like I said, even if it was humoressly, as the main denominator for either Thiests and Athiests is that they have faith in what they believe in, but neither can prove it nor disprove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, they be alike. Of course that's taking into account that you are either a Thiest or an Atheist :p
Heh, heh, for Galileo thought he had been as he'd only been buried on church grounds like 100year after he actually died and that, in Florence *shrugs*
For Darwin think he described himself as an egnostic in is auto-biographie, actually. And I called him a Christain not a Catholic :p
Way I see it, with todays knowledge at our disposal we have to stop defining things wich are generalisations on a persons beliefs, ie: Thiest, Agnostic or Atheist based solelly on one religion, like Christianity for you Harloff.
Nexus:
Humankind is starting to go beyond beeing dependant of it's environment in order to evolve. Actually molding it and recreating it whether consciously or not, on a planetary scale. How does that fit into your evolutionary thinking?
And as long as your asking yourself does god evolve then you will be too busy asking yourself how is man evolving. I'd rather work on the later as I am part of that race ;)
-
freemen2 - 11/30/2005 10:14 AM Gah! you ale soaked viking brain :p
How dare you... You little french rat you, for the last time we vikings drink MEAD, MEAD, do I have to spell it for you? Actually my father in law makes his own mead, almost black and tastes a bit like a dark ale. Now thats the stuff...
freemen2 - 11/30/2005 10:14 AM Thiest = one who believes something exists, above and beyond mankind. Agnostic = thinks it might be possible but isn't taking a stance, as he rather think of the due mortgage. Atheist = one who believes in mankind and not that there is something beyond it. And yeah as we believe in something and obviously are taking a stance on it when we can actually do stand, and not just slouch in pub chairs, we are alike. Like I said, even if it was humoressly, as the main denominator for either Thiests and Athiests is that they have faith in what they believe in, but neither can prove it nor disprove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, they be alike.
So theist and atheist have faith in what they belive in, but they cannot prove it. And in what way does that distunguish them from religious people? :P
freemen2 - 11/30/2005 10:14 AM For Galileo thought he had been as he'd only been buried on church grounds like 100year after he actually died and that, in Florence *shrugs* For Darwin think he described himself as an egnostic in is auto-biographie, actually. And I called him a Christain not a Catholic :p
Damn i hate it when you are right, Darwin was indeed an agnostic, according to himself and his family. *goes berserk and graps something in order to throw it out the window, but remembers how his girlfriend would react and puts it back gently*stupid TV programs saying that Darwin was cristian *spits, looks around, in the sink* But Galileo is one of my favorite physics, not only was he a good scientist (one of the farthers of modern science) ha was also very provoking, the things he said and wrote, man that is just hillaryus. With respect to florence I think he was born there but, i wouldn't swear to it.
freemen2 - 11/30/2005 10:14 AM Way I see it, with todays knowledge at our disposal we have to stop defining things wich are generalisations on a persons beliefs, ie: Thiest, Agnostic or Atheist based solelly on one religion, like Christianity for you Harloff.
I am not defining everything based on cristianity, but for obvious reasons cristianity is the religion that i know the best. On a second place you find the viking beliefs, and it is of course a acknowlegded religion in Denmark today, with 180 members as far as i can figure out. I heard about one of their feasts or celebrations of their gods where they had approximately 2 kg of meat per person. Which makes it a very fine religion compared to the bread and wine you get in church. But back to the topic, why do you think that i define everything according to the christian religion?
-
Interesting that Denmark should have only 180 practicing Vikings. Following the last population census in the UK, 390127 people actually wrote 'Jedi' when asked to state wat reigion they were. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/rank/jedi.asp . I am currently working on the design of a functioning light sabre, as the marketing opportunity here is just to good to miss. If I knock them out at say 50 Euro each, I could make a fair bit of cash.
-
May the force be with you in your task Rasterik. *bows* Just one little problem though, aren't all Jedi's able to build their own light sabers?
-
Harloff - 11/30/2005 11:41 AM
May the force be with you in your task Rasterik. *bows* Just one little problem though, aren't all Jedi's able to build their own light sabers?
heh well actually only when you go from padawan to knight do you build your own saber. Padawans don't make sabers.
-
Freeman
>Humankind is starting to go beyond beeing dependant of it's environment in order to evolve.
>Actually molding it and recreating it whether consciously or not, on a planetary scale.
>How does that fit into your evolutionary thinking?
Well that my be us becoming Homo-Tecnia and no longer Homosapions
look into the evolutionary dabat on this.
Now You should ask you’re self
"Dos God evolve?"
So you don't like this one A don't won't to ask your self this one, like I always say Religen closes the minds it dos not open them.
-
NEXUS7 - 11/30/2005 11:24 AM
Well that my be us becoming Homo-Tecnia and no longer Homosapions
look into the evolutionary dabat on this.
There has been much speculation on the evolution of the human spieces. Putting aside the extinctionist theory, and following the trend of adaptation to ones surroundings, mans continued reliance on technology will see him possibly become an extension of some machine. Will then, man eventually lose his conciousness? and conform to that of a collective? Dispencing with belief in a higher being. As he has then become the collective higher being.?
Back on my medication now, everything looks fine and rosy
-
Resistance is futile
-
Quick things first :p
Nexus, why would I bother typing this sentence: "And as long as your asking yourself does god evolve then you will be too busy to ask yourself how is man evolving. I'd rather work on the later as I am part of that race" to then what? Start thinking about it because you just restate the same question...I don't think so LoL There is no point in asking yourself a question you cannot get an answer to, I'd rather waste my time on things that are constructive. And if your way of answering someone is to do so by simply reasking the same question, then don't expect me to continue the same goes with throwing big theories out and never your own point of view. By the way, in the sense that you understand religion, I'm about as religious as Lenin was and I'm not talking about one of the Beatles.
Now for the viking...If I typed ale, it's because you do/did. Used to be only one type of ale as you remembered, where you used to live as well as typing ale a lot on this forum. So in truth this is the FIRST time you talk about mead...which I really enjoy by the way but I have to go to renaiscance carnivals to get my hands on the good stuff *sighs*
Howevere, I don't see the point in typing things when you either do not take the time to read, mix-up what I write or just take bits and pieces to then type-up something to simply assert something you're saying, when I previously said the exact same thing or even worst, try at all cost to have me be wrong or you right. *shrugs*
All you've talked up until now, when speaking of religon, are Christianity's religions. What you type and how you type it, makes me think that...and fallow the sentence correctly this time...In this debate we're having on religion, all you're writtings have focused on Christianity. I have never said you define everything based on Christianity, who knows, maybe you think that, but that is certainly not my case.
Yup, Nordic theology is very interesting and would have loved to keep talking about that and others things with you but right now am no longer seeing any point to it (see above) who knows maybe I'm just tired, it as been a long day *shrugs*
-
I really don't, the rules keep changing, are eggs good for you are they bad...BAH!
And this whole gravity thing, don't get me started.
*Falls up and out of the atmosphere*
Not agaiiiiiiiiiin!
-
I think this thread has run its course and is no longer 'Just for fun'.
-
Im not going to post on this matter any more
Sorry
This one is now ended
Could a GM Freze thanks