Religious Liberty or Secularism?

[PoliticalChic]

Stop with the little petty side insults and try to have a discussion for once, for shit's sake it's so juvenile.

Some morals are clearly subjective. Definitely. But all are not, and it doesn't take God to conclude the ones that aren't. Instinct - survival.

You cant always be the strongest person in the room.
Do you want to die?

Reason.

Love your neighbor as thyself.

Do you want to be treated like shit?

Reason. God is irrelevant to whether or not it's a good idea.

1. "Stop with the little petty side insults..."

But I'm so good at it!


2. "Reason.

Love your neighbor as thyself."

Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive. Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.


3 "Reason. God is irrelevant to whether or not it's a good idea."

The French Revolution replaced religion with reason.
"Robespierre’s view was based on Rousseau’s theory of the general will: individuals who live in accordance with the general will are ‘free’ and ‘virtuous’ while those who defy it are criminals, fools, or heretics. Rousseau: Political Economy

So....what happened if you didn't agree with the 'reason,' the general will?

a. “For the first time in history terror became an official government policy, with the stated aim to use violence in order to achieve a higher political goal. Unlike the later meaning of 'terrorists' as people who use violence against a government, the terrorists of the French Revolution were the government. The Terror was legal, having been voted for by the Convention.”
Robespierre and the terror: Marisa Linton reviews the life and career of one of the most vilified men in history.(Maximilien Francois de Robespierre)(Biography) | HighBeam Business: Arrive Prepared

b. Sorel and every other advocate of the left, learned and understood this message.

c. Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…”
Bolshevik Festivals, 1917?1920

There's the result of 'reason.' Learn from history.
The American revolution was based on religion.
Get the dif?



4. How about just one more tiny insult?

 

[t_polkow]

Morality does originate with reason.
Religion was a means to force people, by use of fear and reward, to become more moral.

That a society has or has not BEEN moral without Religion is irrelevant. That only speaks to whether or not people are inherently good, inherently bad, or inherently indifferent - it has nothing to do with the source OF morals, but only the source of BEHAVING morally. (through fear or reward, or just naturally).

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
..........Albert Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein,


March 14, 1879...Happy Birthday, Albert!

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
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.
In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt" to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

 

[G.T.]

Who's "logic"? Yours?

Right, because "logic" varies person to person.

No, only each person's ability to use logic varies.

But logic itself does not vary.

But who's logic does not vary? There is no one 'logical standpoint' that is 'correct', everyone has their own version which they believe to be the accurate one. Logic is as subjective as anything else in human nature.

Logic never varies. It is something used to prove something, fallacious or reasoned.

Incorrect logic is identified because it can be refuted.
Correct logic cannot be refuted.

Like I said, logic is not abstract.

People's correct and incorrect use of logic varies, but logic itself does not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Morality does originate with reason.
Religion was a means to force people, by use of fear and reward, to become more moral.

That a society has or has not BEEN moral without Religion is irrelevant. That only speaks to whether or not people are inherently good, inherently bad, or inherently indifferent - it has nothing to do with the source OF morals, but only the source of BEHAVING morally. (through fear or reward, or just naturally).

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
..........Albert Einstein

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
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.
In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt" to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

I'd answer you, but I have no crayons.

 

[Newby]

Right, because "logic" varies person to person.

No, only each person's ability to use logic varies.

But logic itself does not vary.

But who's logic does not vary? There is no one 'logical standpoint' that is 'correct', everyone has their own version which they believe to be the accurate one. Logic is as subjective as anything else in human nature.

Logic never varies. It is something used to prove something, fallacious or reasoned.

Incorrect logic is identified because it can be refuted.
Correct logic cannot be refuted.

Like I said, logic is not abstract.

People's correct and incorrect use of logic varies, but logic itself does not.

That's not true, it does vary from person to person. The 'use of logic' is the same thing as 'logic', there is no distinction. You are using your own logical point of view, you can sometimes use another's point of view as your own, but you will never get a consensus. Logic is subjective.

Who has that version of logic that is concrete and accurate?

 

[G.T.]

Stop with the little petty side insults and try to have a discussion for once, for shit's sake it's so juvenile.

Some morals are clearly subjective. Definitely. But all are not, and it doesn't take God to conclude the ones that aren't. Instinct - survival.

You cant always be the strongest person in the room.
Do you want to die?

Reason.

Love your neighbor as thyself.

Do you want to be treated like shit?

Reason. God is irrelevant to whether or not it's a good idea.

1. "Stop with the little petty side insults..."

But I'm so good at it!


2. "Reason.

Love your neighbor as thyself."

Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive. Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.


3 "Reason. God is irrelevant to whether or not it's a good idea."

The French Revolution replaced religion with reason.
"Robespierre’s view was based on Rousseau’s theory of the general will: individuals who live in accordance with the general will are ‘free’ and ‘virtuous’ while those who defy it are criminals, fools, or heretics. Rousseau: Political Economy

So....what happened if you didn't agree with the 'reason,' the general will?

a. “For the first time in history terror became an official government policy, with the stated aim to use violence in order to achieve a higher political goal. Unlike the later meaning of 'terrorists' as people who use violence against a government, the terrorists of the French Revolution were the government. The Terror was legal, having been voted for by the Convention.”
Robespierre and the terror: Marisa Linton reviews the life and career of one of the most vilified men in history.(Maximilien Francois de Robespierre)(Biography) | HighBeam Business: Arrive Prepared

b. Sorel and every other advocate of the left, learned and understood this message.

c. Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…”
Bolshevik Festivals, 1917?1920

There's the result of 'reason.' Learn from history.
The American revolution was based on religion.
Get the dif?



4. How about just one more tiny insult?

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

- that's a pretty weak example. The instinct of survival is not a matter of taste, it's inborn. That we all want to survive (save for depressed suicidal folks), and that we are all not of super strength and weaponry, means that we would logically conclude that as a coexisting species it is not correct to kill the innocent. God does not need to exist for said conclusion to come about. Natural instincts, and the ability of reasoned thought is all.

To your #3 - that only speaks to human beings being a flawed species. Both the religious and the non religious agree, therefore, your example is irrelevant.

You're speaking on moral enforcement. I'm speaking on the origins of morals. These are two different discussions.

 

[G.T.]

But who's logic does not vary? There is no one 'logical standpoint' that is 'correct', everyone has their own version which they believe to be the accurate one. Logic is as subjective as anything else in human nature.

Logic never varies. It is something used to prove something, fallacious or reasoned.

Incorrect logic is identified because it can be refuted.
Correct logic cannot be refuted.

Like I said, logic is not abstract.

People's correct and incorrect use of logic varies, but logic itself does not.

That's not true, it does vary from person to person. The 'use of logic' is the same thing as 'logic', there is no distinction. You are using your own logical point of view, you can sometimes use another's point of view as your own, but you will never get a consensus. Logic is subjective.

Who has that version of logic that is concrete and accurate?

Incorrect logic is identified because it can be refuted.
Correct logic cannot be refuted.

 

[Underhill]

No, she was serious. You've obviously never met her. It isn't a rare point of view at all.

It is among those 5 or 6 dozen progressives I know...

Ask them. You think the fact that you've never discussed it with them means it's not a view they hold..and you're wrong. You keep trying to portray progressives as these reasonable, moderate people. They aren't.

I have talked to them about this issue and many others. They are certainly no more unreasonable and bullheaded than you and superwoman here.

Progressives are no different than conservatives in that most are decent, well intentioned people, and the fringes are bat shit insane.

People on both sides always want to point to the bat shit insane and claim that is how they all are. But it's obviously bullshit.

I am not going to get into this whole moral/immoral argument again. My life and the life of the atheist I know speaks to the lie that says, "there is nothing good without god". If you don't believe that, I don't give a shit.

 

[G.T.]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
..........Albert Einstein

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
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.
In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt" to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

I'd answer you, but I have no crayons.

Focus on fonts and colors when what you actually have is a post that speaks to whether or not Einstein believed in a deity, which is a direct response to your quoting him out of context alluding to otherwise.

Insults over discussion should be the name of this board. Lame.

 

[t_polkow]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
..........Albert Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein,


March 14, 1879...Happy Birthday, Albert!

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
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.
In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt" to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

Einstein:
Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).
On the question of an afterlife Einstein stated to a Baptist pastor, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's The World as I See It, stating: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."

 

[Underhill]

Einstein:
Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).
On the question of an afterlife Einstein stated to a Baptist pastor, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's The World as I See It, stating: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."

And again I say Amen!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
..........Albert Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein,


March 14, 1879...Happy Birthday, Albert!

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
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.
In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt" to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

Not so loud.


Something seems wrong with your alleged quote....


...I picked up my copy of Walter Isaacson's "Einstein," and find this:
A complaint about a colleague, Ehrenfest, who would not admit to being a Jew...."I would like to see him as my successor here. But his fanatical atheism makes that impossible."
March 17, 1912.


'Despite his parent's secularism, or perhaps because of it, Einstein suddenly developed a passionate zeal for Judaism....He even composed hymns for the glorification of God."
p. 16


While this changed as he grew older, he is quoted as saying "The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness, that there is a fundamental cause of all existence."

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws. Isaacson, Ibid, p. 20

 

[Underhill]

Something seems wrong with your alleged quote....


...I picked up my copy of Walter Isaacson's "Einstein," and find this:
A complaint about a colleague, Ehrenfest, who would not admit to being a Jew...."I would like to see him as my successor here. But his fanatical atheism makes that impossible."
March 17, 1912.


'Despite his parent's secularism, or perhaps because of it, Einstein suddenly developed a passionate zeal for Judaism....He even composed hymns for the glorification of God."
p. 16


While this changed as he grew older, he is quoted as saying "The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness, that there is a fundamental cause of all existence."

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws. Isaacson, Ibid, p. 20

Why is it so hard to understand that a man can have religious leanings as a young person and outgrow them as you grow older and wiser?

As for "fanatical atheism", that says nothing about Einstein. I know some fanatical atheist and they aren't much fun to be around. Much like fanatical christians. I would go so far as to say I wouldn't recommend fanatics of any persuasion.

 

[Underhill]

I was poking around Einstein quotes and found one I liked so well I used it as my signature...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Something seems wrong with your alleged quote....


...I picked up my copy of Walter Isaacson's "Einstein," and find this:
A complaint about a colleague, Ehrenfest, who would not admit to being a Jew...."I would like to see him as my successor here. But his fanatical atheism makes that impossible."
March 17, 1912.


'Despite his parent's secularism, or perhaps because of it, Einstein suddenly developed a passionate zeal for Judaism....He even composed hymns for the glorification of God."
p. 16


While this changed as he grew older, he is quoted as saying "The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness, that there is a fundamental cause of all existence."

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws. Isaacson, Ibid, p. 20

Why is it so hard to understand that a man can have religious leanings as a young person and outgrow them as you grow older and wiser?

As for "fanatical atheism", that says nothing about Einstein. I know some fanatical atheist and they aren't much fun to be around. Much like fanatical christians. I would go so far as to say I wouldn't recommend fanatics of any persuasion.

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws.


re·tain
transitive verb \ri-ˈtān\
Definition of RETAIN
1
a : to keep in possession or use

2
: to hold secure or intact

 

[Hollie]

Something seems wrong with your alleged quote....


...I picked up my copy of Walter Isaacson's "Einstein," and find this:
A complaint about a colleague, Ehrenfest, who would not admit to being a Jew...."I would like to see him as my successor here. But his fanatical atheism makes that impossible."
March 17, 1912.


'Despite his parent's secularism, or perhaps because of it, Einstein suddenly developed a passionate zeal for Judaism....He even composed hymns for the glorification of God."
p. 16


While this changed as he grew older, he is quoted as saying "The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness, that there is a fundamental cause of all existence."

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws. Isaacson, Ibid, p. 20

Why is it so hard to understand that a man can have religious leanings as a young person and outgrow them as you grow older and wiser?

As for "fanatical atheism", that says nothing about Einstein. I know some fanatical atheist and they aren't much fun to be around. Much like fanatical christians. I would go so far as to say I wouldn't recommend fanatics of any persuasion.

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws.


re·tain
transitive verb \ri-ˈtān\
Definition of RETAIN
1
a : to keep in possession or use

2
: to hold secure or intact

And…. So what? Whether Einstein did retain from his childhood any beliefs in the supernatural is irrelevant.

su•per•nat•u•ral

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

(form Dictionary.com)


Einstein’s belief in a gawd or gawds faded as he aged. His belief or disbelief in any gawds is irrelevant in the face of cold, hard facts / evidence and there simply are none in conection with your particular, partisan gawds.

Why don't religious tenets stand on their own without seeking to analogize from other human conventions or by appeals to authority? Well, it's obvious of course: all spiritual tenets suffer from exactly the same burden as do all other conventions of human origin: they are of human origin!

You fundies actually prove these false analogies over and over again by alluding to only completely mortal paradigms to explain something you all already admit is really beyond your capacity to understand, let alone explain. This also manifests itself in the myriad times theists must say things like, "you must put away logic; you must see things from a perspective other than reason." Just so: if I perceive something outside of logic, I am admitting it is illogical, and if I dismiss the rational, I am admitting it must be irrational. And given the construction of reality, the illogical and the irrational are not standards by which truth can ever be ascertained.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why is it so hard to understand that a man can have religious leanings as a young person and outgrow them as you grow older and wiser?

As for "fanatical atheism", that says nothing about Einstein. I know some fanatical atheist and they aren't much fun to be around. Much like fanatical christians. I would go so far as to say I wouldn't recommend fanatics of any persuasion.

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws.


re·tain
transitive verb \ri-ˈtān\
Definition of RETAIN
1
a : to keep in possession or use

2
: to hold secure or intact

And…. So what? Whether Einstein did retain from his childhood any beliefs in the supernatural is irrelevant.

su•per•nat•u•ral

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

(form Dictionary.com)


Einstein’s belief in a gawd or gawds faded as he aged. His belief or disbelief in any gawds is irrelevant in the face of cold, hard facts / evidence and there simply are none in conection with your particular, partisan gawds.

Why don't religious tenets stand on their own without seeking to analogize from other human conventions or by appeals to authority? Well, it's obvious of course: all spiritual tenets suffer from exactly the same burden as do all other conventions of human origin: they are of human origin!

You fundies actually prove these false analogies over and over again by alluding to only completely mortal paradigms to explain something you all already admit is really beyond your capacity to understand, let alone explain. This also manifests itself in the myriad times theists must say things like, "you must put away logic; you must see things from a perspective other than reason." Just so: if I perceive something outside of logic, I am admitting it is illogical, and if I dismiss the rational, I am admitting it must be irrational. And given the construction of reality, the illogical and the irrational are not standards by which truth can ever be ascertained.

1.Remember when I stated that there is an unambiguous reference to Jesus in the Constitution….and while you couldn’t deny it….you did insert a disrespectful reference, here:

“As to you claim that you can provide a reference to hey-zeus in the constitution, I’m left under impressed with such melodrama. If you’re referring to the silly claim that a closing salutation includes “in the year of our lord”, you’ve simply wasted your time.

Now….that wasn’t very nice, was it. But…you’re not very nice, are you.

a. It was great fun watching you pretend that the phrase “…our Lord…” by the founders could mean any but Jesus Christ.

You tried this:
b. “The fact is, hey-zeus gets not a single mention in the wording, framework, structure or definition of the constitution.” You just looked silly.



2. I bet you realized how poorly you came off, ‘cause then you suddenly claimed that I had lied: “If sticking to the truth is a moral directive of the bibles, why aren't you doing so?” Of course, there was no lie on my part that you could point to.

I’m almost embarrassed for you. Almost.


a. Then I really nailed you: ‘Can you explain the phrase 'our Lord' sans religion?
No?
So....why are you claiming that I am not telling the truth?

Obviously you are the one in that situation.’

But you had no answer.


That was a real knee-slapper!


You looked so stooooopppid!

 

[Hollie]

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws.


re·tain
transitive verb \ri-ˈtān\
Definition of RETAIN
1
a : to keep in possession or use

2
: to hold secure or intact

And…. So what? Whether Einstein did retain from his childhood any beliefs in the supernatural is irrelevant.

su•per•nat•u•ral

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

(form Dictionary.com)


Einstein’s belief in a gawd or gawds faded as he aged. His belief or disbelief in any gawds is irrelevant in the face of cold, hard facts / evidence and there simply are none in conection with your particular, partisan gawds.

Why don't religious tenets stand on their own without seeking to analogize from other human conventions or by appeals to authority? Well, it's obvious of course: all spiritual tenets suffer from exactly the same burden as do all other conventions of human origin: they are of human origin!

You fundies actually prove these false analogies over and over again by alluding to only completely mortal paradigms to explain something you all already admit is really beyond your capacity to understand, let alone explain. This also manifests itself in the myriad times theists must say things like, "you must put away logic; you must see things from a perspective other than reason." Just so: if I perceive something outside of logic, I am admitting it is illogical, and if I dismiss the rational, I am admitting it must be irrational. And given the construction of reality, the illogical and the irrational are not standards by which truth can ever be ascertained.

1.Remember when I stated that there is an unambiguous reference to Jesus in the Constitution….and while you couldn’t deny it….you did insert a disrespectful reference, here:

1. Actually, I remember when you were tasked with providing a single reference for your gawds in the wording of the constitution.

2. You failed.

3. Now, having had your false allegations (with reference to Einstein), refuted, you've taken to stuttering and mumbling in a desperate attempt to cover your falsehoods.

4. How sad for you.

5. So, yes, You looked so stooooopppid!


6. Additionally, you look dishonest and, well, "stooooopppid" with the falsified "quotes" you posted.

7. Have you forgotten that I already exposed your lies and falsehoods in a thread previous to this one where you posted edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes". We call that being dishonest. Didn't the prayer leader at your Madrassah teach you what lying is and why it's wrong?

8. Are all fundie christians as dishonest as you are?

 

[PoliticalChic]

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws.


re·tain
transitive verb \ri-ˈtān\
Definition of RETAIN
1
a : to keep in possession or use

2
: to hold secure or intact

And…. So what? Whether Einstein did retain from his childhood any beliefs in the supernatural is irrelevant.

su•per•nat•u•ral

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

(form Dictionary.com)


Einstein’s belief in a gawd or gawds faded as he aged. His belief or disbelief in any gawds is irrelevant in the face of cold, hard facts / evidence and there simply are none in conection with your particular, partisan gawds.

Why don't religious tenets stand on their own without seeking to analogize from other human conventions or by appeals to authority? Well, it's obvious of course: all spiritual tenets suffer from exactly the same burden as do all other conventions of human origin: they are of human origin!

You fundies actually prove these false analogies over and over again by alluding to only completely mortal paradigms to explain something you all already admit is really beyond your capacity to understand, let alone explain. This also manifests itself in the myriad times theists must say things like, "you must put away logic; you must see things from a perspective other than reason." Just so: if I perceive something outside of logic, I am admitting it is illogical, and if I dismiss the rational, I am admitting it must be irrational. And given the construction of reality, the illogical and the irrational are not standards by which truth can ever be ascertained.

1.Remember when I stated that there is an unambiguous reference to Jesus in the Constitution….and while you couldn’t deny it….you did insert a disrespectful reference, here:

1. Actually, I remember when you were tasked with providing a single reference for your gawds in the wording of the constitution.

2. You failed.

3. Now, having had your false allegations (with reference to Einstein), refuted, you've taken to stuttering and mumbling in a desperate attempt to cover your falsehoods.

4. How sad for you.

5. So, yes, You looked so stooooopppid!


6. Additionally, you look dishonest and, well, "stooooopppid" with the falsified "quotes" you posted.

7. Have you forgotten that I already exposed your lies and falsehoods in a thread previous to this one where you posted edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes". We call that being dishonest. Didn't the prayer leader at your Madrassah teach you what lying is and why it's wrong?

8. Are all fundie christians as dishonest as you are?

1. Good little Collie....I'm so proud of you!

You saw post #117:

"Now I command you:

Be sure to use "... stutter and mumble..." in every post!!

OR ELSE!!"


After all, what kind of fanatic would you be if you couldn't take orders.
As your superior, I will be issuing other orders in the future.


2. Now...why were you afraid to provide the rest of my post?
Embarrassed?


3. Oh....I see: you're fibbing and it would have been exposed!
I never " manufactured "quotes" I used your own words....let me know if you need the link to where you actually said those things.


Heck....you're a 'double threat'! Dishonest and stoooopppidddd!

 

[Hollie]

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws.


re·tain
transitive verb \ri-ˈtān\
Definition of RETAIN
1
a : to keep in possession or use

2
: to hold secure or intact

And…. So what? Whether Einstein did retain from his childhood any beliefs in the supernatural is irrelevant.

su•per•nat•u•ral

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

(form Dictionary.com)


Einstein’s belief in a gawd or gawds faded as he aged. His belief or disbelief in any gawds is irrelevant in the face of cold, hard facts / evidence and there simply are none in conection with your particular, partisan gawds.

Why don't religious tenets stand on their own without seeking to analogize from other human conventions or by appeals to authority? Well, it's obvious of course: all spiritual tenets suffer from exactly the same burden as do all other conventions of human origin: they are of human origin!

You fundies actually prove these false analogies over and over again by alluding to only completely mortal paradigms to explain something you all already admit is really beyond your capacity to understand, let alone explain. This also manifests itself in the myriad times theists must say things like, "you must put away logic; you must see things from a perspective other than reason." Just so: if I perceive something outside of logic, I am admitting it is illogical, and if I dismiss the rational, I am admitting it must be irrational. And given the construction of reality, the illogical and the irrational are not standards by which truth can ever be ascertained.

1.Remember when I stated that there is an unambiguous reference to Jesus in the Constitution….and while you couldn’t deny it….you did insert a disrespectful reference, here:

“As to you claim that you can provide a reference to hey-zeus in the constitution, I’m left under impressed with such melodrama. If you’re referring to the silly claim that a closing salutation includes “in the year of our lord”, you’ve simply wasted your time.

Now….that wasn’t very nice, was it. But…you’re not very nice, are you.

a. It was great fun watching you pretend that the phrase “…our Lord…” by the founders could mean any but Jesus Christ.

You tried this:
b. “The fact is, hey-zeus gets not a single mention in the wording, framework, structure or definition of the constitution.” You just looked silly.



2. I bet you realized how poorly you came off, ‘cause then you suddenly claimed that I had lied: “If sticking to the truth is a moral directive of the bibles, why aren't you doing so?” Of course, there was no lie on my part that you could point to.

I’m almost embarrassed for you. Almost.


a. Then I really nailed you: ‘Can you explain the phrase 'our Lord' sans religion?
No?
So....why are you claiming that I am not telling the truth?

Obviously you are the one in that situation.’

But you had no answer.


That was a real knee-slapper!


You looked so stooooopppid!

You are correct, I did write out: “The fact is, hey-zeus gets not a single mention in the wording, framework, structure or definition of the constitution.

So then, where is this mentioning of hey-zeus you claim exists.

Speaking of stooooopppid.... I'll wait for your typically stooooopppid response.