/sci/ - Science & Math

this is an oxymoron, religious scientists are equivalent to intelligent republicans

Can't be religious with proper application of scientific method.
No evidence, don't believe.

religion and science are not mutually exclusive

>Religious
>Scientists
oxymoron

"There is a fundamental difference between religion and science. Science will win because science works." - Stephen Hawking

i.e. The two cannot really coexist.

It is possible for the Deists. Who believe a higher being, not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God, created everything in the beginning and then let things take their own course. It set the laws, constants, etc that science is discovering and proving. The anthropic principle also falls under this.

>>1309510
lol n00b.
Faith is the belief in something without logic.

Anyone who honestly believes you cannot believe in some religion while simultaneously studying science is deluded.

A religious scientist isn't purely a scientist.

>>1309500

i lol at the notion.

god created biped apes through evolution (deciding who fucked the most) so he could give birth to himself and sacrifice himself to himself so we won't burn forever.

i lol

Science can only coexist with religion if god keeps being pushed further and further out of the picture as we discover new things. As of right now God can only exist in the time before the big bang where he set things in motion. It's at this time where we really have not much idea of how things got set in motion so god is convenient to place here.

Contributing to this thread.

>>1309545
he works in mysterious ways faggot

religion and science are friends.

Don't assume something unless you see something like it.

Let's not talk about god until evidence presents itself.

If it's good enough for Dr. Knuth it's good enough for me.

Do you know "Atheist Scientists" who gave a major contributions to science?

>>1309531
Why the hell would you want to be "purely a scientist?"

>>1309548

Newtonian physics is one of the most popularized lies of science. Along with the Bohr model of the atom.

Take your false science elsewhere, nigger.

>>1309582
>Atheist
>Scientist
oxymoron

>>1309522
I see no problem with this. As long as religion does not try to disprove science and doesn't teach retarded things (like the earth being a few thousand years old)

But I'll remain a atheist, there is no need for a god in a world where everything is explained by logic and science.

>>1309582

Watson, Crick, Gould, Huxley, Weinberg, Pauling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_%28science_and_technology%29

Stupid nigger.

>>1309587
It wasn't a lie; the noun "lie" in English implies an intentionally false statement. It was a false statement made in the belief that it was a true statement.

>>1309611

It is promulgated now as if is it truth.

>>1309606
Some Middle-Tier scientists
Not the God-Tier scientist

>>1309587
lol
Just because something that was before thought to be true, and perfectly explained everyday life, was later shown to be false under some circumstances does not make it a "popularized lies of science".

Newtonian physics is still perfectly true if used under normal dimensions (human lengths, normal speeds). Only at extremely high speeds, or at extremely small scales, the Newtonian model (classical physics) breaks down.

>>1309587
>lies of science
>implying it hasn't been proven time and time again
>implying you aren't being affected by gravity right now

>>1309628
YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH CARL SAGAN?

Anyone that believes science and religion are incompatible isn't thinking with science.

Isn't it somewhat like faith to believe in gravity? I mean you can't see it, how do you know this so called invisible force is real?

Do you believe someday science can prove religion. Maybe that was the whole point or what we've been unknowingly or knowingly driving at.

>>1309628

Linus Pauling, a "mid-Tier" scientists. Crick, co-discovered the structure of DNA. Myer, founder of the biological definition of a species. Dirac, helped formulate quantum physics.

Lol, you're a dumb nigger troll.

>>1309662
Invisible?
Are you that retarded? Really?
Can't you feel your own weight? How does your mass translate into weight if there's no gravity?

>>1309628


Linus Pauling, a "mid-Tier" scientist--he formulated the concept of electronegativity. Watson and Crick, discovered the structure of DNA. Myer, founder of the biological definition of a species. Dirac, helped formulate quantum physics.

Lol, you're a dumb nigger troll.

>>1309662
because we can see and measure its effects dude. what the hell would you say if someone said "aren't meteorologists just using faith? I mean, you can't see wind, so how do you know it is real?"

>>1309681
Einstein once said
>I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.

>>1309628

Fucking Alan Turing, the Darwin of computer science.

Dumb nigger troll.

>>1309679
you forgot Alan Turing... never mind, computer science love isn't too strong on this board...

OH OH, you forgot Alfred Kinsey!

Some God-Tier Scientists:

Nicholas Copernicus
Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
William Kelvin
Max Planck
Albert Einstein

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

>>1309720
oh look, a list of people that lived from an age where Atheism was considered an offense punishable by death to an age where atheism was considered a mental condition.

>>1309720

Forgot Kent Hovind.

>>1309582
1) Don't capitalize atheist. It isn't a proper noun.
2) Einstein didn't believe in any deities, to name one.

>>1309730
oops, I didn't see Einstein in there.

>>1309720
>Albert Einstein

In a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, Einstein remarked, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

>>1309730
einstein said that people who use his views to support atheism offended him. these scientist were not afraid of the publics views as they werent as shallow as you make them out to be

>>1309743
see
>>1309695

He may not have believed directly in god or the bible but there was some belief of a higher being in there, like a deist if not theist, but definitely not atheist.

>>1309737

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

The list below is from the book The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, Citadel Press (2000), written by John Galbraith Simmons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

Einstein crusaded against strong atheism, as most of us do. He professes his agnosticism, but his statements of not believing a personal god leads me to suspect he is a modern day agnostic atheist.

>>1309749
He said "we", as in mankind. That quote almost sounds like a comment on our own ignorance.

>>1309756

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)

>do not believe.

>atheism towards personal gods (forms of deism, theism)

>>1309756
He defined atheism differently then we do today. He saw atheism as synonymous with anti-theism.

>>1309755
Very few atheists on that list.

>>1309769
Deism is the belief in an impersonal god or gods.

It should probably be that most scientists are/should be agnostic. They aren't sure but it can still be possible.

>>1309500
>>1309500

>>1309779

Not all forms of deism are impersonal. Most are, though.

>>1309500
>>1309500
0/10

>>1309782
Leprechauns too?

>>1309769
This. Einstein did not believe in a god per se, he just believed that the universe had an innate order or structure.

ITT: "Edgy" 18 year old high school homos criticize and ridicule intelligent individuals in scientific fields because those individuals happen to believe in God or gods, while disregarding any and all scientific advancement or information put forward by said individuals.

>>1309775
Not trolling at all. This is a hotly debated topic and knew it would spark up some good discussion and arguments.

>>1309782

A good scientist would be a strong atheist towards all gods humanity thought up and an agnostic atheist towards deistic gods.

>>1309748
1. I corrected myself here>>1309738
2. In the times of the majority of the scientists on that list atheism was unheard of, it was simply something you DID NOT DO. it wasn't a matter of these people choosing theism to protect themselves, it's that the choice was never even presented.
3. how is choosing to preserve your own life rather than speak out shallow?
4. I give you Mendel, he clearly had strong faith, and though he essentially started recorded genetics you cannot say that he would have chosen the same path in life if he were presented with the information we now know or if he were taught at a young age that lack of belief was fine.

>>1309785
If by impersonal one means has no role in the day to day actions of the universe then deism is by definition the belief in an impersonal god or gods. If one says "God" cured his or her mother's cancer then one cannot be a deist.

only a dumbass would believe in a god. theres no proof that there is one, so there isn't one

>>1309794
>high school homos
>look at how edgy i am for being prejudiced and ignorant towards homosexuals. is my bible thumping redneck homophobia kewl gaiz?

>>1309794
The only one trying to be "edgy" here is you.

And what of the religious scientists greatest argument? the anthropic principle?

>>1309794
also ITT: "edgy" Christian 18 year old get pissed when someone says that being religious conflicts with how people approach the scientific method.

>>1309812
Every argument for theism gives me a headache.

>>1309772
he also defines god in a different sense
see>>1309695
he disagreed with the religious view of god but not gods existence

>>1309817
um, anthropic principle is an argument for deism, not theism.

>>1309812
I see the anthropic principle more as a argument towards atheism then any form of religion.

>>1309796
and yet einsteins considered one of the greatest if not the greatest.

>>1309817
odd, every argument for theism gives me an erection, guess why.

>>1309834
I wouldn't say the greatest. one of them yes, but I wouldn't put him on that high pedestal.

>>1309500
I WORSHIP OUR DARK LORD
IT IS VERY SCIENTIFIC

>>1309832
That's curious. How so?

>>1309831
Sometimes theism is defined to include all forms of belief in deities, not just personal ones.

>>1309834


I would not consider Einstein the greatest scientist. He's not the smartest one to live and his discoveries haven't advanced humanity as much as other discoveries.

Nicolaus Copernicus:

"To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge. "

As quoted in Poland : The Knight Among Nations (1907) by Louis E. Van Norman, p. 290; also in The Language of God (2006) by Francis Collins, pp. 230-31.

>>1309835
Einstein was hyped up by the media because he was a German scientist whose theory was validated by a British team right after WWI. It was seen as a big step in reconciliation between the two countries.

>>1309835
Satan makes me so wet

>>1309831
atheism cannot disprove god by arguing over religion in the same sense that theist cannot prove to an atheist gods existence by religion.

>>1309859
Whoa. What a deliciously proportioned woman. I'm practically salivating here.

Here's another in turn. http://vimeo.com/groups/16014/videos/12280336

>>1309851
essentially its an opinion, but his advances in his fields are considered to be among the top and theories that we still are proving true as we know more show that he was one of the greatest minds to come into his field

>>1309862
anthropic principle isn't religion though.

Do you even know what I'm talking about?

The fact that all these constants (distance from sun, oxygen, gravity, too many to list or recall) are perfectly like that so that they support human life.

It's too much to be mere coincidence so there is the possibility of something more. Not necessarily a God but maybe some sort of higher being or designer.

It just raises an air of possibility. And which is why the deists use this as one of their most popular arguments.

>>1309870
What about this?

>>1309880

you should look up the "texas sharpshooter fallacy" because your entire argument is based off if it.

>>1309877
see
>>1309856

>>1309840
To observe the universe means we must exist in the universe. To exist, the universe must have some finely tuned characteristics to allow starts to form, chemical reactions to take place, etc.
If any of these constants would be different we would not exist and would not observe the universe.
There is no need for god anywhere in this logic, any number of universes may (or may not) exist that have other constants, but by having different constants no life can appear and nobody can observe them.
Where is this god I wonder ?

>>1309880
there exists the possibility that the environment was not fined tuned for our existence, but rather that we have evolved and adapted on a planet that would support our existence.

>>1309880
you do realize that if the conditions were different then life would have just adapted around the present conditions right?

also

>assuming the earth was designed for humans.

>>1309854
Science as way to praise the Lord.

>>1309891
That's not my argument.

Personally I think no matter how low that percentage chance for constants to come together perfectly like that, there's still a chance.

"A low possibility means it's not zero."

>>1309880
lrn2ridiculouslyhighprobability

>>1309905

Well, that's mostly reasonable. However, it's folly to claim that life can't exist under other constants. We can't even begin to test this hypothesis. It may be made of something non-carbon based, for starters. It may form organisms which span thousands of miles, relaying information to itself with radio pulses.

We honestly have no idea.

>>1309920
>>1309920

Looking at the conditions, and then assuming we and life were made for them, is painting the bull's eye around a shot.

Your logic is flawed. There is a deep want to believe what you said-- but the logic is not there. If we want intellectual honesty, and not comfort, we must abandon your argument.

>>1309920
>>1309920

Looking at the conditions, and then assuming we and life were made for them, is painting the bull's eye around a shot.

Your logic is flawed. There is a deep want to believe what you said-- but the logic is not there. If we want intellectual honest, and not comfort, we must abandon your argument.

>>1309882
This is a safe for work board, please censor your porn.

>>1309926
Of course, I was just assuming for the sake of argument.

>>1309940
Ah I see.

But it's better seen in
>>1309906
>>1309910

Those seem to tear that argument right up.

>>1309794
this is all of /sci/ bro.

>>1309500

Religious scientists make me sick. They're hypocrites! Either you believe in finding evidence to support ideas, or you don't give a fuck about evidence and prefer imaginary friends. PICK ONE!

>>1309805
>>1309811
>>1309815

Oh really now? Can you direct me to a post that has any material related to the scientific works and advancements of religious scientists? All I see is a group of individuals who have contributed little or nothing to the collective of all scientific fields bawk at the idea that a Professor, who has contributed his field, happens to believe in God and thus is an impossibility.

Op's guy is Prof Miller. He is a Professor at Brown University. Here is his page. This man is doing the same thing as Dawkins: pushing forward the idea of evolution as a fact of life. The only difference is, HE BELIEVES IN GOD. In my opinion, is not really that big of a deal and you gentlemen are looking to far into your own stupidity to realize this.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/

He also tore Banana-man a new asshole. Good man.

>>1309905
does a tree observe the wind or is it part of a function thats occurring. existing is more than just being able to observe in this sense that implies that you are able to make changes to your surrounding but by a scientific defintion, we are part of a system of the entropy of the universe. an observer of the universe would be able to see this and pick up on a pattern eventually but the mere fact of observing something makes you part of the system. scientifically, you exist in the sense that a rock exist in that conciousness is an illusion.

>>1309971
see >>1309695

Scientists must be truthfull. I have seen atheists and religious scientists who loved truth.

>>1309945
Haven't you read this thread? There is no Mod. If there were then bad threads wouldn't happen to good posters.

>>1309582

Einstein, Hawking, etc

My god is very real.

>>1309976
Precisely why I chose him, and that I read his book "Finding Darwin's God" recently and found it interesting. Except the parts when he goes into the anthopic principle, quantum mechanics, and free will.

>>1309971
But you DONT have evidence to say religious scientists are hypocrites. What you can say is that would would be a hypocrite if you said if you believed in god because it does not make any sense to you, YET.

>>1309976
>>1309976
>>1309976

In addition to this post, I would also like to bring up another concept that you gentlemen probably will bawk at, not read, and simply reject.

I give to you, JESUIT SCIENTISTS!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists

Thats right motherfuckers, priest-scientists! To them, scientific discovery is simply proof that God exists. Jesuit spirituality dictates that everything in this universe has God in it, and thus Jesuits need to find God in everything. These individuals found God in science, and thus pressed their studies with great gusto.

Here is a Jesuit-Priest-Scientist-Evolutionist:

http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20081007_1.htm

You also now realize this man probably has more masters and phds then you will in your entire lifetime.

itt people whining about religious scientists, in spite of not having accomplished anything themselves

>>1310028
Scientist - requires evidence for belief
Religious person - does not require evidence for belief

Sounds hypocritical.

DAN DAN DAAAAN

>>1310036

laughable logic. i could claim that all scientific discoveries prove invisible unicorns and have the same position.

>>1310036
Didnt know about that, interesting.

>>1310048

Stereotyping: requires a group of 18 year olds/weakminded individuals that are insecure about themselves.

>Implying that all religious people don't require proof for all aspects of life.

^ Do you understand what the world would be like if "all relgious people do not require proof" was right? It would be insanity. Only creationists require proof, and only you (and every other motherfucker here) needs to post about religion and how wrong it is to eliminate all insecurities.

Tl;dr,

The reason /sci/ is full of religious trolling is because there are many individuals that are insecure about themselves and their ideologies. If you (yes you reader) are comfortable with what you believe in (theism or atheism), you do not need to argue about everything.

In addition, there are no real hardcore theists on /sci/ just individuals that acknowledge that many individuals here are insecure about themselves, and thus pray on them by posting religious troll threads.

>>1310097
I don't think you know what faith is.

>>1310048

Stereotyping: requires a group of 18 year olds/weakminded individuals that are insecure about themselves.

>Implying that all religious people don't require proof for all aspects of life.

^ Do you understand what the world would be like if "all religious people do not require proof" was right? It would be insanity. Only creationists don't require proof, and only you (and every other motherfucker here) needs to post about religion and how wrong it is to eliminate all insecurities.

Tl;dr,

The reason /sci/ is full of religious trolling is because there are many individuals that are insecure about themselves and their ideologies. If you (yes you reader) are comfortable with what you believe in (theism or atheism), you do not need to argue about everything.

In addition, there are no real hardcore theists on /sci/ just individuals that acknowledge that many individuals here are insecure about themselves, and thus pray on them by posting religious troll threads.

Also I noticed a bad typo in my last post, so I edited it. Sorry about that quote dude.

I mean you. >>1310101

>>1310110
I don't think you know what faith is.

>>1310110
wait... your tl;dr needs a tl;dr
because in the end tl;dr

>>1310059

Does not prove, but has within itself.

Jesuits see God IN THINGS. The fact that we all exist is proof enough for them that there is a God. To them, God is in all of the universe, therefore, because everything exists, there is God.... God everywhere.

That's Ignatian Spirituality. Therefore, these guys see God in science, and thats why they do it.

>>1310116

I meant tl;dr for the entire thread.

>>1310110
If people who are religious require proof than what is the point of faith, and why do they believe in god at all or an afterlife when there is no proof for it. Have you ever been dead before, and if you have do you have anything to prove it?

And no I don't need to argue about it. I just like to.

>>1310048
Evidence wont magically came to you upon demand, nor in science or religion, it takes a lot of effort and discipline.

>>1310132

i can see unicorns in everything. they choose, subjectively, with no evidence that god is in all things. they don't use logic, they use "beautiful wording" and human emotions to argue god is in nature.

there is no evidence of it. they just observe something complex, bend to ignorance, and call it god.

it is shit tier logic.

>>1310144
I don't see why you linked to my post.

you faggots bash religion, but you suck carl sagan's pseudoreligious cock. why is this?

>>1310140
Have you been to the moon, did you see atoms.. or you are just believing what they say on the science books?

>>1310160
Carl Sagan was an atheist broseph

>>1310163
That's different though. They've been proven time and time again.

>>1310132
Thats subjective though and doesn't meet the scientific definition of proof. If you go around saying that you feel this or that flower or tree, or emotions and such is actual proof for something real, that might tend to undermine the legitimacy of data you've collected in thorough strictly scientific tests in the eyes of you're peers.

>>1310163
>>1310163

Look outside; see moon. Now I believe.

Go to lab; use scanning tunneling microscope, now I believe in atoms.

Problem solved

>>1310170
All highly spiritually developed say the same things time and again.

>>1310163
you CAN fly to the moon yourself if you've got enough money, or have a good education and some good luck. you can WORK toward creating a microscope powerful enough to see atoms.
you CAN do these things if you want.

you CANNOT receive a message from god through education and hard work.

>>1310163
Theres actual data put together to prove the existence of things like germs and atoms and other things that most people haven't seen first hand but accept as facts in their every day lives. Thats totally different than seeing a bee pollinating a flower or some shit and then waxing about how beautiful it is and then coming to the conclusion that that is god or proves god exists.

>>1310177
You just read about science. Nobody requires you to get evidence , and yet expect you to believe by scientific faith...

>>1310163
Don't give me that "you can't see the wind" bullshit. Science as a method is the creation of falsafiable theories. Is there a moon? What would we observe if there was a moon? A circle in the sky, tides, lunar eclipses... We have a moon. Empiricism is not part of religious/theistic belief.

>>1310191
Yes you can. Some people train and dedicate their lifes in ALL religions for that...

>>1310167
have you ever listen to him talk? he came off like some mystic guru. shit was really annoying.

>>1310213
1) No
2) No
3) RAGE!

>>1310114


Yeah I know what faith is, but it seems you are confusing blind faith with Jesuit faith.

You see, in blind faith, an individual ignores contradicting evidence.

The Jesuits see all evidence as having some sort of connection with God.

However, you don't understand that without faith, there can be no reason.

Reason is one of the human mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises, and faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true.

For reason to work, there must be assumptions or premises, in that case alone it is limited to just our scope. Faith is the occular that increases that scope and this it how it works:

Faith persuades the mind that an idea is true. In order understand that an idea is true, persuasion is involved.

How do you persuade yourself, some people require to be convinced in order to be persuaded. How do you do that? There are two ways:

Logic and reason--------> Conclusions.
Ignoring all evidence------->Blind faith.

Without faith, one cannot into ideas with reason, and without reason, faith is blind.

>>1310202
nobody requires that you get evidence because others have before you, you can go out and collect evidence for existing theories until the cows come home(assuming you own cows).

>>1310212
Show it objectively... the same way the other examples can be shown.

>>1310204
99% of the theories is impossible for a regular person to independently falsify (money, infrastucture, technical skills, etc.)

>>1310202
there is no such thing as scientific faith. Have most people actually seen germs or seen one infect a person? No, but we still wash our hands because it is well documented that they do cause illnesses. There is no 'faith' involved in that.

>>1310217
You are confusing "confidence" with "faith". I don't have "faith" the Sun will come up tomorrow, I am confident it will. Faith is confidence with no evidential basis or logical reasoning.

>>1310221
So the fuck what?

>>1310213
there will be rage at this post.
but no, it wasn't pseudo-religious in nature. the guy was putting what was known in an eloquent and poetic fashion, he was making it interesting to learn about our world. it might have felt like he was trying to be a guru to you, but it wasn't the intent and it wasn't what I got from the series.

>>1310217
Sounds like jesuit faith is science in reverse then, just like all kinds of bullshit psuedosciences.

I have a conclusion that I am absolutely certain of before I begin and I will invariably find a way to make whatever information I gather support this conclusion even if it doesn't make sense.

>>1310233
He was just speaking in poetic terms that were more relatable to the average person who doesn't have a background in cosmology.

>>1310228

The concept of faith requires great leaps of thought. If you did not understand my last post, let me illustrate using a metaphor.

>Oh by the way, read Immanuel Kant, he has a good answer to the sun is rising notion.

So lets say we are replicating DNA. In eukaryotes, you have a leading strand, and a lagging strand. Lets say that reason are the nucleotides, faith is the RNA primer and the entire thing is the cognitive thinking process.

So, to simplify, first there is the primer, once the primer is recognized, nucleotides (logic reason) are put in its place and then some.

This is way oversimplified.

Faith directs logic and reason.

Blind faith is absent of logic and reason.

>>1310258
read what einstein said, he puts it best in the sense of a religious scientist. see>>1309695

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.


/thread

>>1310233
>implying Sagan wasn't Humanity, Fuck Yeah!

>>1310275

see

>>1309769

where einstein says he does not believe (atheism) in a personal god

>>1310279
That is confidence. Faith is confidence without an evidential basis or logical reasoning.

>>1310283
but... I'd never imply sagan wasn't humanity

>>1310304
>doesn't know what Humanity, Fuck Yeah! is

>>1310279
everyone has faith in the sense that you plan. you have some faith that you will wake up after you go to sleep so you plan for tomorrow. there is no way for you to be certain, but you act as if you know you will.

>>1310308
CONFIDENCE! not faith.

>>1310258

Wow you guys are really retarded.

Jesuits do everything that normal human beings do.

Except that they see God in the universe. No one knows what God looks like or is, but whatever God is, Jesuits feel that it is manifested in all of the cosmos.

Jesuits realize that they don't understand God, and that God is in everything. Therefore, they press everything with the assumption that God is in it to learn more about God.

This results in their MASSIVE education and progress made by them in many fields. They are not trying to prove/disprove God, they are simply trying to do everything because God (not because God said so, JUST BECAUSE).

Duh.

Seriously, do you know what God looks like. I don't. You know why? Because God is a fucking concept that we can't understand, but it is linked to us in some way, therefore we do shit.

Thats the Jesuit mentality

>>1309695
in >>1310287 post, the first thing einstein says is that he is not atheist. he does not believe in god in the religious manner but has his own view of god.

>>1310333

read the quote. he rejected strong atheism, like most atheists do, fool.

when it came to personal gods, einstein professed atheism, he said he didn't believe in them. most likely he was an agnostic atheist.

>>1310333
If you read through his quotes will will find he uses a different definition of atheism than is typically used today. He mistakenly believes atheism is synonymous with anti-theism.

>>1310318
youre confusing faith with blind faith. theres no point in debating until you understand the difference between the two

>>1310279
Thats a definition for faith when used in the context of describing the dependability of someone. 'Yes I have faith that my friend will come through on this one. He is always a very reliable person.'

In the context of religion or philosophy it is the arbitrary belief in something no matter how much you are exposed to other faiths or evidence to the contrary. Theres no point in arguing if you have faith, because its unshakable. No matter what someone says.

>>1310341
Have you even been to church before? You are supposed to believe in God and His plan for you no matter what happens to you, despite all evidence you might accumulate.

You are confusing faith with blind faith and faith with confidence.

>>1310340
he has a different definition of atheism just like he has a different definition for god. he was against atheism in the sense of antitheism like he was against god in the religious manner. you cant use that to classify him as an atheist.

>>1310343
>Theres no point in arguing if you have faith, because its unshakable.
and thus unscientific.

/thread people.

>>1310351
believing in gods plan is blind faith. believing in god is faith.

>>1310352

he was most likely an agnostic atheist. he professed agnosticism and incessantly denied faith in personal gods.

sounds like agnostic atheism to me.

>>1310356
>believing in god is faith.
What god?

>>1310326
>The Jesuits see all evidence as having some sort of connection with God.
>For reason to work, there must be assumptions or premises, in that case alone it is limited to just our scope. Faith is the occular that increases that scope and this it how it works

That seriously sounds like a load of shit to me. There are no assumptions in science. Scientific work only begins from what you can observe and demonstrate and other previously demonstrated and proven theories.

>>1310362
by having a belief in god by his own definition, i do not consider him atheist. calling him atheist because he has a different view of god than religion is anti-religion

>>1310389
He didn't believe in deities. Where did you get that idea?

>>1310368
are you questioning the different gods of religion, in which case i would tell you theyre all the same, or his existence

>>1310395
the diety im talking about is the someone he refers to when he says
>The child knows someone must have written those books

>>1310389

even christians are atheists. they deny the existence of every deity besides their own. he denied the christian god and was agnostic towards deistic gods.

>>1310404
He didn't say the child was right in the assumption though. You can think you know something with certainty and still be wrong.

>>1310408
what other deities are you talking about that they deny

>>1310404
I thought he was referring to our own ignorance and our inclination to think there is a someone.

>>1310419
um.. all of them

>>1310419

pic related

>>1310417
but hes saying we are the little children and that the childs view
>is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
one another note, when a child assumes someone wrote a book, that is the most logical answer. it would be illogical to believe the book just appeared.

>>1310451
This was left out of the quote made earlier

>We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

He's only saying that its most people's inclination, even very intelligent people, to fill in the gaps of what little we know about the universe with god. He's not anywhere asserting a belief of any kind.

>>1309510
This
But Science and Christianity are.

>>1310451
You are looking way too deeply into an analogy. The child represents an ignorant observer and the conclusion in this case of the ignorant observer is that a deity exists. Obviously Einstein wasn't saying God exists.

>>1310475
hes not using god to fill in the gaps, just that he thinks someone created them. also, he doesnt say most, he says even the most which means that this includes all.

>>1310483
>just that he thinks someone created them.
Way to ignore everything people are saying and make a baseless assumption.

>>1310480
when someone says we are in the position of a metaphorical child, analogy would mean that the child he refers to is us and that believing that god exist is the logical approach. your right he never says god exist or that he doesnt, just that it is logical to think so.
also, when thinking about god, no thought is too deep because the idea is that the thought isnt deep enough

>>1310496
if your just joining, read the entire thread, if you have already, then how do you view this statement as baseless

>>1310511
Since when did children represent methodical logic?

>>1310517
Multiple posters have argued that Einstein was not using that analogy to say a deity created the universe but then you say it is a fact.

>>1310523
many posters have argued the side they believe, im arguing mine. at no point has either of us been proven wrong. different interpretations cannot be proven wrong, just debated over which one is more logical

>>1310552
>im arguing mine
No you aren't. You explicitly stated Einstein meant to say with the analogy God exists and you haven't argued why. Your only argument against the claims of others was that the child in the analogy is supposed to represnt pure logic, which doesn't make any sense. The child represents ignorance.

>>1310523
the childs logic is that of an observer, not absolute logic because this requires that all facts are known.

>>1310571
You aren't making any sense. Good night.

>>1310566
then hes calling us all ignorant, which compared to the universe is about right and that the assumption is logical.
in his example the childs logic is in no way to be dismissed as flawed unless you think assuming someone wrote a book is illogical.

>>1310584
Well no one wrote a book,
Instead there are laws of nature, the only people who have written them are human, It is Obvious here that the book is an analogy, for these things, and like Einsteins use of god taken literally, its clear the illogical bints here are taking everything he says literally, even when it's clearly a construct to express a point.

>>1310597
sounds alot like you saying the only laws of nature are the ones we know about

>>1310597
when he says we (including himself), the anology is that we are the children and not the authors. theres no premise to divide us into two groups.