/sci/ - Science & Math

>>Implying those men were not secretly Christians

>>2292298
There's a pretty harsh environment of institutionalized atheism in academia. You can't be both successful and a Christian, it seems.

>>2292298
>MFW Einstein was Jewish and Hawking definitely isn't a Christian

Didn't Hawkings say that God does not play with dice or something? That should probe he belives in God regardless of what he say since then

>>2292298
>implying Einstein and Feynman aren't Jewish

>>2292321
>>2292321
>implying einstein was jewish

You really had to delete and remake the thread just to add an X to that box?

>>2292315
No he did not, Hawking's quoted Einstein supposedly said that but Einstein was often misquoted, just as things are done today for personal gain.

>>2292329

Yes.

ITT: stupid quotes from otherwise intelligent people reflecting a degenerate misunderstanding of religion in order to make OP feel better about himself.

>>2292351

>>a degenerate misunderstanding of religion

How so? I was a Christian for the better part of thirty years before I gave it up. I had as complete an understanding as anyone, or at least I sincerely believed, and felt what I thought was the presence of God, heard what I thought was his voice.

Take it from someone who has been where you are and moved past it; Christianity is neither wholly good nor wholly bad, but rather a religion like any other, its god just as invented as the gods of all other religions, it just happens to have won the historical popularity contest.

>>2292373
I'm not a christian. Not even close. And I have been where you are and moved past it, so does that mean you should take "it" from me?

>>2292387

>>And I have been where you are and moved past it,

I doubt it. How old are you?

>>so does that mean you should take "it" from me?

It means you might've mistaken backwards for beyond.

>>2292403
I'm 32.

>It means you might've mistaken backwards for beyond.

The same is true of you, and of everyone. That's the point: having held a perspective in the past does not mean that one's newer perspective is superior.

>>2292413

>>I'm 32.

Thought so. You have a ways to go yet.

>>The same is true of you, and of everyone. That's the point: having held a perspective in the past does not mean that one's newer perspective is superior.

It doesn't *necessarily* mean that, you're right. But in this case, it happens to be true.

>>2292351
How are they stupid? Give me one flaw in any of those quotes.

>>2292448
Yeah, if I'd end up as arrogant as you I don't particularly care to go there.

>>2292480
They're wrong.

>>2292583

No,t they're right. You're wrong.

>>2292607

>>>>2292583

No they're right. You're wrong.

It is an hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this means that we do not know whether it will rise.

There is no compulsion making one thing happen because another has happened. The only necessity that exists is logical necessity

The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.

Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages.
And in fact both are right and both wrong: though the view of the ancients is clearer in so far as they have a clear and acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained.

ITT: Misguided and confused individuals.

>>2292583

No, they're right. You're wrong.

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.

-Joseph Campbell