A letter being auctioned in London this week is sure to add fuel to the long-simmering debate about the religious views of Albert Einstein.
In the note, written a year before his death, the Nobel prize-winning physicist dismisses the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as “pretty childish.”
In it, Einstein said that “the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Illustrating a sharp difference between his public and more politic statements – and what he clearly addressed to his peers.
#90 – me,
Damn!! When I add a third thing, I need to go back and adjust the count. Obviously, there are three things in my final list; I even numbered them.
Calm down, Scottie. Lordy, lordy.
I believe in God because I have felt the presence of the Lord. Hey, maybe it’s just a rush of dopamine, or maybe it’s flashbacks from too much blotter acid in the 60’s. Or maybe not. Moi, I think not. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. Perhaps some day you’ll join us.
And Mr. Almighty, congrats on your nuptials and the wonderful wife. I was unaware that your Eminence engaged in the carnal pleasures. I guess that Catholic shit about celibacy and chastity is just bunk. That’s good to know!
[Comment deleted – Violation of Posting Guidelines. – ed.]
#88–Relinguish==”Just out for discussion?” /// Really? Home sick?
As you may know, I’m looking to discuss the finer points of traditional faith believers who are also intelligent. Someone like yourself or Mustard. Mustard refuses for whatever reasons.
So, I read with interest 3 times your post and I am embarassed to say, I don’t understand anything you say. Moving on to religion would really flummox me, I am sure. It “sounds like” you are saying god is perfect and all the ills of the earth are human defects? I’ll bet the explanation if thats your point, is circular?
But, on to the question Mustard won’t answer. If god is all loving, is there a hell? If so, how can god be all loving and if not, how can god be relevant?
Hope you get well soon.
# 90 Misanthropic Scott
Wow! You really got him figured out.
“I would not care a whit for your beliefs except for two things:”
“1) You claim your beliefs are based on reason.”
He thinks that about everything he says.
“2) You show blatant disrespect and contempt for atheists.”
He show disrespect for anyone that disagrees with him!
“3) You demand respect for your beliefs.”
and his opinions!
Uh Scott? That was 3. lol 🙂
>>But, on to the question Mustard won’t answer.
>>If god is all loving, is there a hell?
I guess none of us will REALLY know until our time comes, eh Bobster?
#96–Mustard. Yea, I agree. Shoot me for brain dead if fear of the hereafter ever overtakes me?
Hey–I thought that wasn’t J for the first 3-5 posts, too mellow. He still isn’t up to the best of himself. You can’t see it, but I’m making several hand gestures right now, inbetween typing.
I about died one day in Naples when some old Italian lady was pissed off at somebody. She kissed the tips of her fingers and threw an imaginary bowling ball in the direction of disgust then made a big show of the explosion with some funny sounding Italian. ((Is it racist to say they all speak Italian?)). Good stuff. We should all be more expressive in every possible manner.
Watch out, Bobster. Talk of Italian women using hand gestures to communicate is bringing you dangerously close to “J”‘s definition of bigotry. And yes, it’s racist to say that Italians speak Italian. Some of them live in Sicily (which is part of Italy), yet they speak Sicilian as a native tongue. Gotta watch yourself there. Stereotyping again? Tsk!
When political correctness rules the day, you can never be too careful.
#92 – Mister Mouseturd,
Thanks for clearing that up. Personal experience. I can respect that, though it will not do a thing to convince me. Before I respect it though, I’ll have to wait to see if you learn respect for atheists.
BTW, excellent choice of lyrics for your quote, especially if you’re trying to make my point. Let’s fill out the rest of them, shall we? Perhaps there are some who are younger than we and do not know the full lyrics to that song. (Emphasis mine.)
Incidentally, you may find it amusing that a cult has sprung up to go to the imagine mosaic in central park and worship the great god Lennon who said essentially, imagine no religion!
#95 – J,
Yup. I noticed the miscount too and pointed it out in my own follow up just below.
#96 – Mister Mustard,
Point of obvious logic:
A universe that contained an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-forgiving god, could not possibly have a hell.
#88
Wow. I suggest taking a few courses in logic and logical arguments.
> anyone seeking to disprove the existence of a person
Stop. Such a task is fundamentally impossible. You cannot “disprove the existence of something.” At best, you can cast doubt on the proof given that something did exist. More to the point, such a task in unnecessary. The onus is on the clamant to prove the such a person *did* exist. That proof, to date, has been lacking.
> was fictional in a book
> where every other aspect (
> places, people, lifestyles, context)
> historically
So, by that logic, Thor and Zeus existed, right? After all, there really was a Denmark and Greece and many of the Kings mentioned in various tales really did exist. For example, there is evidence that the city of Troy existed. By your logic, that means that the Mercury and Apollo also existed since Homer mentions him in his tale.
# 97 bobbo
“Hey–I thought that wasn’t J for the first 3-5 posts, too mellow. He still isn’t up to the best of himself. ”
What are you talking about I only posted once in this thread and I don’t think anyone has impersonated me yet in this one. 🙂
# 98 turd
“Watch out, Bobster. Talk of Italian women using hand gestures to communicate is bringing you dangerously close to “J”’s definition of bigotry.”
No it doesn’t! That just show you still don’t grasp the concept.
“And yes, it’s racist to say that Italians speak Italian. ”
No it is not. Still don’t get it do you? It would be however not an entirely accurate statement.
>>I can respect that, though it will not do a
>>thing to convince me. Before I respect it
>>though, I’ll have to wait to see if you learn
>>respect for atheists.
I’ve got plenty of respect for Atheists, Scottie. I also have plenty of respect for agnostics, Wiccans, Catholics, Baptists, Bha’is, Muslims, and people who (to steal a line from Eminem) “just don’t give a fuck”. Hey, whatever your belief is concerning the existence and nature of God, I’m down with that. I take it on a believer-by-believer basis.
Ah, Scottie, I know the lyrics to that song. Could you for a moment. And I have great respect for John Lennon (less so for Yoko, at least her music). Maybe some day I’ll join him; maybe some day he’ll join me. Who knows where the road will lead us? Only a fool would say. (that’s from the Chairman of the Board, btw, not Celine Dion or the Alan Parsons Project). I have great respect for Ol’ Blue Eyes.
#102 – Musty,
I’ve got plenty of respect for Atheists, Scottie.
I’ve not seen any evidence of that on this blog. Perhaps your definition of plenty of respect for atheists is zero.
I knew you knew the lyrics; I was not so sure about everyone else. I’ve heard they play it on some radio stations now with the lyrics dubbed to say “and one religion too.” Yecch!!
>>I’ve not seen any evidence of that on this blog.
Oh, pish! Tosh! Scottie, have I ever shown any disrespect for you, other than disagreeing about the nature (not the tenets) of Atheism? I fully support your right to believe whatever you choose.
>>I’ve heard they play it on some radio stations
>>now with the lyrics dubbed to say “and one
>>religion too.” Yecch!!
Now THAT should be a hanging offense. I’m surprised they can even get away with something like that.
It would be like taking Amy Winehouse’s “Rehab” song (“They tried to make me go to rehab I said no, no, no.”) and replacing the “no” with “yes”. You just don’t go doing that shit.
# 99 Misanthropic Scott
Sorry Scott I didn’t see that until I already posted.
# 104 Turd
“I fully support your right to believe whatever you choose.”
How noble of you.
#103–Scott==I think Mustard is right. I know I have given him more abuse about him being religious than he about me being an atheist. Maybe you are like me. I get “pissed” at Mustard’s definition of atheism as a religious belief but I don’t get pissed at him when I call him superstitious and wrong. The net effect feels like Mustard is harassing me–but he is only calmly and politely disagreeing with me/us?
#101–J–yea, if there aren’t 3-5 of your posts here, it must be the one discussing Jews/Italians/orient. And surely the take away from those discussions is remembering the name of the islands the Sirens were on? I know for myself, after a few months at sea, I’d probably volunteer to be turned into a pig. Such are my appetites and strength of character. ((Damn!!–already forgot their names. “S” something in latin.))
# 107 bobbo
Dude you have totally lost me. If you are commenting on the arguments on race. I agree they are pointless. I don’t like Turd and I get a sick kind of pleasure fucking with him. Personally, I don’t care if you or him agree or disagree with everything or nothing. However, don’t expect people to allow you or him to malign the facts and go un-confronted
#104 – Musty,
Oh, pish! Tosh! Scottie, have I ever shown any disrespect for you, other than disagreeing about the nature (not the tenets) of Atheism? I fully support your right to believe whatever you choose.
Denying someone the right to put their own words out there, replacing them with your own, and then spitting on the words you put there is not respect. Sorry.
#106 – J,
How noble of you.
Not the first time he’s been called a gas …
# 109 Misanthropic Scott
“Not the first time he’s been called a gas ”
Hah! That was good!!! LOL 🙂
Bob – “I don’t understand anything you say. Moving on to religion would really flummox me, I am sure. It “sounds like” you are saying god is perfect and all the ills of the earth are human defects? I’ll bet the explanation if thats your point, is circular?
Yeah sorry about that – let’s just say my punctuation is not all up to par recently – lazy, tired; call it what you will.
Yet – an explanation if any is to be had and can be left at that; would likely end in something looking like a circle – but only in so far as that circle does involve some aspect therein that states there is a higher power we can not explain but we take it at face value and concede we have no power over it or ability to control it. Some call it fate, some call it God and others may call it an unexplainable event or hypothesis in science. Coming from an aspect of faith myself there is no explanation I can give to anyone that is sufficient who does not acknowledge any aspect to the universe that there is a higher power involved in the workings. I do struggle with it myself – and I do sometimes seek to have a balanced conversation with others (of any belief, faith, absence of faith). However, I have found that since I come from an aspect of faith (one that at times is in conflict with reason) that my having no sufficient explanation gets in the way of others who don’t/can’t understand my point of view. My ability to understand other’s points of view but they can’t understand mine only results in frustration (more on the others’ end than mine). And yes, (from another perspective) if there be such a thing as God – then God is absolute and perfect and good – the problem is in the corruption in the creation that was not the intention of the creator.
The overarching framework is Faith.
Thomas – logic works had I established that framework clearly. From an aspect of faith – God exists plain and simple. I realize the source of the explanation itself rests upon faith in trusting the same source. I also understand the inherent appearance to anyone not within that faith (any faith) to see it as illogical. However, when faith is the framework, and God ‘Just IS’ then it is settled for the one of faith and now rests upon the one making the statement that God does not exist to then disprove the existence. I understand your statement and logic clearly. But I know they mean nothing to someone of ANY faith. I think that is the problem. Hence, why faith ‘is for fools’. As for Homer – I didn’t know him personally – what he wrote may well have happened to/for him – it could all very well be true. I guess we just don’t really know now do we?
#111 – Relinquish,
And yes, (from another perspective) if there be such a thing as God – then God is absolute and perfect and good – the problem is in the corruption in the creation that was not the intention of the creator.
Isn’t that contradictory? Any imperfection in the creation must, by definition, be a result of an imperfection in the creator. How could it be otherwise? If the creator is all powerful, all knowing, all perfect, all is the result of the creator. If the creator could not make it perfect then the creator is missing some divine attribute from the list.
It’s so much easier just to understand science. Perfect has no meaning. We live in a universe that is the way it is. We try to figure out the processes by which it came about. But, there is no inherent contradiction between the supposed perfection of the creator and the supposed imperfection of creation.
“and now rests upon the one making the statement that God does not exist to then disprove the existence”
I say that the burden of proof rests upon he who introduces God and the faith framework. If you say to me that there is a God, does that mean that all of a sudden I have gained a disbelief? One that I have to proof as well?
The fact that I do not belief your statement that God exists, does not mean that I don’t belief in God (not even in an agnostic sense) because the concept is not introduced nor aknowledged by me.
[Duplicate comment deleted. – ed.]
#112
“Any imperfection in the creation must, by definition, be a result of an imperfection in the creator.”
I can see the creator being sued for product liability. I mean, he is all-powerfull and all-knowing, so he knew how the cookie would crumble, even more so than GM making a car with crappy breaks.
eblonk – What I think you are saying is that you can agree to disagree. Or you are saying that science is the end all be all and superior to everything. If you force that on another you are no better. I never said you have to agree with me or anyone else. You just can’t say with certainty that what you state is absolute. My statements are based from a faith perspective. If you can’t understand or respect that, then I can agree to disagree with you. Either way your system of framework is where you come from. The burden of proof for the existence (or non-existence if you must force it on others) of anything must also be upon you. Myself – I prefer to let people be as they are and not change them. If you can’t understand or agree that’s ok too.
eblonk – my apologies. The following should not have been in #116: Or you are saying that science is the end all be all and superior to everything. If you force that on another you are no better.
Sorry – I read several posts on several pages on a couple different sites and kind of made a combined reactionary statement in the previous post that should not have been there. I should really stick to one string of posting at a time and not multiples. Take it easy.
PAX
#116 – Relinquish,
I really am trying to understand your logic. But, eblonk makes a good point. If I assert the existence of elves, by your logic, it is now equally your responsibility to prove they do not exist and my responsibility to prove they do exist. Is that really the way you see it?
I would worry about being inundated with responsibility to continually disprove the existence of mythical and fictional characters. This just doesn’t seem right to me.
#118–Scott==thats what Relinguish said “IF” you are going to force your beliefs on other. ((I think that was the conditional phrasing.))
But Relinguish==you are being too self referential. OK–you have a faith that cannot be shaken. I don’t want to. Just explain it to me?
Start with the question I asked at #94.
And what about god’s creation having supposed imperfections? They aren’t so much imperfections as logical incongruities???? Or, does god stand outside of logic as he does time and space?
And how do you decide to have faith in God but not Zeus.
Just curious.
Bobbo – you did phrase the conditional and point it out for me better I think than I could do today (so thank you). #94 you seek traditional faith believers. I am not sure what you mean by this. But the question you put forward (which I thought was not for me) is: “But, on to the question Mustard won’t answer. If god is all loving, is there a hell? If so, how can god be all loving and if not, how can god be relevant?”
I just pondered the depth and breadth of the question for about 20 minutes and am at a loss on where to start. I presuppose the question is Judeo-Christian in origin. I will note that I can not say that I subscribe to any Hell in the traditional burning fire scenario. I do believe that separation apart from God (whatever He/She/It may be) is what Hell is. God can be all loving and Hell still exist in this manner. This can also be what makes God relevant. If God is all loving, and the absence of God is hell then the presence of God and the effect God has on us is a glimpse of the potential of heaven. I don’t know if that made any sense since I was trying to contain the answer from digression. The imperfections get in the way of us actually having heaven on earth (Garden of Eden if you will). God does stand outside of logic. God vs. Zeus – are you asking me personally? Or was this hypothetical in overarching theme?