URGENT: The Dreamer vs Sheik and all the atheists and non-believers - AMAZING INFO (1 Viewer)

[X Æ A-12]

What do you want to know?

Is it not obvious?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Bjerknes]

It could be fake, even then, what matters, the individual or the information?

What's the difference between you and a mallard with a cold? One's a sick duck and I can't remember how it ends, but your mother's a whore.

 

[Osman]

It could be fake, even then, what matters, the individual or the information?

Well its phony, trying to make seem like a real life conversation, to boot one involving Einstein (trying to depict him as more religious then he was...), when its just scripted.

 

[Bjerknes]

It should be possible to IP Ban The Dreamtard.

But it would be easier if he took his life for his creator. That's what the real Theists do.

 

[Osman]

Typical atheist bullshit. Doubting everything.

Haters gonna hate.

First, I'm not atheist, secondly, yeah look what I found about your little conversation with a simple googling: http://www.religioustolerance.org/culeins.htm

 

[Dragon]

Someone make this loser go away

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Religion isn't all bad. Some people are better off with it.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Explain plz.

People blame religion for wars and all that but I think it's just a scapegoat and nobody really goes to war over differing religious views. But a lot of people live for their religions and whether it's false hope or not, it gives them hope nonetheless and something to keep them going where otherwise they would be in despair. It makes a lot of people happy and allows some to do things they wouldn't think they could without belief in God. That's why although I don't believe, I don't like to try to take it away from some people.

 

[Gabriel]

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of
his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

‘are you good or evil?'

' The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment.

'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you
can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

‘so you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you
could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't,
does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he
prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you
answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water
from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?'

'Er...Yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

' Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

‘that’s right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. ! Is there
evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So, who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created
everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to
the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness, Immorality,

Hatred, Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.

'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer
breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is
mesmerized.

'Tell me, ‘he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus
Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use
to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen
Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

' The n tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus?

Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for
that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science
has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of
his own. ‘Professor is there such thing as heat?'

‘yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The
room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You
can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't
have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero,
which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no
such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the
lowest -458 degrees.'

'Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits
energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit
energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see,
sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat.

We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because
heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the
absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom,
sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it
isn't darkness?'

‘you’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence
of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,
flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing
and its called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to
define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make
Darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This
will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor! My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed
to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.

'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains...

'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a
Bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite,
something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less
fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is
to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive
thing.

Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved
from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,
yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes
where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you
not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a
preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion
has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student,
let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who
has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into
laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt
the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one

appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of

empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have
no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, Sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his
face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess
you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with
life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as
evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it
everyday It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is
in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is
just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe
the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of
what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.
It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness
that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

PS: the student was Albert Einstein

During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively.

One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. Einstein in 1946 But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature.

It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.

For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other.The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be.

One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values.

The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.

But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends.

To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.

The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.

There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? Indeed, even the divinization of humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of that ideal. It is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any other way.

If one looks at the substance rather than at the form, then one can take these words as expressing also the fundamental democratic position. The true democrat can worship his nation as little as can the man who is religious, in our sense of the term.

What, then, in all this, is the function of education and of the school? They should help the young person to grow up in such a spirit that these fundamental principles should be to him as the air which he breathes.Teaching alone cannot do that.

If one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes, and compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave danger, In the totalitarian states it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression of the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most precious traditions.

A realization of how great is the danger is spreading, however, among thinking people, and there is much search for means with which to meet the danger--means in the field of national and international politics, of legislation, or organization in general.

Such efforts are, no doubt, greatly needed. Yet the ancients knew something- which we seem to have forgotten. All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they have not behind them a living spirit. But if the longing for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds.

Conversation on Religion and Antisemitism

See Bucky and Weakland pp. 85 - 87. This book contains the record of various conversations between Bucky and Einstein over a thirty year period.

BUCKY:

It's ironic that your namc has been synonymous with science in the twentieth century, and yet there has always been a lot of controversy surrounding you in relation to religious questions. How do you account for this unusual circumstance, since science and religion are usually thought to be at odds?

EINSTEIN:

Well, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to mc that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.

BUCKY:

So then, you consider yourself to be a religious man?

EINSTEIN:

I believe in mystery and, frankly, I sometimes face this mystery with great fear. In other words, I think that there are many things in the universe that we cannot perceive or penetrate and that also we experience some of the most beautiful things in life in only a very primitive form. Only in relation to these mysteries do I consider myself to be a religious man. But I sense these things deeply. What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life.

BUCKY:

You don't believe in God, then?

EINSTEIN:

Einstein's Last Photograph Ah, this is what I mean about religion and science going hand-in-hand! Each has a place, but each must be relegated to its sphere. Let's assume that we are dealing with a theoretical physicist or scientist who is very well-acquainted with the different laws of the universe, such as how the planets orbit the sun and how the satellites in turn orbit around their respective planets. Now, this man who has studied and understands these different laws-how could he possibly believe in one God who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses?

No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds .

BUCKY:

Do you think perhaps that most people need religion to keep them in check, so to speak?

EINSTEIN:

No, clearly not. I do not believe that a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be rewarded after he dies. This does not make sense. The proper guidance during the life of a man should be the weight that he puts upon ethics and the amount of consideration that he has for others. Education has a great role to play in this respect. Religion should have nothing to do with a fear of living or a fear of death, but should instead be a striving after rational knowledge.

BUCKY:

And yet, with all of these thoughts, you are still identified strongly in the public mind as definitely Jewish and this certainly is a very traditional religion.

EINSTEIN:

Actually, my first religious training of any kind was in the Catholic catechism. A fluke, of course, only because the primary school that I first went to was a Catholic one. I was, as a matter of fact, the only Jewish child in the school. This actually worked to my advantage, since it made it easier for me to isolate myself from the rest of the class and find that comfort in solitude that I so cherished.

BUCKY:

But don't you find any discrepancy between your previous somewhat anti-religious statements and your willingness to be identified publicly as a Jew?

EINSTEIN:

Not necessarily. Actually it is a very difficult thing to even define a Jew. The closest that I can come to describing it is to ask you to visualize a snail. A snail that you see at the ocean consists of the body that is snuggled inside of the house which it always carries around with it. But let's picture what would happen if we lifted the shell off of the snail. Would we not still describe the unprotected body as a snail? In just the same way, a Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew.

Religious Feeling in Science

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

— Letter to a child who asked if scientists pray, January 24, 1936; Einstein Archive 42-601

Reverence Before Nature

In every true searcher of Nature there is a kind of religious reverence, for he finds it impossible to imagine that he is the first to have thought out the exceedingly delicate threads that connect his perceptions.

— 1920; quoted in Moszkowski, Conversations with Einstein p. 46

The Religious Character of Science

I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.

Letter to Maurice Solovine, I January 1, 1951; Einstein Archive 21-174, 80-871, published in Letters to Solovine , p. 119.

Einstein Admits Being Religious

When asked by an astounded atheist, if he were in fact deeply religious, Einstein replied:

Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.

— H. G. Kessler, The Diary of a Cosmopolitan, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p.157; quoted in Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer (Princeton University Press, 1999) pp. 39-40.
Superpersonal Objects and Goals

A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt about the significance of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.

tl;dr

 

[Gabriel]

??

Too long; didn't read.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

so why dont you believe?

Why should I, really? If I was born into a non-relgious family and wasn't indoctrinated then how would I know about God unless he told me he was there? And he doesn't. The only reason to believe is the Bible?

 

[Gabriel]

I'm just gonna say that people have the right to believe or have faith in what they want.

If they want to believe, let's say in bigfoot and that gives them peace and leaves them sleep at night, fair enough.


People should do whatever suits them best.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

F.A.I.T.H.

did the world create itself? is everything so perfectly done by luck or science or mistake or whatever? REALLY?

I'm new at this anti-religious discussion thingy, so I'm sure others here can do it better.

But faith in what? I mean, I could have faith in anything. Why have faith in something that comes from a book that some people say is true when I could have faith in something that is more logical?

Who created God? But the second question is one in which leaves me wondering, along with other things.

 

[Turk_Bianconero]

Examples in first post are incredibly shallow.

 

[Martin]

Cookies. I want cookies!

 

[Gabriel]

Cookies. I want cookies!

here






:cap:

 

[Martin]

I was quoting Einstein.

 

[Zé Tahir]

Someone make this loser go away

Done. I gotta ban people from my mobile...where are all the mods at?

 

[Bozi]

First of all sorry for the double account despite my ban I didn't intend to come back,............................................


then why the fuck did you?-Bozi


spamming motherfooker

Quick, somebody ban him before he clicks the post button!

i dont see why he felt the need to say in 40-odd posts of spam what i could surmise in 1