Albert Einstein: "Human knowledge and skills can not lead humanity to a happy and dignified life."
GLOBALIST
scientific understanding and the technical application of those
insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that
human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and
dignified life.
Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral
standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth.
What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus
ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and
constructive mind.
What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep
alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity,
the security of its existence, and its joy in living.
=============================
Written statement (September 1937) as quoted in Albert Einstein, The
Human Side: New Glimpses From His Archives (1981) edited by Helen
Dukas and Banesh Hoffman ISBN 0691023689
mg
Religious people have no moral values, they merely do what their
god(s) tell them to do. If their gods tell them to rape, kill, and
pillage, they will rape, kill, and pillage. If their god tells them to
stop raping and killing and pillaging, at least for awhile, they will
stop, at least for awhile, and after they have stopped they will
congratulate themselves for being moral because they're not doing it
anymore.
GLOBALIST
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your religion of atheism slaughtered millions and millions, as they
tried to wipe religion off the map ,taking their orders from your all
knowing leaders in Russia and China. Your present high priest ,
Dawkins is wanting to do the same thing.
mg
> tried to wipe religion off the map ,taking their orders from your all
> knowing leaders in Russia and China. Your present high priest ,
> Dawkins is wanting to do the same thing.
My experience in life has been that a large part of mankind's problems
are caused by people who claim they know things they don't know. Many,
or most religions, claim they know there is a god and most of them
probably "know" what is best for you and me. Some atheists (and
communists) "know" there is no god and they also "know" what is best
for you and me. I believe that people on the extreme ends of the
religious and political spectrums are dangerous, no matter which end
they're on. I personally don't consider myself to be a true-believing
Democrat or Republican, or a liberal or a capitalist. I don't believe
problems can be solved with ideology or religion as well as they can
be solved with the brain that nature (or god) gave us. I do believe,
however, that you are jumping to conclusions when you state that I am
an atheist. If I have to call myself something, I would call myself an
agnostic, but I think the term "spiritual but not religious" more
accurately describes my outlook on religion.
GLOBALIST
>
> - Show quoted text -
So the folks who belong to the Church of Atheism...profess their
religion is a "religion of peace"? Did not Russia claim that mankind
will flourish once we get rid of religion. And they made a noble
attempt to murder anyone and everyone who had any religious
affiliations. Dawkings "the Dogmatist"professes this is the way to
go. Ironically there are religious physicists and scientists and
evolutionary scientists, who leave his 'zoology' background in the
dust.
mg
> religion is a "religion of peace"? Did not Russia claim that mankind
> will flourish once we get rid of religion. And they made a noble
> attempt to murder anyone and everyone who had any religious
> affiliations. Dawkings "the Dogmatist"professes this is the way to
> go. Ironically there are religious physicists and scientists and
> evolutionary scientists, who leave his 'zoology' background in the
> dust.
As I said, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. So, I would almost always,
if not always, trust science over religion. That doesn't mean,
however, that I trust all scientists, just as you obviously wouldn't
trust all theist. What is it specifically, by the way, that Stephen
Hawking has said that you find so objectionable?