Scientists Say Evolution and Religion Can Coexist
Precision
blind." -Albert Einstein
(BEGIN QUOTE)
Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A
University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold
dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the
universe.
He also believes in God.
That may strike some people as peculiar. After all, in some corners popular
belief renders science and religion incompatible.
Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people,
according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including
Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the
universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith
and their work.
"In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to
tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story
does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God."
(END QUOTE)
And so begins an article in National Geographic News (October 18, 2004;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html).
This flies in the face of the very charter of newsgroups such as
news:alt.religion.atheism because it shows that thinking, reasoning and
absolutely brilliant scientific minds recognize that God and science can
coexist. Indeed it was God who invented science and designed the human brain
that made our understanding of science possible.
The impeccable logic in the above article, especially the part of the
article about how true scientific evolution AND religion can coexist
logically, deserves your consideration in light of the major denial of God's
existence that is the foundation of atheism.
Can we discuss this intelligently? Will some predictably lash out in anger
and rage again, begging me to leave the poor atheists alone and stop
interjecting other world views into theirs? Will you dismiss what National
Geographic has to say and the facts in this article because your beliefs are
polarized and your faith in atheism is unwavering?
I hope not.
Sending you all my best wishes!
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu
>
>Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A
>University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold
>dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the
>universe.
>
>
>He also believes in God.
Since belief in God requires a tolerance of cognitive dissonance,
there's nothing here that is news.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
Precision
"<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu" <yourna...@martyrdom.org> wrote in
message news:gomlo199d84qt2r7c...@4ax.com...
> "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> suddenly spluttered:
>
>>
>>Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A
>>University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold
>>dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of
>>the
>>universe.
>>
>>
>>He also believes in God.
>
> Since belief in God requires a tolerance of cognitive dissonance,
> there's nothing here that is news.
I think Mr. Primack would take exception to the notion that his belief in
God is a form of cognitive dissonance.
> Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
> resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
There are facts to go on. People have experienced God's workings in their
lives. The real question is whether you have an objective enough mind to one
day allow those facts to be proven through science.
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu
> People have experienced God's workings in their
>lives. The real question is whether you have an objective enough mind to one
>day allow those facts to be proven through science.
>
So, you're admitting that the explanation 'goddidit' is pure
guesswork. Thanks for your accidental honesty.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
kathryn
many years have accepted evolution and believed in god.
kathryn
"Opie" <O_Ta...@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:8vgmo15vu1chql755...@4ax.com...
> most part. The extremist on both sides create an
> atmosphere that's easily exploited by the press so
> it seems that everyone is at odds with one another
> when, in fact, the vast majority in the middle
> quietly let both sides vent and keep about their
> business.
>
Ah I know ;) but in keeping with the "revelation" style of the original post
> More interesting perhaps, is the fact that a
> substantial number of people here believe in
> aliens from other planets. I forgot the numbers
> but, when I saw them, I was a bit gobsmacked.
's more believable than the god theory anyways.
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort
What did you want to discuss? That even scientists aren't immune from
holding irrational beliefs?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>"<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu" <yourna...@martyrdom.org> wrote in
>message news:gomlo199d84qt2r7c...@4ax.com...
>> "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> suddenly spluttered:
>>
>>>
>>>Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A
>>>University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold
>>>dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of
>>>the
>>>universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>He also believes in God.
>>
>> Since belief in God requires a tolerance of cognitive dissonance,
>> there's nothing here that is news.
>
>
>I think Mr. Primack would take exception to the notion that his belief in
>God is a form of cognitive dissonance.
When he tries to compromise science to fit his religion it is - and
he's not practising science either.
>> Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
>> resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
>
>There are facts to go on. People have experienced God's workings in their
>lives. The real question is whether you have an objective enough mind to one
>day allow those facts to be proven through science.
Complete and utter bullshit. As well as standard theist nastiness to
poison the well.
They have rationalised things in terms of what they believe. And it
is both dishonest to pretend this is evidecne/proof/etc, and stupid to
expect the reat of us to treat it as such.
There is no way to conclude God from the real world - it is always an
existing belief.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:11331566...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Yes, they can coexist as mutually exclusive ideas. Science neither includes
nor excludes the idea of God. The idea of god is a philosophical question,
not a scientific one.
> Indeed it was God who invented science and designed >the human brain that
> made our understanding of science possible.
That is a perfectly fine philosophical opinion.
>
> The impeccable logic in the above article, especially the part of the
> article about how true scientific evolution AND religion can coexist
> logically, deserves your consideration in light of the major denial of
> God's existence that is the foundation of atheism.
Atheism would then deserve your consideration as well because it follows
just as logically that atheism and science can coexist...yes?
> Can we discuss this intelligently? Will some predictably lash out in anger
> and rage again, begging me to leave the poor atheists alone and stop
> interjecting other world views into theirs? Will you dismiss what National
> Geographic has to say and the facts in this article because your beliefs
> are polarized and your faith in atheism is unwavering?
First, there are no facts in the article about science and religion
coexisting...only opinions. And, while I would consider myself more of an
agnostic on the question, it seems that you are the one with the polarized
belief system. Would you not consider your belief system "unwavering"?
JR
Milan
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:11331566...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Nobody denies that the belief in God and science can coexist; they actually
do coexist. Like the belief in reiki, astrology, the power of pyramids and
science coexist. They coexist as different worldviews. What is weird is that
they should coexist in one head. But they do as well. Because there is no
law that states that all views of one individual should be consistent with
each other. It's weird, but it happens.
regards
Milan
shadow
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:11331566...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> blind." -Albert Einstein
yeah, what can you say now, atheists? a scientist, one of the
greatest... says... that god prolly does exist. i guess you hate
einstein for that, am i right atheists?
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu
No, and I really cannot think why you might think we would. Care to
enlighten us? (This is going to be entertaining).
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
Jim (LVWB)
Primack has the right to any beliefs he wishes, but when he is doing
science he cannot allow those beliefs to influence his science;
Because, when he does, he alters the science and it is no longer
science, but his beliefs.
You cannot interject your supernatural views upon me, ("Will some
predictably lash out in anger and rage again, begging me to leave the
poor atheists alone and stop interjecting other world views into
theirs?") and I find such an attitude as being arrogant and
condescending.
God beliefs can indeed co-exist with the reality of science, just as
belief in Santa Claus can co-exist with our childhood. However, we
grow up, and Santa Claus is no longer an issue, and we learn that
through our intelligence that we can spread cheer and give without the
mystery of a ficticious idea (be it Santa, or Jesus).
Rather than suggest that I re-examine my lack of belief in "your" god
and your "definitions" of "your" god, would you demonstrate that "your"
god is real, because when you do that, I would be justified in
re-examining my lack of belief.
Christopher A. Lee
Cthulhu" <yourna...@martyrdom.org> wrote:
>"shadow" <sha...@sun.org> suddenly spluttered:
>
>>
>>"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
>>news:11331566...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
>>> blind." -Albert Einstein
>>
>>yeah, what can you say now, atheists? a scientist, one of the
>>greatest... says... that god prolly does exist. i guess you hate
>>einstein for that, am i right atheists?
>>
>
>No, and I really cannot think why you might think we would. Care to
>enlighten us? (This is going to be entertaining).
>
Does anybody know the origin and context of this alleged Einstein
quote? As a scientist he knew that it is totally independent of
religion. It is most unlike anything he would say. Is it one of
Barton's fabrications?
pan_pani...@yahoo.com
> >>> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
> >>> blind." -Albert Einstein
> Does anybody know the origin and context of this alleged Einstein
> quote? As a scientist he knew that it is totally independent of
> religion. It is most unlike anything he would say. Is it one of
> Barton's fabrications?
>From The Private Albert Einstein by Peter A. Bucky with Allen G.
Weakland, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, 1992, 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:
Ah, this is what I mean about religion and science going
hand-in-hand! [...]
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.
pan_pani...@yahoo.com
Personally I say, read a bit more about what Einstein meant,
not just the sound-bite.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced
that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral
principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not
need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on
the basis of reward and punishment."
Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
"There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair."
'The World As I See It.' Philosophical Library, New York, 1949,
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His
children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself
can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence
could excuse Him."
Letter to Edgar Meyer, a colleague, January 2, 1915
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his
creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in
ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an
individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls,
from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am
satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the
awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the
existing world, together with the devoted striving to
comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason
that manifests itself in nature." Albert Einstein, "The World
as I See It"
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
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: The Human Side",
Princeton University Press.
"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic
emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science.
Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable
of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man.
To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and
manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant
beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor
faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the
true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone,
I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men."
"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence
the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on
creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact
that
mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt
by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of
the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that
we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of
reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for
God."
"As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into
every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came -
though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents - to a deep
religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of
twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached
the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be
true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking
coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived
by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of
every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical
attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social
environment-an attitude that has never again left me, even though,
later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal
connections.
"Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of
us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal
riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and
thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation,
and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to
admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. [...]
"The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the
road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and
I have never regretted having chosen it." Albert Einstein's
Autobiographical Notes, Open Court Publishing Company, 1979.
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new
kind of religion." Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954;
Einstein Archive 38-434
Einstein's "belief" in Spinoza's God is one of his most widely quoted
statements. But quoted out of context, like so many of these
statements, it is misleading at best. It all started when Boston's
Cardinal O'Connel attacked Einstein and the General Theory of
Relativity and warned the youth that the theory "cloaked the ghastly
apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal
doubt about God and His creation"(Clark, 1971, 413-414). Einstein had
already experienced heavier duty attacks against his theory in the
form of anti-Semitic mass meetings in Germany, and he initially
ignored the Cardinal's attack. Shortly thereafter though, on April 24,
1929, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of New York cabled Einstein to ask: "Do
you believe in God?"(Sommerfeld, 1949, 103). Einstein's return message
is the famous statement: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals
himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who
concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"( 103).
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider
ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman
authority behind it."
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal
God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not
share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor
is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of
religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of
humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual
understanding of nature and of our own being."
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> >>> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
>> >>> blind." -Albert Einstein
>
>> Does anybody know the origin and context of this alleged Einstein
>> quote? As a scientist he knew that it is totally independent of
>> religion. It is most unlike anything he would say. Is it one of
>> Barton's fabrications?
Thanks for this. It shows how the quote is dishonestly taken out of
context.
>From The Private Albert Einstein by Peter A. Bucky with Allen G.
>Weakland, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, 1992, 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.
Then I would suspect the interviewer misreported him.
Because Einstein (like any other scientist) knew that science is
completely independent of religion.
>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?
This reveals more about the interviewer than about Einstein.
>EINSTEIN:
>Ah, this is what I mean about religion and science going
>hand-in-hand! [...]
> 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.
Which is hardly a religion.
And if the interviewer was reporting it accurately describes the
"religion" without which science is lame.
If so, the quote is out of context and dishonest.
Chimp
> On 29 Nov 2005 pan_pani...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 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 me that whoever doesn't wonder about
>> the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.
>
> Then I would suspect the interviewer misreported him.
>
> Because Einstein (like any other scientist) knew that science is
> completely independent of religion.
I don't think there is any misquoting in the above. Einstein used
"religious" in a special sense, namely a wonderment at and
wondering about the fundamental nature of the universe,
even though he didn't think that fundamental nature in any
way resembled the personal God of the usual religions.
But that wonderment is _all_ that he meant by "religious"
(see the collection of quotes I posted to this thread); he
is saying above that science without "wonder" is blind.
It is both ignorant and dishonest for the fundies to quote
only the sound-bites, disregarding the wider context of
Einstein's talk of religion, and to present him as a believer
in their God construct.
Chimp
Elf M. Sternberg
shadow
"<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu" <yourna...@martyrdom.org> wrote in message
news:pfjoo111sh7e3j94p...@4ax.com...
> "shadow" <sha...@sun.org> suddenly spluttered:
>
> >
> >"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
> >news:11331566...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> >> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
> >> blind." -Albert Einstein
> >
> >yeah, what can you say now, atheists? a scientist, one of the
> >greatest... says... that god prolly does exist. i guess you hate
> >einstein for that, am i right atheists?
> >
>
> No, and I really cannot think why you might think we would. Care to
> enlighten us? (This is going to be entertaining).
here is your answer... atheist. made by your friend.
> Does anybody know the origin and context of this alleged Einstein
> quote? As a scientist he knew that it is totally independent of
> religion. It is most unlike anything he would say. Is it one of
> Barton's fabrications?
see? if you dont see... sorry. grow some brains. and a pair of eyes.
shadow
<pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133274086.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> shadow wrote:
> > "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
> > news:11331566...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> > > "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
> > > blind." -Albert Einstein
> >
> > yeah, what can you say now, atheists? a scientist, one of the
> > greatest... says... that god prolly does exist. i guess you hate
> > einstein for that, am i right atheists?
>
> Personally I say, read a bit more about what Einstein meant,
> not just the sound-bite.
sorry. afaik, einstein said... something like this (this is not a quote);
the more i get involved in science, the less reason i have not to
believe in god's existance. something like that... look it up.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On 29 Nov 2005 pan_pani...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>> 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 me that whoever doesn't wonder about
>>> the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.
>>
>> Then I would suspect the interviewer misreported him.
>>
>> Because Einstein (like any other scientist) knew that science is
>> completely independent of religion.
>
>I don't think there is any misquoting in the above. Einstein used
>"religious" in a special sense, namely a wonderment at and
>wondering about the fundamental nature of the universe,
>even though he didn't think that fundamental nature in any
>way resembled the personal God of the usual religions.
Then it is quoted out of context by liars pretending he meant their
kind of religion.
>But that wonderment is _all_ that he meant by "religious"
>(see the collection of quotes I posted to this thread); he
>is saying above that science without "wonder" is blind.
>
>It is both ignorant and dishonest for the fundies to quote
>only the sound-bites, disregarding the wider context of
>Einstein's talk of religion, and to present him as a believer
>in their God construct.
Exactly.
We know them by their fruits.
> Chimp
Chimp
> <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > shadow wrote:
> > > "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
>>>> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
>>>> blind." -Albert Einstein
>>>
>>> yeah, what can you say now, atheists? a scientist, one of the
>>> greatest... says... that god prolly does exist. i guess you hate
>>> einstein for that, am i right atheists?
>>
>> Personally I say, read a bit more about what Einstein meant,
>> not just the sound-bite.
>
> sorry. afaik, einstein said... something like this (this is not a quote);
> the more i get involved in science, the less reason i have not to
> believe in god's existance. something like that... look it up.
So I give you a large number of actual quotes (citing sources)
and you ignore and snip those and respond with a
half-remembered non-quote with no cite, and you want _me_
to look it up?? Sorry, if you think Einstein said or believed
anything like that then produce proper documentation of it please.
Here are a couple of _genuine_ Einstein quotes again:
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events
the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the
side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For
him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an
independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a
personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted,
in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take
refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet
been able to set foot." "Einstein's Ideas and Opinions", pp.41 - 49.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced
that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral
principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need
the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the
basis of reward and punishment.
Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
"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: The
Human Side", Princeton University Press.
"As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into
every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came -
though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents - to a deep
religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of
twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached
the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be
true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking
coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived
by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of
every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical
attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social
environment-an attitude that has never again left me, even though,
later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal
connections." Albert Einstein's Autobiographical Notes,
Open Court Publishing Company, LaSalle and Chicago, Illinois,
1979. These paragraphs appear on pp 3 & 5.
shadow
"Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133286110....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> shadow wrote:
> > <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > shadow wrote:
> > > > "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
> >>>> blind." -Albert Einstein
> >>>
> >>> yeah, what can you say now, atheists? a scientist, one of the
> >>> greatest... says... that god prolly does exist. i guess you hate
> >>> einstein for that, am i right atheists?
> >>
> >> Personally I say, read a bit more about what Einstein meant,
> >> not just the sound-bite.
> >
> > sorry. afaik, einstein said... something like this (this is not a quote);
> > the more i get involved in science, the less reason i have not to
> > believe in god's existance. something like that... look it up.
>
> So I give you a large number of actual quotes (citing sources)
> and you ignore and snip those and respond with a
> half-remembered non-quote with no cite, and you want _me_
> to look it up?? Sorry, if you think Einstein said or believed
> anything like that then produce proper documentation of it please.
sorry, i replied in that manner cause you posted only quotes
that go hand in hand with atheism.
yes, all the quotes that support the notion that thereis no god. how
very mature of you, chimp.
Milan
"shadow" <sha...@sun.org> wrote in message news:438bf...@x-privat.org...
It is an opinion like any other opinion. Einstein was an authority in the
world of physics. That doesnt mean that we should take his philosophical
opinions to mean or represent more than what they are -opinions. By the way,
since you seem to be so excited about Einstein's quote, would you care to
provide an argument as to why science without religion is lame?
regards
Milan
>
Precision
<jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yfLif.18916$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
I'll concede that my belief in God is unwavering. One of the reasons for the
unwavering nature of my belief is that you simply cannot rule out the
possibility that God exists. Why don't we start there. Can you honestly
disagree with the statement that one cannot rule out the possibility of
God's existence?
Precision
With all due respect, I don't think the intent of the quote from Einstein
was to try and support any human constructs.
Precision
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:h03po1dtntb25hpk3...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Nov 2005 08:11:12 -0800, "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On 29 Nov 2005 pan_pani...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>> 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 me that whoever doesn't wonder about
>>>> the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.
>>>
>>> Then I would suspect the interviewer misreported him.
>>>
>>> Because Einstein (like any other scientist) knew that science is
>>> completely independent of religion.
>>
>>I don't think there is any misquoting in the above. Einstein used
>>"religious" in a special sense, namely a wonderment at and
>>wondering about the fundamental nature of the universe,
>>even though he didn't think that fundamental nature in any
>>way resembled the personal God of the usual religions.
>
> Then it is quoted out of context by liars pretending he meant their
> kind of religion.
Please. You're so busy trying to villify fundies that you're missing out on
the bigger picture of what Einstein said and why he was quoted in the
article.
>>But that wonderment is _all_ that he meant by "religious"
>>(see the collection of quotes I posted to this thread); he
>>is saying above that science without "wonder" is blind.
>>
>>It is both ignorant and dishonest for the fundies to quote
>>only the sound-bites, disregarding the wider context of
>>Einstein's talk of religion, and to present him as a believer
>>in their God construct.
>
> Exactly.
>
> We know them by their fruits.
Well, I won't disagree there.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
I'm not doing that. I wouldn't give a toss about them if they kept it
to themselves.
Precision
"Jim (LVWB)" <Lakeview...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133269976....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The best response I can make to your request is to ask God to demonstrate to
you personally that He is real. Don't be surprised if it happens when you
least expect it.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
Yes, with your limited statement, I would have to agree that one cannot rule
out the possibility of God's existence. However, the logic follows that one
cannot rule out *anything* that might have been the origin of things.
My issue is with the definition of God and who is defining the idea of God.
The Bible, in my opinion, should be questioned simply because of the fact
that it was written by men. I merely find that, just as we cannot exclude
God as a possibility, we would be arrogant to assume that we have the
capability of defining something that is presumed omnipotent.
Faith is important...but who's word are we being faithful to? I think that
it is a personal spiritual quest, and for anyone or any organization to
claim ownership of that knowledge is, in my humble opinion, quite insolent.
JR
Hannele Huigens
<prec...@Usenet.com>:
>
> <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:yfLif.18916$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
<snip>
> I'll concede that my belief in God is unwavering. One of the reasons for
> the
> unwavering nature of my belief is that you simply cannot rule out the
> possibility that God exists. Why don't we start there. Can you honestly
> disagree with the statement that one cannot rule out the possibility of
> God's existence?
What god would that be, what are its characteristics, how could we discern
it exists?
--
Hannele
aa #2221
Milan
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
Well, to assess the possibility of "God"'s existence we should first have
some idea about what this "God" thing is. Tell us a bit more about the
nature and properties of this thing. Color, size, shape, feeding habits,
habitat; have there been any sightings lately? Does it move in groups or
alone? Could you provide any photographs? Once we analyze the evidence we
will see whether we can rule out the possibility of its existence, or not.
regards
Milan
Milan
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
all.
regards
Milan
Jabriol
Precision wrote:
> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
> blind." -Albert Einstein
>
> (BEGIN QUOTE)
>
> Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A
> University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold
> dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the
> universe.
>
>
> He also believes in God.
>
He could believe that Homosexuality is divine. It does not matter. Any
Christian who believe in evolution as the origin of man; effectively
Call Jesus a liar.
It is that simple
Manticore
> I wonder why Carol has not thrwon in her "troll alerts"
>
Carolyn has no knowledge of science. Her main goal is to disrupt
threads. And she will disrupt this one as well.
Armanda Grogan
cactus
> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
> blind." -Albert Einstein
>
> (BEGIN QUOTE)
>
> Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A
> University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold
> dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the
> universe.
>
>
> He also believes in God.
>
>
> belief renders science and religion incompatible.
>
> Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people,
> according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including
> Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the
> universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith
> and their work.
>
> "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to
> tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story
> does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God."
>
> (END QUOTE)
>
> And so begins an article in National Geographic News (October 18, 2004;
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html).
>
> This flies in the face of the very charter of newsgroups such as
> news:alt.religion.atheism because it shows that thinking, reasoning and
> absolutely brilliant scientific minds recognize that God and science can
>
> article about how true scientific evolution AND religion can coexist
> logically, deserves your consideration in light of the major denial of God's
> existence that is the foundation of atheism.
>
except for the usual prayers for help in passing that next test...
> Can we discuss this intelligently? Will some predictably lash out in anger
> and rage again, begging me to leave the poor atheists alone and stop
> interjecting other world views into theirs? Will you dismiss what National
> Geographic has to say and the facts in this article because your beliefs are
> polarized and your faith in atheism is unwavering?
>
> I hope not.
>
> Sending you all my best wishes!
Chimp
> > >>> yeah, what can you say now, atheists? a scientist, one of the
> > >>> greatest... says... that god prolly does exist. i guess you hate
> > >>> einstein for that, am i right atheists?
> > >>
> > >> Personally I say, read a bit more about what Einstein meant,
> > >> not just the sound-bite.
> > >
> > > sorry. afaik, einstein said... something like this (this is not a quote);
> > > the more i get involved in science, the less reason i have not to
> > > believe in god's existance. something like that... look it up.
> >
> > So I give you a large number of actual quotes (citing sources)
> > and you ignore and snip those and respond with a
> > half-remembered non-quote with no cite, and you want _me_
> > to look it up?? Sorry, if you think Einstein said or believed
> > anything like that then produce proper documentation of it please.
>
> sorry, i replied in that manner cause you posted only quotes
> that go hand in hand with atheism.
If you are aware of any quotes that, when read in context,
suggest that Einstein believed in a personal God as
described by the major religions, please go ahead and
post them.
He did have a wonderance and reverence towards the
fundamental nature of the universe, which he regarded
as mysterious, and he used religious language in that
context. The following quote perhaps sums things up:
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes
his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience
in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive
of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble
souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.
I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and
with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous
structure of the existing world, together with the devoted
striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the
Reason that manifests itself in nature."
Albert Einstein, in "The World as I See It"
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"Jabriol" <jabrio...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133320886....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How so?
JR
>
Elf M. Sternberg
> He could believe that Homosexuality is divine. It does not matter. Any
> Christian who believe in evolution as the origin of man; effectively
> Call Jesus a liar.
And any Christian who denies the fundamental and revealed truth
of the world gets the slap in the face the world returns. Deny
evolution, and the benefits derived from it, at your peril. (As a JW,
that shouldn't be too hard for you, though.)
Elf
Manticore
>>He could believe that Homosexuality is divine. It does not matter. Any
>>Christian who believe in evolution as the origin of man; effectively
>>Call Jesus a liar.
>>
>>It is that simple
>
>
> How so?
>
> JR
>
>
>
Jesus refer to creation, read the bble it is there. In fact he based
christian principle on the creation of Adam and Eve. If this in fact is
myth, or he is using Myth to present a Chrisitian principle, then he is
lying anf there is no reason to follw anything he says.
Manticore
What are the benefits of evolution?
ManMadeGod
ManMadeGod
I agree. No reason to follow, it's all a lie.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
What if he was using the creation story as an allegory? What if the
individuals who actually wrote the text misunderstood Jesus? Are there not
many possibilities other than Jesus was lying?
What is your faith based on? More specifically, who's words do you have
faith in...Jesus, or those who wrote about Jesus?
JR
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
There are no benefits of evolution, per se. The knowledge of evolution has
nicely tied together genetics, biology, and other biological
sciences...which in turn, has allowed us to develop many benefits for
mankind--like more efficient vaccines and anti-biotics.
JR
Wayne Jones
life came to be on this planet. It serves as the best scientific explanation
we have until someone comes up with a better idea.
the genesis version doesn't explain things in enough detail to satisfy most
curious people and it cannot be changed if anyone finds evidence of a better
explanation.
people who accept the genesis version have no interest in digging into the
matter further but many people do otherwise we would never have learned
anything.
wayne
Christopher A. Lee
?????????????????????????
KoI-Lo
> "Manticore" <Wh...@bulls.org> wrote in message
> news:Pzqjf.1334$wD4.315@trnddc02...
>
>>jrs...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>He could believe that Homosexuality is divine. It does not matter. Any
>>>>Christian who believe in evolution as the origin of man; effectively
>>>>Call Jesus a liar.
>>>>
>>>>It is that simple
>>>
>>>
>>>How so?
>>>
>>>JR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Jesus refer to creation, read the bble it is there. In fact he based
>>christian principle on the creation of Adam and Eve. If this in fact is
>>myth, or he is using Myth to present a Chrisitian principle, then he is
>>lying anf there is no reason to follw anything he says.
>
>
> What if he was using the creation story as an allegory? What if the
> individuals who actually wrote the text misunderstood Jesus? Are there not
> many possibilities other than Jesus was lying?
>
Allegory is still false, in the sense that it negates reality of the
real world. You cant teach people that marraige is divine, when men and
woman are basiclly evolved super chimp.
> What is your faith based on? More specifically, who's words do you have
> faith in...Jesus, or those who wrote about Jesus?
>
> JR
>
>
re there any other words that you know of that Jesus wrote himself?
KoI-Lo
So does terraforming by alienns life forms.
KoI-Lo
> evolution has no benefit except to contribute to man's understanding of how
> life came to be on this planet. It serves as the best scientific explanation
> we have until someone comes up with a better idea.
And yet the theoy of evolution does not past the scientific method.
why is that?
Llanzlan Klazmon
>
> "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1133286110....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> shadow wrote:
>> > <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > > shadow wrote:
>> > > > "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
>> >>>> blind." -Albert Einstein
>> >>>
>> >>> yeah, what can you say now, atheists? a scientist, one of the
>> >>> greatest... says... that god prolly does exist. i guess you hate
>> >>> einstein for that, am i right atheists?
>> >>
>> >> Personally I say, read a bit more about what Einstein meant,
>> >> not just the sound-bite.
>> >
>> > sorry. afaik, einstein said... something like this (this is not a
>> > quote); the more i get involved in science, the less reason i have
>> > not to believe in god's existance. something like that... look it up.
>>
>> So I give you a large number of actual quotes (citing sources)
>> and you ignore and snip those and respond with a
>> half-remembered non-quote with no cite, and you want _me_
>> to look it up?? Sorry, if you think Einstein said or believed
>> anything like that then produce proper documentation of it please.
>
> sorry, i replied in that manner cause you posted only quotes
> that go hand in hand with atheism.
The fact that you don't like these quotes doesn't make them invalid.
>> Here are a couple of _genuine_ Einstein quotes again:
>>
>> "The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events
>> the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the
>> side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For
>> him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an
>> independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a
>> personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted,
>> in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take
>> refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet
>> been able to set foot." "Einstein's Ideas and Opinions", pp.41 - 49.
>>
>> "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced
>> that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral
>> principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need
>> the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the
>> basis of reward and punishment.
>> Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
>>
>> "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: The
>> Human Side", Princeton University Press.
>>
>> "As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into
>> every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came -
>> though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents - to a deep
>> religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of
>> twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached
>> the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be
>> true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking
>> coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived
>> by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of
>> every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical
>> attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social
>> environment-an attitude that has never again left me, even though,
>> later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal
>> connections." Albert Einstein's Autobiographical Notes,
>> Open Court Publishing Company, LaSalle and Chicago, Illinois,
>> 1979. These paragraphs appear on pp 3 & 5.
>
> yes, all the quotes that support the notion that thereis no god. how
> very mature of you, chimp.
>
Pot calling the kettle black! They were quotes about Einstein's own
position. The fact that you don't like it is too bad. Here's another one
for you that you wont like either:
“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have
always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and
could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use
anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human
sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful
harmony of the structure of this world as far—as we can grasp it. And that
is all.”
Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor
that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism.
This quote and those given to you by chimp were written in Einstein's own
hand. Not like the quote at the beginning of this thread which turns out to
be what someone claims Einstein said to them in an interview.
In any case Einstein's or anyone else personal beliefs don't lend anything
to establishing the existence or not of supernatural beings. Only
verifiable evidence can do that. Here it is again in capitals, the word you
are terrified of. EVIDENCE.
Klazmon.
>
shadow
> shadow wrote:
> > "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > shadow wrote:
> > > > <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > shadow wrote:
>
> > > >>> yeah, what can you say now, atheists? a scientist, one of the
> > > >>> greatest... says... that god prolly does exist. i guess you hate
> > > >>> einstein for that, am i right atheists?
> > > >>
> > > >> Personally I say, read a bit more about what Einstein meant,
> > > >> not just the sound-bite.
> > > >
> > > > sorry. afaik, einstein said... something like this (this is not a quote);
> > > > the more i get involved in science, the less reason i have not to
> > > > believe in god's existance. something like that... look it up.
> > >
> > > So I give you a large number of actual quotes (citing sources)
> > > and you ignore and snip those and respond with a
> > > half-remembered non-quote with no cite, and you want _me_
> > > to look it up?? Sorry, if you think Einstein said or believed
> > > anything like that then produce proper documentation of it please.
> >
> > sorry, i replied in that manner cause you posted only quotes
> > that go hand in hand with atheism.
>
> If you are aware of any quotes that, when read in context,
> suggest that Einstein believed in a personal God as
> described by the major religions, please go ahead and
> post them.
so like, you think im lying? very nice man... what an intellect
you really do have, chimp. but hey... you are a chimp, after all.
l0l
> He did have a wonderance and reverence towards the
> fundamental nature of the universe, which he regarded
> as mysterious, and he used religious language in that
> context. The following quote perhaps sums things up:
>
> "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes
> his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience
> in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive
> of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble
> souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.
> I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and
> with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous
> structure of the existing world, together with the devoted
> striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the
> Reason that manifests itself in nature."
> Albert Einstein, in "The World as I See It"
as lon as your quote starts with; 'i cannot conceive god... '
very nice. very mature, as i said.
nevermind chimp.
chimp...
rofl
shadow
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns971F9C36FF33CKl...@203.97.37.6...
i dont have nothing to with his beliefs. afaik, i dont care. but what bothers
me is YOU, atheist, quoting ONLY parts which support YOUR point of
view.
as i said...
>
> "I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
> priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
> about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have
> always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and
> could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use
> anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human
> sphere-childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful
> harmony of the structure of this world as far-as we can grasp it. And that
> is all."
>
> Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor
> that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism.
>
> This quote and those given to you by chimp were written in Einstein's own
> hand.
so?
Not like the quote at the beginning of this thread which turns out to
> be what someone claims Einstein said to them in an interview.
so?
> In any case Einstein's or anyone else personal beliefs don't lend anything
> to establishing the existence or not of supernatural beings. Only
> verifiable evidence can do that. Here it is again in capitals, the word you
> are terrified of. EVIDENCE.
you can stick that 'evidence' up your blind ass, atheist.
afaik, science... HAS... failed us. more that it has helped us.
btw, nice bomb science! very nice... 'thank you'.
where shall we drop it, huh?
nagasaki? hiroshima?
tell me... im all ears.
science? in this world?
a fraud.
a lie.
SeppoP
Why don't you try using carrier pigeons for your posts instead?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Precision
<jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zU3jf.34405$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:yfLif.18916$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
>>>> blind." -Albert Einstein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist.
>>>> A University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the
>>>> cold dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and
>>>> structure of the universe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He also believes in God.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> popular belief renders science and religion incompatible.
>>>>
>>>> Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people,
>>>> according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds,
>>>> including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life
>>>> behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict
>>>> between their faith and their work.
>>>>
>>>> "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now
>>>> able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said.
>>>> "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of]
>>>> God."
>>>>
>>>> (END QUOTE)
>>>>
>>>> And so begins an article in National Geographic News (October 18, 2004;
>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html).
>>>>
>>>> This flies in the face of the very charter of newsgroups such as
>>>> news:alt.religion.atheism because it shows that thinking, reasoning and
>>>> absolutely brilliant scientific minds recognize that God and science
>>>> can coexist.
>>>
>>> includes nor excludes the idea of God. The idea of god is a
>>> philosophical question, not a scientific one.
>>>
>>>> that made our understanding of science possible.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> article about how true scientific evolution AND religion can coexist
>>>> logically, deserves your consideration in light of the major denial of
>>>> God's existence that is the foundation of atheism.
>>>
>>> just as logically that atheism and science can coexist...yes?
>>>
>>>
>>>> anger and rage again, begging me to leave the poor atheists alone and
>>>> stop interjecting other world views into theirs? Will you dismiss what
>>>> National Geographic has to say and the facts in this article because
>>>> your beliefs are polarized and your faith in atheism is unwavering?
>>>
>>> coexisting...only opinions. And, while I would consider myself more of
>>> an agnostic on the question, it seems that you are the one with the
>>> polarized belief system. Would you not consider your belief system
>>> "unwavering"?
>>> JR
>>
>>
>> the unwavering nature of my belief is that you simply cannot rule out the
>> disagree with the statement that one cannot rule out the possibility of
>> God's existence?
>
> rule out the possibility of God's existence. However, the logic follows
> that one cannot rule out *anything* that might have been the origin of
> things.
>
> My issue is with the definition of God and who is defining the idea of
> God. The Bible, in my opinion, should be questioned simply because of the
> fact that it was written by men. I merely find that, just as we cannot
> exclude God as a possibility, we would be arrogant to assume that we have
> the capability of defining something that is presumed omnipotent.
That is correct. There are many surprises in store for those who presume to
know too much.
> Faith is important...but who's word are we being faithful to? I think
> that it is a personal spiritual quest, and for anyone or any organization
> to claim ownership of that knowledge is, in my humble opinion, quite
> insolent.
>
> JR
I agree it would be sad if anyone or any organization insolently claimed
ownership of that knowledge. Christ died for all humans on this planet not
only those who adhered to any one religion.
The challenge is to find a religion that we feel is closest to the truth and
resist the temptation to judge other religions. This has challenged even the
world's most open-minded and level headed believers in God. You would agree,
however, that if we arrive at the conclusion that we have found the truth,
we logically would not think others with contradictory beliefs also have it?
At the same time, the need to remain open to new interpretations as formerly
unknown historical facts emerge, humbled as the light of new understanding
invalidates old ways of thinking, is indeed a challenge. Even the most
sincere people fall into the trap of thinking they're always right and
others are always wrong. Hopefully as they revise their beliefs (a process
called "new light" in my faith) they gradually come to realize that as you
put it so eloquently we all are on a spiritual quest to find the Answer to
all our questions. One of the greatest questions so many seek is "What is
our purpose for existing? If our existence is the result of a Divine
Intelligence, why are we here?"
Precision
"Hannele Huigens" <Han...@lycos.nl> wrote in message
news:op.s00vlkdrvjeuhq@laptophannele...
> Op Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:47:33 +0100 schreef Precision
> <prec...@Usenet.com>:
>
>>
>> <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:yfLif.18916$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>> I'll concede that my belief in God is unwavering. One of the reasons for
>> the
>> unwavering nature of my belief is that you simply cannot rule out the
>> possibility that God exists. Why don't we start there. Can you honestly
>> disagree with the statement that one cannot rule out the possibility of
>> God's existence?
>
> it exists?
>
> --
> Hannele
> aa #2221
I'll admit that's a tough one, Hannele, and it would be presumptuous of me
to act as if I have a definitive answer. When we look around at the beauty
of this planet and the universe as revealed in relative recent history by
the Hubble telescope, we only scratch the surface of the beauty of the
Divine Soul that surely designed everything. Do you agree?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>I agree it would be sad if anyone or any organization insolently claimed
>ownership of that knowledge. Christ died for all humans on this planet not
>only those who adhered to any one religion.
Arrogant, ignorant bullshit. Your religion's mythical superhero, if he
existed at all, didn't die for me.
Precision
"Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3v45ikF...@individual.net...
>
> "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
> news:11332938...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>
>> news:yfLif.18916$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
> the
>> unwavering nature of my belief is that you simply cannot rule out the
>> possibility that God exists. Why don't we start there. Can you honestly
>> disagree with the statement that one cannot rule out the possibility of
>> God's existence?
>
> some idea about what this "God" thing is. Tell us a bit more about the
> nature and properties of this thing. Color, size, shape, feeding habits,
> habitat; have there been any sightings lately? Does it move in groups or
> alone? Could you provide any photographs? Once we analyze the evidence we
> will see whether we can rule out the possibility of its existence, or not.
>
> regards
> Milan
I see your point, Milan, and it's well taken. God's existence defies
primitive scientific methods of evidence collection, analysis and
observation. I use the word primitive only in the context of what scientists
say we would be in relation to, say, a civilization that is millions of
years ahead of ours. What tools would THEY have that we are not advanced
enough to even comprehend let alone know about, that could possibly answer
your reasonable questions of who God is? Could their advanced spiritual and
intelligent state after millions of years give them tools that would baffle
science today, that could quantify the unfathomable amount of information
about this Vast Intelligence that all the computers on Earth today could
only scratch the surface of?
The problem is that we simply do not know those answers. Should we be like
our primitive ancestors and simply dismiss that which we cannot understand,
because we do not have the tools necessary to answer even the simple
questions you asked? What can possibly bridge the gap between our primitive
nature as an infant civilization in relation to the possible billions of
civilizations millions or even billions of years ahead of ours?
I content the answer to that last question can be summed up in a word:
faith.
We need faith and the humility to bridge that gap. Otherwise, we would
simply exist without the possibility of knowing even a glimmer of truth for
a brief and fleeting moment in relation to this universe. Consider the
numbers of years and distances that represent space/time is so vast we could
not store a single one of those numbers using all the data storage space on
Earth today. We as an emerging civilization cannot possibly know what we
might know millions of years from now. Therefore, we must bridge the gap
between the complete spiritual and intellectual darkness that engulfs our
primitive nature and our existence in the distant future with faith.
Precision
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5ucpo15vohs1lc0hb...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:55:25 -0800, "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:h03po1dtntb25hpk3...@4ax.com...
>>> On 29 Nov 2005 08:11:12 -0800, "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> On 29 Nov 2005 pan_pani...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 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 me that whoever doesn't wonder about
>>>>>> the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I would suspect the interviewer misreported him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because Einstein (like any other scientist) knew that science is
>>>>> completely independent of religion.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think there is any misquoting in the above. Einstein used
>>>>"religious" in a special sense, namely a wonderment at and
>>>>wondering about the fundamental nature of the universe,
>>>>even though he didn't think that fundamental nature in any
>>>>way resembled the personal God of the usual religions.
>>>
>>> Then it is quoted out of context by liars pretending he meant their
>>> kind of religion.
>>
>>
>>Please. You're so busy trying to villify fundies that you're missing out
>>on
>>the bigger picture of what Einstein said and why he was quoted in the
>>article.
>
> I'm not doing that. I wouldn't give a toss about them if they kept it
> to themselves.
That is fine and well, except I contend that you're missing out on the
bigger picture of what Einstein said and why he was quoted in the article.
Precision
>
> "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> "Jim (LVWB)" <Lakeview...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133269976....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Science + Religion = Religion
>> >
>> > Primack has the right to any beliefs he wishes, but when he is doing
>> > science he cannot allow those beliefs to influence his science;
>> > Because, when he does, he alters the science and it is no longer
>> > science, but his beliefs.
>> >
>> > You cannot interject your supernatural views upon me, ("Will some
>> > predictably lash out in anger and rage again, begging me to leave the
>> > poor atheists alone and stop interjecting other world views into
>> > condescending.
>> >
>> > God beliefs can indeed co-exist with the reality of science, just as
>> > belief in Santa Claus can co-exist with our childhood. However, we
>> > grow up, and Santa Claus is no longer an issue, and we learn that
>> > through our intelligence that we can spread cheer and give without the
>> > mystery of a ficticious idea (be it Santa, or Jesus).
>> >
>> > Rather than suggest that I re-examine my lack of belief in "your" god
>> > and your "definitions" of "your" god, would you demonstrate that "your"
>> > god is real, because when you do that, I would be justified in
>> > re-examining my lack of belief.
>> >
>>
>> The best response I can make to your request is to ask God to demonstrate
> to
>> you personally that He is real. Don't be surprised if it happens when you
>> least expect it.
>>
> Worry not. God seems to have a tendency not to demonstrate its existence
> at
> all.
>
> regards
> Milan
Unfortunately that is true for those who refuse to give God the chance to
prove Himself personally to them.
Precision
> Jabriol wrote:
>> I wonder why Carol has not thrwon in her "troll alerts"
>>
>
> And she will disrupt this one as well.
Fine. I've banned any ID that I remotely think is hers and so far the ride
has been sanguine, no potholes or off-road excursions so far.
Precision
"KoI-Lo" <Ihate@jw's.org> wrote in message
news:w7sjf.815$n84.152@trnddc06...
> jrs...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> "Manticore" <Wh...@bulls.org> wrote in message
>> news:Pzqjf.1334$wD4.315@trnddc02...
>>
>>>jrs...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>He could believe that Homosexuality is divine. It does not matter. Any
>>>>>Christian who believe in evolution as the origin of man; effectively
>>>>>Call Jesus a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is that simple
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How so?
>>>>
>>>>JR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Jesus refer to creation, read the bble it is there. In fact he based
>>>christian principle on the creation of Adam and Eve. If this in fact is
>>>myth, or he is using Myth to present a Chrisitian principle, then he is
>>>lying anf there is no reason to follw anything he says.
>>
>>
>> What if he was using the creation story as an allegory? What if the
>> individuals who actually wrote the text misunderstood Jesus? Are there
>> not many possibilities other than Jesus was lying?
>>
>
> Allegory is still false, in the sense that it negates reality of the real
> world. You cant teach people that marraige is divine, when men and woman
> are basiclly evolved super chimp.
I disagree. Marriage is divine because it is a brilliant concept. Only such
a concept with such brilliance could have originated from a Divine Creator
and not from someone's primitive concepts of human nature.
Precision
Evolution is simply a scientific theory about how we came about. There is no
benefit to the process. If God chose evolution as the process for creation
then fine. I believe God may have used selective evolution, allowing lower
life forms to evolve while creating humans and placing them on this planet
directly.
Precision
"cactus" <b...@ubadlands.edu> wrote in message
news:A9djf.2237$YT3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Precision wrote:
>> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
>>
>> (BEGIN QUOTE)
>>
>> Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A
>> University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold
>> dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of
>> the universe.
>>
>>
>> He also believes in God.
>>
>>
>> That may strike some people as peculiar. After all, in some corners
>> popular belief renders science and religion incompatible.
>>
>> Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people,
>> according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds,
>> including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life
>> behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict
>> between their faith and their work.
>>
>> "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able
>> to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This
>> story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God."
>>
>> (END QUOTE)
>>
>> And so begins an article in National Geographic News (October 18, 2004;
>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html).
>>
>> This flies in the face of the very charter of newsgroups such as
>> news:alt.religion.atheism because it shows that thinking, reasoning and
>> absolutely brilliant scientific minds recognize that God and science can
>>
>> article about how true scientific evolution AND religion can coexist
>> logically, deserves your consideration in light of the major denial of
>> God's existence that is the foundation of atheism.
>>
> except for the usual prayers for help in passing that next test...
That is one of many primitive aspects of this dying civilization.
le ténébreux
> I agree it would be sad if anyone or any organization insolently
> claimed ownership of that knowledge.
You don't think the WTS see themselves as the gatekeepers of truth?
If they don't, then what's with the attitude of "Even if we ARE
worng now, you must stick with this organization because when God
makes the truth known it will be through us" ?
Aråchñe
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
> I'll admit that's a tough one, Hannele, and it would be presumptuous of me
> to act as if I have a definitive answer. When we look around at the beauty
> of this planet and the universe as revealed in relative recent history by
> the Hubble telescope, we only scratch the surface of the beauty of the
> Divine Soul that surely designed everything. Do you agree?
You forgot to mention how well he designed cancer, deadly viruses, fungal
and bacterial infections, fatal internal parasites, mental illness and all
those other wonders mankind gets to enjoy.
Aråchñe
"Manticore" <Wh...@bulls.org> wrote in message
news:TAqjf.1335$wD4.1105@trnddc02...
> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>> "Jabriol" <jabrio...@gmail.com> writes:
> What are the benefits of evolution?
Freedom from religious tyranny like the WTBTS.
cactus
may or may not be so brilliant - many animals also mate for life - the
human innovation in this regard is pageantry.
Chimp
> "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > shadow wrote:
> > > "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > shadow wrote:
> > > > > <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > shadow wrote:
>>>>> sorry. afaik, einstein said... something like this (this is not a quote);
>>>>> the more i get involved in science, the less reason i have not to
>>>>> believe in god's existance. something like that... look it up.
>>>>
>>>> So I give you a large number of actual quotes (citing sources)
>>>> and you ignore and snip those and respond with a
>>>> half-remembered non-quote with no cite, and you want _me_
>>>> to look it up?? Sorry, if you think Einstein said or believed
>>>> anything like that then produce proper documentation of it please.
>>>
>>> sorry, i replied in that manner cause you posted only quotes
>>> that go hand in hand with atheism.
>>
>> If you are aware of any quotes that, when read in context,
>> suggest that Einstein believed in a personal God as
>> described by the major religions, please go ahead and
>> post them.
>
> so like, you think im lying? very nice man... what an intellect
> you really do have, chimp. but hey... you are a chimp, after all.
No, I don't think you're lying, I think you're mistaken. I've read
a fair amount of what Einstein said about religion and have
never encountered something that suggests that Einstein
believed in the personal god described by Judaism and
Christianity. Indeed there are many places where he
explicitly says he doesn't.
So my request above was quite genuine. If you are
aware of anything Einstein said that, when read in
context, suggests he believed in a personal God, then
please give us the quote along with its source.
Your responses so far suggest that you have
nothing such to present and are trying hard not
to admit that fact.
Chimp
Chimp
> "Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
>>> yes, all the quotes that support the notion that thereis no god. how
>>> very mature of you, chimp.
>>
>> Pot calling the kettle black! They were quotes about Einstein's own
>> position. The fact that you don't like it is too bad. Here's another one
>> for you that you wont like either:
>
> i dont have nothing to with his beliefs. afaik, i dont care. but what bothers
> me is YOU, atheist, quoting ONLY parts which support YOUR point of
> view.
Perhaps because the only genuine Einstein quotes that exist
_do_ all support our point of view. As I said, if you know of
quotes that, when read in context, suggest that Einstein
believed in a personal god, please feel free to post them
along with a cite of their source.
>> "I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
>> priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
>> about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have
>> always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct
>> and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use
>> anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human
>> sphere-childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful
>> harmony of the structure of this world as far-as we can grasp it. And that
>> is all."
>>
>> Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor
>> that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism.
>>
>> This quote and those given to you by chimp were written in Einstein's own
>> hand.
>
> so?
So, they suggest that we are accurately conveying
Einstein's opinion, whereas you are not.
>> In any case Einstein's or anyone else personal beliefs don't lend
>> anything to establishing the existence or not of supernatural beings.
>> Only verifiable evidence can do that. Here it is again in capitals, the
>> word you are terrified of. EVIDENCE.
>
> you can stick that 'evidence' up your blind ass, atheist.
How very revealing. Anyhow, I for one don't have a donkey,
never mind a blind one.
> afaik, science... HAS... failed us. more that it has helped us.
>
> btw, nice bomb science! very nice... 'thank you'.
>
> where shall we drop it, huh?
>
> nagasaki? hiroshima?
>
> tell me... im all ears.
>
> science? in this world?
>
> a fraud.
>
> a lie.
Please continue your anti-science and anti-reason babbling.
It does more to discredit your position than anything
we could say.
Chimp
Hannele Huigens
<prec...@Usenet.com>:
> "Hannele Huigens" <Han...@lycos.nl> wrote in message
> news:op.s00vlkdrvjeuhq@laptophannele...
>> Op Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:47:33 +0100 schreef Precision
>> <prec...@Usenet.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:yfLif.18916$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I'll concede that my belief in God is unwavering. One of the reasons
>>> for
>>> the
>>> unwavering nature of my belief is that you simply cannot rule out the
>>> possibility that God exists. Why don't we start there. Can you honestly
>>> disagree with the statement that one cannot rule out the possibility of
>>> God's existence?
>>
>> What god would that be, what are its characteristics, how could we
>> discern
>> it exists?
>>
> I'll admit that's a tough one, Hannele, and it would be presumptuous of
> me
> to act as if I have a definitive answer. When we look around at the
> beauty
> of this planet and the universe as revealed in relative recent history by
> the Hubble telescope, we only scratch the surface of the beauty of the
> Divine Soul that surely designed everything. Do you agree?
I agree our world is beautiful, but I can't agree with you about any
divine soul. What's a soul anyway and what divinity are you talking about?
But I would like to know whether or nor we're alone in this universe, too
bad the Hubble telescope can't show us that. Wouldn't it be just too
exciting to really meet extra-terrastrials?
I wonder if they are in any way religious and if their gods DO exist.
Imagine a real god, one to see, hear and touch, not just the figment of
anyone's imagination.
Well, I can dream, can't I?
--
Hannele
aa #2221
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
>
> "Manticore" <Wh...@bulls.org> wrote in message
> news:TAqjf.1335$wD4.1105@trnddc02...
>> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>>> "Jabriol" <jabrio...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>He could believe that Homosexuality is divine. It does not matter. Any
>>>>Christian who believe in evolution as the origin of man; effectively
>>>>Call Jesus a liar.
>>>
>>>
>>> And any Christian who denies the fundamental and revealed truth
>>> of the world gets the slap in the face the world returns. Deny
>>> evolution, and the benefits derived from it, at your peril. (As a JW,
>>> that shouldn't be too hard for you, though.)
>>>
>>> Elf
>>
>>
>> What are the benefits of evolution?
>
>
> Evolution is simply a scientific theory about how we came about. There is
> no benefit to the process. If God chose evolution as the process for
> creation then fine. I believe God may have used selective evolution,
> allowing lower life forms to evolve while creating humans and placing them
> on this planet directly.
>
consider that theory. No disrespect, but that's the kind of thing that I
was referring to when I earlier mentioned human arrogance.
JR
JR
erikc
>I wonder why Carol has not thrwon in her "troll alerts"
>
>Precision wrote:
>> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
>> blind." -Albert Einstein
>>
>> (BEGIN QUOTE)
>>
>> Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A
>> University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold
>> dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the
>> universe.
>>
>>
>> He also believes in God.
>>
>
>He could believe that Homosexuality is divine. It does not matter. Any
>Christian who believe in evolution as the origin of man; effectively
>Call Jesus a liar.
>
>It is that simple
Well, jesus, if he existed at all, WAS A LIAR
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
Ben
> On 29 Nov 2005 19:21:27 -0800, "Jabriol" <jabrio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I wonder why Carol has not thrwon in her "troll alerts"
>>
>>Precision wrote:
>>
>>>"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
>>>blind." -Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>(BEGIN QUOTE)
>>>
>>>Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A
>>>University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold
>>>dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the
>>>universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>He also believes in God.
>>>
>>
>>He could believe that Homosexuality is divine. It does not matter. Any
>>Christian who believe in evolution as the origin of man; effectively
>>Call Jesus a liar.
>>
>>It is that simple
>
Well that leaves out the Catholic church. Interesting....
>
> Well, jesus, if he existed at all, WAS A LIAR
>
>
> Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
> BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
--
Squirting rubbing alcohol up your
nose is rather unpleasant.
-Sanford, ABSFG
Aråchñe
>
> You forgot to mention how well he designed cancer, deadly viruses, fungal
> and bacterial infections, fatal internal parasites, mental illness and all
> those other wonders mankind gets to enjoy.
>
But Carol. You are an atheist. How can you blame a non existing diety
for mankind problems, and why are you participating in a jabriol thread?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Duh. Can you say "assuming for the sake of argument"? She's obviously
not blaming something she doesn't believe in.
Precision
How do you know that.
Precision
To paraphrase what someone I know once said on a similar train of thought,
you can live, eventually die, and wake up in the resurrection as if all of
this was a bad dream. Only THEN can you really know, but until then, dream
well.
Precision
<jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vPEjf.21339$BZ5....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
> news:11334149...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>
>> "Manticore" <Wh...@bulls.org> wrote in message
>> news:TAqjf.1335$wD4.1105@trnddc02...
>>> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>>>> "Jabriol" <jabrio...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>He could believe that Homosexuality is divine. It does not matter. Any
>>>>>Christian who believe in evolution as the origin of man; effectively
>>>>>Call Jesus a liar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And any Christian who denies the fundamental and revealed truth
>>>> of the world gets the slap in the face the world returns. Deny
>>>> evolution, and the benefits derived from it, at your peril. (As a JW,
>>>> that shouldn't be too hard for you, though.)
>>>>
>>>> Elf
>>>
>>>
>>> What are the benefits of evolution?
>>
>>
>> Evolution is simply a scientific theory about how we came about. There is
>> no benefit to the process. If God chose evolution as the process for
>> creation then fine. I believe God may have used selective evolution,
>> allowing lower life forms to evolve while creating humans and placing
>> them on this planet directly.
>>
> That would be scientific cherry-picking I'm afraid. I can see no reason
> consider that theory. No disrespect, but that's the kind of thing that I
> was referring to when I earlier mentioned human arrogance.
Is it human arrogance to cherry-pick your choice of habitat in a game
reserve, placing endanger species into areas that have naturally thrived for
millions of years? What about growing a terrarium from scratch but then
placing a little green fully-grown frog into this habitat? You could do
anything you wanted, growing landscaping from seed or transplanting fully
grown specimens into the environment, mixing and matching. Do you see my
point? Why wouldn't what by human definition would be the greatest
Extraterrestrial Intelligence in existence allow habitats to evolve and
place intelligent beings into these habitats fully formed? Could that by why
science can validate the Earth's age as billions of years, yet at the same
time science suffers from the embarrassing "missing link" syndrome in trying
to definitively explain mankind's origins?
Precision
"erikc" <fire...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:240uo1livmtfqp6tn...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Nov 2005 19:21:27 -0800, "Jabriol" <jabrio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I wonder why Carol has not thrwon in her "troll alerts"
>>
>>Precision wrote:
>>> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
>>> blind." -Albert Einstein
>>>
>>> (BEGIN QUOTE)
>>>
>>> Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A
>>> University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the
>>> cold
>>> dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of
>>> the
>>> universe.
>>>
>>>
>>> He also believes in God.
>>>
>>
>>He could believe that Homosexuality is divine. It does not matter. Any
>>Christian who believe in evolution as the origin of man; effectively
>>Call Jesus a liar.
>>
>>It is that simple
>
> Well, jesus, if he existed at all, WAS A LIAR
At the risk your reply was intended to flame the topic, I'll ask why you
would make such an accusation?
F. Frederick Skitty
>
>>jrs...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>He could believe that Homosexuality is divine. It does not matter. Any
>>>>Christian who believe in evolution as the origin of man; effectively
>>>>Call Jesus a liar.
>>>>
>>>>It is that simple
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>JR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Jesus refer to creation, read the bble it is there. In fact he based
>>christian principle on the creation of Adam and Eve. If this in fact is
>>myth, or he is using Myth to present a Chrisitian principle, then he is
>>lying anf there is no reason to follw anything he says.
>
>
> What if he was using the creation story as an allegory? What if the
> individuals who actually wrote the text misunderstood Jesus? Are there not
> many possibilities other than Jesus was lying?
>
> faith in...Jesus, or those who wrote about Jesus?
>
> JR
>
>
All we know of Jesus is what others wrote about him. None of the
apostles knew Jesus. Jesus's "words" were put into his mouth by others;
in the case of Matthew (his closest contempory), more than 30 years
after his death. In the case of John, some 150 years after his death.
Let's face it, it's all a load of bollocks.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:9q0to1p4aem5b6p1i...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:56:07 -0800, "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I agree it would be sad if anyone or any organization insolently claimed
>>>ownership of that knowledge. Christ died for all humans on this planet not
>>>only those who adhered to any one religion.
>>
>> Arrogant, ignorant bullshit. Your religion's mythical superhero, if he
>> existed at all, didn't die for me.
>
>How do you know that.
Idiot. It's your fucking religious belief, that's all. Keep it to
yourself instead of arrogantly talking as though it were realand
applied to everybody.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
There is no *embarassing* missing link syndrome. The fossile record is
incomplete, but what we have found does not point to what you are talking
about. For example, dinosaur fossils are much older than any Hominid
fossils, so the only way to posit your theory would be to find a Hominid
fossil from at least the same time period.
Nested heirarchies, including human descent, very nicely fit the
evidence...I'll go with that until something better comes along.
JR
Expozem
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
> At the risk your reply was intended to flame the topic, I'll ask why you
> would make such an accusation?
Maybe because he told them their generation would not pass away before his
return and the end of this system of things. Well, guess what? He never
returned, they all died and this system of things is still rocking along.
Expo.......
From: iksg...@gmail.com (an Antonio L Santana NYM)
Newsgroups:
rec.ponds,alt.free.newsservers,misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,alt.privacy
Subject: A Max/ Roy Discovery was Re: Jabriol admits rape
Date: 13 Jul 2005 15:30:38 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <1121293838....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
did you consider it cheating, when your current husband sodmize you
grand child because he was black?
I bet it will say that you allowed your son to be butt-banged by a fromer
biker for cash. and you do know your ISP is now subject to a law
suit...
so did you cheat on your 2 former husbands...
The Woman is Angry because she was never accepted
by Jw's for 20 years, because she refused to legally marry the man she
it with, after two failure, and being nherself the victim of domestic
abuse in NYC. Her first husband busted her up so bad, that she has
brain scrambled. All because she would not make her man lunch.
=======================================
Your Name Here=Harvey
says...
>
>
>"Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3v45ikF...@individual.net...
>>
>> "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:yfLif.18916$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>> >
>>> > "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
>>> >> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
>>> >> blind." -Albert Einstein
>>> >>
>>> >> (BEGIN QUOTE)
>>> >>
>>> >> Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist.
>> A
>>> >> University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the
>> cold
>>> >> dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure
>>> >> of
>>> >> the universe.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> He also believes in God.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > includes nor excludes the idea of God. The idea of god is a
>> philosophical
>>> > question, not a scientific one.
>>> >
>>> >> Indeed it was God who invented science and designed >the human brain
>> that
>>> >> made our understanding of science possible.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> The impeccable logic in the above article, especially the part of the
>>> >> article about how true scientific evolution AND religion can coexist
>>> >> logically, deserves your consideration in light of the major denial of
>>> >> God's existence that is the foundation of atheism.
>>> >
>>> > follows
>>> > just as logically that atheism and science can coexist...yes?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Can we discuss this intelligently? Will some predictably lash out in
>>> >> anger and rage again, begging me to leave the poor atheists alone and
>>> >> stop interjecting other world views into theirs? Will you dismiss what
>>> >> National Geographic has to say and the facts in this article because
>> your
>>> >> beliefs are polarized and your faith in atheism is unwavering?
>>> >
>>> > First, there are no facts in the article about science and religion
>>> > coexisting...only opinions. And, while I would consider myself more of
>> an
>>> > agnostic on the question, it seems that you are the one with the
>> polarized
>>> > belief system. Would you not consider your belief system "unwavering"?
>>> > JR
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll concede that my belief in God is unwavering. One of the reasons for
>> the
>>> unwavering nature of my belief is that you simply cannot rule out the
>>> possibility that God exists. Why don't we start there. Can you honestly
>>> disagree with the statement that one cannot rule out the possibility of
>>> God's existence?
>>
>> some idea about what this "God" thing is. Tell us a bit more about the
>> nature and properties of this thing. Color, size, shape, feeding habits,
>> habitat; have there been any sightings lately? Does it move in groups or
>> alone? Could you provide any photographs? Once we analyze the evidence we
>> will see whether we can rule out the possibility of its existence, or not.
>>
>> regards
>> Milan
>
>
>I see your point, Milan, and it's well taken. God's existence defies
>primitive scientific methods of evidence collection, analysis and
>observation. I use the word primitive only in the context of what scientists
>say we would be in relation to, say, a civilization that is millions of
>years ahead of ours. What tools would THEY have that we are not advanced
>enough to even comprehend let alone know about, that could possibly answer
>your reasonable questions of who God is? Could their advanced spiritual and
>intelligent state after millions of years give them tools that would baffle
>science today, that could quantify the unfathomable amount of information
>about this Vast Intelligence that all the computers on Earth today could
>only scratch the surface of?
>
>The problem is that we simply do not know those answers. Should we be like
>our primitive ancestors and simply dismiss that which we cannot understand,
>because we do not have the tools necessary to answer even the simple
>questions you asked? What can possibly bridge the gap between our primitive
>nature as an infant civilization in relation to the possible billions of
>civilizations millions or even billions of years ahead of ours?
>
>I content the answer to that last question can be summed up in a word:
>faith.
>
>We need faith and the humility to bridge that gap. Otherwise, we would
>simply exist without the possibility of knowing even a glimmer of truth for
>a brief and fleeting moment in relation to this universe. Consider the
>numbers of years and distances that represent space/time is so vast we could
>not store a single one of those numbers using all the data storage space on
>Earth today. We as an emerging civilization cannot possibly know what we
>might know millions of years from now. Therefore, we must bridge the gap
>between the complete spiritual and intellectual darkness that engulfs our
>primitive nature and our existence in the distant future with faith.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com
One needs to define what you mean by 'God' as that term/name has been
sullied by religion for so long. ie. by the Jews, Christians and Muslims.
Faith alone is not good enough, because then anyone can get away with
anything, and that is what religion (ie. the above ones I quoted) has done
for so long. Hoodwink millions of people for centuries upon centuries making
people believe in 'garbage'. Because it is just that.
You can use reason and logic to sort out what is true and what isn't. What is
possible and what is impossible. The human imagination can be used for
creative positive ends, or negative destructive ends.
Religion has used peoples' imagination for the latter.
Religion needs to be accountable for the claims (and promises) to make
them pay for what they have done. Otherwise they'll get away with murder, and
they have.
Harvey
Elf M. Sternberg
> > And any Christian who denies the fundamental and revealed
> > truth of the world gets the slap in the face the world returns.
> > Deny evolution, and the benefits derived from it, at your peril.
> > (As a JW, that shouldn't be too hard for you, though.)
> What are the benefits of evolution?
That depends upon which "evolution" you're talking about.
If you're talking about the observed evolution of species (and
yes, "observed" is exactly the right word), the declaration of
"benefits" is as arbitrary as the benefits of gravity: they're brute
facts of nature and the benefits we ascribe to them are those we prefer.
Given that we live in a biosphere where most of the things
around us are trying to eat us, and when they evolve successful means of
doing so we find it uncomfortable, we would call the evolution of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria "detrimental."
If you're talking about the theories that support evolutionary
biology, one need look no further than the pharmaceutical industry.
Stanford recently announced the discovery of a new target peptide for
obesity management drugs. They discovered it by assuming the twin
nested heirarchy of evolution was true and then first identifying those
peptides that had no known functionality, then used the principle of
common descent to sort them based upon genes with known, similar
functionality, then used the principle of conservation of utility to
sort them again based upon how important they were. The peptide that
floated to the top of the chart turned out to be exactly the target they
were looking for. A whole new suite of weight-control drugs will be
based off this discovery.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/november16/obe-111605.html
I think it's a pretty damning indictment: there does not exist a
single pharmaceutical research program based upon any of the principles
of the "intelligent design" hypothesis. There is no money in it.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
Expozem
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
> Is it human arrogance to cherry-pick your choice of habitat in a game
> reserve, placing endanger species into areas that have naturally thrived
> for millions of years? What about growing a terrarium from scratch but
> then placing a little green fully-grown frog into this habitat? You could
> do anything you wanted, growing landscaping from seed or transplanting
> fully grown specimens into the environment, mixing and matching. Do you
> see my point? Why wouldn't what by human definition would be the greatest
> Extraterrestrial Intelligence in existence allow habitats to evolve and
> place intelligent beings into these habitats fully formed? Could that by
> why science can validate the Earth's age as billions of years, yet at the
> same time science suffers from the embarrassing "missing link" syndrome in
> trying to definitively explain mankind's origins?
What missing link syndrome? You beat the same old drum and refuse to learn
anything.......... ask on talk.origins where you can find information on
this "missing link" syndrome.
Expo........
From: iksg...@gmail.com (an Antonio L Santana NYM)
Newsgroups:
rec.ponds,alt.free.newsservers,misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,alt.privacy
Subject: A Max/ Roy Discovery was Re: Jabriol admits rape
Date: 13 Jul 2005 15:30:38 -0700
Milan
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> news:yfLif.18916$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >> >
"God" (whatever it may be) defies all methods of evidence collection. So
does the invisible pink unicorn, the tooth fairy and any other imaginary
being you may care to invent in your free time. This goes without saying.
Your point?
>I use the word primitive only in the context of what scientists
> say we would be in relation to, say, a civilization that is millions of
> years ahead of ours.
A civilization millions of years ahead of ours would likely not believe in
imaginary beings.
>What tools would THEY have that we are not advanced
> enough to even comprehend let alone know about, that could possibly answer
> your reasonable questions of who God is? Could their advanced spiritual
and
> intelligent state after millions of years give them tools that would
baffle
> science today, that could quantify the unfathomable amount of information
> about this Vast Intelligence that all the computers on Earth today could
> only scratch the surface of?
We can only guess. This type of speculation is utterly pointless.
> The problem is that we simply do not know those answers. Should we be like
> our primitive ancestors and simply dismiss that which we cannot
understand,
> because we do not have the tools necessary to answer even the simple
> questions you asked? What can possibly bridge the gap between our
primitive
> nature as an infant civilization in relation to the possible billions of
> civilizations millions or even billions of years ahead of ours?
Who knows?
> I content the answer to that last question can be summed up in a word:
> faith.
Yes. That's why all the speculation on scientific methods and the
hypothetical capabilities of advanced civilizations are empty blather.
People believe in god because they believe in god.
> We need faith and the humility to bridge that gap.
No, we dont need faith. You like to think that faith would bridge the gap.
Faith would expand it.
>Otherwise, we would
> simply exist without the possibility of knowing even a glimmer of truth
for
> a brief and fleeting moment in relation to this universe. Consider the
> numbers of years and distances that represent space/time is so vast we
could
> not store a single one of those numbers using all the data storage space
on
> Earth today. We as an emerging civilization cannot possibly know what we
> might know millions of years from now. Therefore, we must bridge the gap
> between the complete spiritual and intellectual darkness that engulfs our
> primitive nature and our existence in the distant future with faith.
Pure unadulterated hollow babble. Just give one reason to postulate a "god"
exists.
regards
Milan
Milan
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote in message
>
> "Hannele Huigens" <Han...@lycos.nl> wrote in message
> news:op.s00vlkdrvjeuhq@laptophannele...
> > Op Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:47:33 +0100 schreef Precision
> > <prec...@Usenet.com>:
> >
> >>
> >> news:yfLif.18916$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> >> I'll concede that my belief in God is unwavering. One of the reasons
for
> >> the
> >> unwavering nature of my belief is that you simply cannot rule out the
> >> possibility that God exists. Why don't we start there. Can you honestly
> >> disagree with the statement that one cannot rule out the possibility of
> >> God's existence?
> >
discern
> > it exists?
> >
> > Hannele
> > aa #2221
>
>
> I'll admit that's a tough one, Hannele, and it would be presumptuous of me
> to act as if I have a definitive answer. When we look around at the beauty
> of this planet and the universe as revealed in relative recent history by
> the Hubble telescope, we only scratch the surface of the beauty of the
> Divine Soul that surely designed everything. Do you agree?
>
>
"wow-this-is-so-wonderful-there-must-be-a-god" argument, yet again. Sort of
unoriginal, really, and hardly insightful.
regards
Milan
Precision
I would take your advice if it weren't for the fact that it is real and
applies to everybody.
You can believe in something that's real.
Precision
Some of the oldest arguments have passed the test of time.
Precision
"Your Name Here=Harvey" <ki...@ing.notin.aus> wrote in message
news:dmqfcc$3r8$4...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
I agree. Religion has been bastardized by the forces of evil over the
centuries and has turned into a snare and a racket designed to keep millions
in spiritual darkness.
> You can use reason and logic to sort out what is true and what isn't. What
> is
> possible and what is impossible. The human imagination can be used for
> creative positive ends, or negative destructive ends.
I agree.
> Religion has used peoples' imagination for the latter.
Let's qualify religions that manipulates others into doing their bidding
instead of fulfilling God will as *false* religions. You don't want to make
the mistake of throwing out the baby with its bathwater by ruling out ALL
religion as false.
> Religion needs to be accountable for the claims (and promises) to make
> them pay for what they have done. Otherwise they'll get away with murder,
> and
> they have.
>
> Harvey
I couldn't agree more. Religion has committed atrocities in God's namesake
over the millennia and the book of Revelation goes so far to compare
religion to a whore. (Compare the book of Revelation chapter 17.) And a
murdering whore at that. (Revelation 17:6) The prophesy foretells the
destruction of the world's empire of false religions. These scriptures are
warning that the governments who were her former customers will come to hate
her. She will be humiliated when they strip her naked publicly before a
worldwide audience and execute her by burning her alive in a horrifying
death. These scriptures express a deep hatred for false religion that false
religious institutions have earned over the last two thousand years. The
churches engaging in hypocrisy are in fact engaging in spiritual
prostitution.
You are absolutely right to feel disgust and outrage against false religious
institutions that manipulate and use people. True religion brings the true
message of the Holy Bible to comfort the masses and bring them hope of a
peaceful new world in God's due time.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:kdl0p11glq72s0i3v...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 01:48:55 -0800, "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>news:9q0to1p4aem5b6p1i...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:56:07 -0800, "Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I agree it would be sad if anyone or any organization insolently claimed
>>>>>ownership of that knowledge. Christ died for all humans on this planet
>>>>>not only those who adhered to any one religion.
>>>>
>>>> Arrogant, ignorant bullshit. Your religion's mythical superhero, if he
>>>> existed at all, didn't die for me.
>>>
>>>How do you know that.
>>
>> Idiot. It's your fucking religious belief, that's all. Keep it to
>> yourself instead of arrogantly talking as though it were real and
>> applied to everybody.
>
>I would take your advice if it weren't for the fact that it is real and
>applies to everybody.
In your dreams, moron.
It is merely your religious belief. The arrogant bullshit came when
you talked down at us as though it were real.
If you imagine it is then you first have to prove it.
>You can believe in something that's real.
You CAN. But in this case it is merely the hero figure from your
religion's mythology.
It is arrogantly, condescendingly, disrespectfully rude to talk AT
people outside your religion as though it were real.
But you sociopaths can't grasp this.
Precision
Simply that unlike those fantasy characters of the imagination, God is a
scientific reality and mankind's ultimate salvation.
>>I use the word primitive only in the context of what scientists
>> say we would be in relation to, say, a civilization that is millions of
>> years ahead of ours.
>
> A civilization millions of years ahead of ours would likely not believe in
> imaginary beings.
Quite the contrary, I believe they would KNOW that the universe could not
have possibly come into existence through mere chance and circumstance.
>>What tools would THEY have that we are not advanced
>> enough to even comprehend let alone know about, that could possibly
>> answer
>> your reasonable questions of who God is? Could their advanced spiritual
> and
>> intelligent state after millions of years give them tools that would
> baffle
>> science today, that could quantify the unfathomable amount of information
>> about this Vast Intelligence that all the computers on Earth today could
>> only scratch the surface of?
>
> We can only guess. This type of speculation is utterly pointless.
Before we can obtain the scientific evidence you claim is necessary to
convince you God exists, we first have to attempt to quantify God in terms
we can all understand.
>> The problem is that we simply do not know those answers. Should we be
>> like
>> our primitive ancestors and simply dismiss that which we cannot
> understand,
>> because we do not have the tools necessary to answer even the simple
>> questions you asked? What can possibly bridge the gap between our
> primitive
>> nature as an infant civilization in relation to the possible billions of
>> civilizations millions or even billions of years ahead of ours?
>
> Who knows?
Exactly.
>> I content the answer to that last question can be summed up in a word:
>> faith.
>
> Yes. That's why all the speculation on scientific methods and the
> hypothetical capabilities of advanced civilizations are empty blather.
> People believe in god because they believe in god.
Or because they have experiences that convince them a greater Entity exists,
leading them on a quest to seek the truth about God.
>> We need faith and the humility to bridge that gap.
>
> No, we dont need faith. You like to think that faith would bridge the gap.
> Faith would expand it.
Quite the opposite. Faith galvanizes people to seek the truth about the
object of their faith.
>>Otherwise, we would
>> simply exist without the possibility of knowing even a glimmer of truth
> for
>> a brief and fleeting moment in relation to this universe. Consider the
>> numbers of years and distances that represent space/time is so vast we
> could
>> not store a single one of those numbers using all the data storage space
> on
>> Earth today. We as an emerging civilization cannot possibly know what we
>> might know millions of years from now. Therefore, we must bridge the gap
>> between the complete spiritual and intellectual darkness that engulfs our
>> primitive nature and our existence in the distant future with faith.
>
> Pure unadulterated hollow babble. Just give one reason to postulate a
> "god"
> exists.
>
> regards
> Milan
One reason only?
Alright. The knowledge of our Creator will give bring us closer to
understanding the meaning of life. Isn't that a good enough reason to move
forward into a vast ocean of many other equally compelling reasons to
postulate a God exists?
Precision
"F. Frederick Skitty" <ffc...@orion-nebula.fsnet.uk> wrote in message
news:dmpklg$ld4$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
That's a cynical point of view that is based on pure speculation.
Precision
<jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:u4_jf.22901$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
I don't blame you for being skeptical. Regrettably many who have waited for
something better to come along from science have been repeatedly let down as
some new theory dismantles previous theories. Sometimes we have to go out on
a proverbial limb and decide for ourselves what actually happened based on
our own research. The worst that can happen is currently scientific theories
will shoot it down.