Abert Einstein did not believe in God

[ehanes7612]

In religious societies some ethic rules are overlaid by other rules.So religious societies have partly different rules and not all general ethic rules are accepted.

Can you provide an example? because religious texts are extremely complicated and highly articulate. Generally speaking, they cover pretty much every ethical value ever conceived by humans...every religion has issues with coveting, with precedent of God, murder , stealing, adultery , suicide, familial authority , lying, honoring important days...I doubt you can find any ethical value in secular human societies that doesn't have its counterpart in religion...obviously religion adds

 

[Hien]

On one point I agree with you.
There are many people who need a God. This God tells them not to kill their neighbor. We call that ethics.
Albert Einstein and me are not among these people.

But sometimes this God forgets to explain to them that they should not kill the disbelieving neighbor from the side road either. That we call religion.

Since you and Einstein know for sure that there is no God,
I would like to pose a few questions to you:
on the inside of things,
-do particles know they are inside a virus?
-do virus know they are inside an ant?
on the outside of things,
-does an ant know that there is a human being out there?
So how do you actually know that you are not a virus inside God, how do you know for certain there is not a God outside of you that you are not capable of observing. Same for Einstein, he can not prove that something is not in existence just because he can not see it, feel it, touch it, aware of it. What he said is pure personal sentiment, neither logical nor scientific, what experiment did he perform to prove that God does not exist?

-how much awareness do you think we have, even physically, we are not aware of many phenomena beyond our senses, some animals could see things we could not, some of them could hear things we could not.
Everything else we rely on machines to measure for us, to see for us, to hear for us, to tell us certain things exist. Do you think machines can tell you, can prove to you that there is no God?

For me, I conclude that I would not be able to say that there is God, and I would not be able to say that there is no God either. That is the most reasonable conclusion.

And if you think that scientists have all the answers, ask them, what the universe is inside of ? if they tell you it is inside something, ask them what that thing is inside of? they can keep going forever, and like the russian doll
in reverse to infinitive. Human is so arrogant , thinking his little brain can explain the ultimate .
Even if Einstein is still alive, he will not be able to tell you anything about it. he would not be able to , what ever he or anyone can come up with is pure bull.... No human brain can solve it.
They say it starts with a big bang, really, what was before it? out of nothing? where does that nothing reside in?

 

[ehanes7612]

Ohh.. geezus...Skopes trial all over again..Hien is drawing the sword of God.. he's set to smite his enemies..those damn heathens

I find it hilarious that a dead man (Einstein) can cause so much ruckus..


......oh wait

 

[Berthold]

..I doubt you can find any ethical value in secular human societies that doesn't have its counterpart in religion...obviously religion adds

No, religion does not expand but restricts, for example, on the equality of people between the sexes or sexual orientation (Death penalty on homosexuality in Islamic Saudi Arabia or stoning in Iran).
Also check out the rules of scientologists.

 

[Berthold]

Since you and Einstein know for sure that there is no God,

No, no. no. Stop.

No one knows if there is a god.
Einstein suspects there is no god. He can't prove it, of course, and he doesn't want to prove it. So do I.
Einstein sees no reason to accept the existence of a god. So do I.
Einstein doesn't need and seek life support in a religion. So do I.

I would just like to see better support against the Administration of this forum and for better cultivation of some special orchids.

For me, I conclude that I would not be able to say that there is God, and I would not be able to say that there is no God either. That is the most reasonable conclusion.

Absolute correct.

 

[Ray]

No, religion does not expand but restricts, for example, on the equality of people between the sexes or sexual orientation (Death penalty on homosexuality in Islamic Saudi Arabia or stoning in Iran).
Also check out the rules of scientologists.

I think you are grossly overstepping by cherry-picking bad examples and applying it so broadly.

 

[Berthold]

I think you are grossly overstepping by cherry-picking bad examples and applying it so broadly.

Ray, I only picked up the biggest cherries, there are a lot more of them.
But nevertheless, only a single example would be good enough to confirm my statements.

 

[Berthold]

The general consensus is that there is a tax if you were baptized (because then you are automatically considered a Christian) unless you "officially" renounce your faith. I am not entirely sure what they mean by "officially" ..

That is the essential difference between tax and membership fee for a club or other association:
The membership fee You can avoid by official revoke Your membership. In most cases, you have to comply with a notice period. That You can do at any time for the membership of the Christians Churches, even without notice period.

I would appreciate very much to revoke my membership in the German state in order to save income tax. Not really, because I like to pay taxes.

 

[xiphius]

That is the essential difference between tax and membership fee for a club or other association:
The membership fee You can avoid by official revoke Your membership.

I would appreciate very much to revoke my membership in the German state in order to save income tax. Not really, because I like to pay taxes.

Exactly. The only difference is that a membership fee is collected and administered by a private organization for the members. Tax is essentially "membership fees" for a country (as you stated) and is collected by the government. Since the government collects the fees for the church and manages membership in the church as an organization, it is most definitely a tax.... If this tax was managed by a church or churches individually, it would be easier to avoid (just don't go to this or that church). The church would also have less of a legal avenue to come after you if you don't pay the fee (the worst a private organization can really do is kick you out for not paying dues...). Having the government manage church membership and collect dues for them inexorably intertwines church and state (to a level that I find a bit unsettling, but then, I am not a very religious person).

Also, I find the notion of having to pay a church tax just because your parents decided to get you baptized, even if you don't, and have never, attended church to be a bit ridiculous in today's world. Non-practicing Christians have already been discussed above.

 

[Berthold]

Exactly. The only difference is that a membership fee is collected and administered by a private organization for the members. Tax is essentially "membership fees" for a country (as you stated) and is collected by the government. Since the government collects the fees for the church and manages membership in the church as an organization, it is most definitely a tax.... If this tax was managed by a church or churches individually, it would be easier to avoid (just don't go to this or that church). The church would also have less of a legal avenue to come after you if you don't pay the fee (the worst a private organization can really do is kick you out for not paying dues...). Having the government manage church membership and collect dues for them inexorably intertwines church and state (to a level that I find a bit unsettling, but then, I am not a very religious person).

Also, I find the notion of having to pay a church tax just because your parents decided to get you baptized, even if you don't, and have never, attended church to be a bit ridiculous in today's world. Non-practicing Christians have already been discussed above.

The Church is similar to a club/association, where you must also officially declare your exit in order to avoid the contribution.
The absence is not enough.

You can explain your church exit to the pastor in his clubhouse.
This paper confirmed by the pastor You send to Your tax office. That's it.
It's not much more difficult than to leave the rifle club.

But the connection between state and church is still far too close in Germany.
Even the word "God" You find in our constitution, luckily not on our banknotes :wink:.

 

[Hien]

Ohh.. geezus...Skopes trial all over again..Hien is drawing the sword of God.. he's set to smite his enemies..those damn heathens

I find it hilarious that a dead man (Einstein) can cause so much ruckus..


......oh wait

:wink: You know, it is very hard to resist chiming in when Bert posts something, I found the topics that Bert chose fascinating .:wink:
wait, Einstein might not be fully a dead man yet.
In another parallel universe, or other parallel universes , where time runs slower, or much more advance in life extension science, many Einsteins may still be alive , in one of those, he may not even be a scientist, just a garbage man , and never write that letter, and we never have this discussion on the Slippertalk.

 

[Berthold]

:wink: You know, it is very hard to resist chiming in when Bert posts something, I found the topics that Bert chose fascinating .:wink:

Berthold is an expert on religions now..since you know..he was a power utilities engineer..so obvious

(from his deleted post)

Yes, in this forum You will quickly become an expert in all fields, as confirmed by ehanes7612 as well.

 

[h_mossy]

I believe the Einstein said he was not an atheist, but was an agnostic. I'm sure that could be looked up, and either de-bunked or reinforced.

 

[Berthold]

I believe the Einstein said he was not an atheist, but was an agnostic.

He was an agnostic atheist.

 

[Happypaphy7]

No, religion does not expand but restricts, for example, on the equality of people between the sexes or sexual orientation (Death penalty on homosexuality in Islamic Saudi Arabia or stoning in Iran).
Also check out the rules of scientologists.

I agree.

 

[Happypaphy7]

What was Your maximum offer for the letter in auction?

I went to have a close look at the letter, not to participate in the auction itself.
I knew it would go for a big sum of money.

 

[ehanes7612]

No, religion does not expand but restricts, for example, on the equality of people between the sexes or sexual orientation (Death penalty on homosexuality in Islamic Saudi Arabia or stoning in Iran).
Also check out the rules of scientologists.

I did not say "EXPAND". You should learn to ask questions about language idiosyncracies or at least look at the word in the context of the statement, but even so..German is complicated enough not to pigeon hole words into singular meanings, so you should know better (unless you want to be thought of as closed minded) ... I said ..'add'.. meaning, Religion 'ADDS' more rules...which is what you do when you 'RESTRICT"

 

[cnycharles]

Fascinating discussion, and very well-behaved; im impressed! This is a great exchange

From historical things Id seen over time, it seemed like Einstein was relatively agnostic. Using English terms to describe levels of religious faith can be dicey, especially when people who marginally use it or you have different countries the variations of English are coming from.

The word atheist from Greek I had heard was used more from people whose mindset was that they believed firmly that there was no God, or in the back of their mind they knew there was God but they had decided to stick out their lower lip, cross their arms and *not believe* in the form of turning their back and spiritually turning away purposely with desires of rejection.

Agnostic from what I’d gathered from people who had called themselves such, were on the fence not really knowing, not rejecting, just being of the mind that if there were proof someday they could follow or acknowledge the existence, not much emotion or angst either way. In my small and humble opinion a good number of very vocal atheists had had a life event which made them angry or resentful of what they knew as God and had pronounceable turned and rejected. Im sure there are many others who feel science shows fully to them that testing hasnt shown a god so its not possible for Him to exist.

A few here have made good points about how do you prove or disprove existence of something that would expectedly be so much bigger than we are; modern science shows clearly that at certain physical states of higher or lower gravity, temperature, pressure and etcetera, the laws of physics and all seem to change. We strain to see and understand our internal and external world by our faint senses, equipment and mental processes... it has been my thought that our universe which we see and interpret as having been around for billions or googleplex oodles of years, could very well be the swirl of gases and sparks in the initially forming edge of a flame, on top of a match that God has struck to light his pipe . If how atoms and particles interact and things form changed by when an action or reaction process point has progressed, we could have trillions of lifetimes in the span of another existence just barely having started. We would never be able to measure. Science is just us scratching around trying to find appropriate yardsticks with which to try and make sense of what we have just barely begun to realize exists around us. For people to make such huge statements and pronouncements of what is or isnt, really is them making their own religion to prove there isnt a God, and wanting to fend off the others who say that there is One


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ehanes7612]

Fascinating discussion, and very well-behaved; im impressed! This is a great exchange

From historical things Id seen over time, it seemed like Einstein was relatively agnostic. Using English terms to describe levels of religious faith can be dicey, especially when people who marginally use it or you have different countries the variations of English are coming from.

The word atheist from Greek I had heard was used more from people whose mindset was that they believed firmly that there was no God, or in the back of their mind they knew there was God but they had decided to stick out their lower lip, cross their arms and *not believe* in the form of turning their back and spiritually turning away purposely with desires of rejection.

Agnostic from what I’d gathered from people who had called themselves such, were on the fence not really knowing, not rejecting, just being of the mind that if there were proof someday they could follow or acknowledge the existence, not much emotion or angst either way. In my small and humble opinion a good number of very vocal atheists had had a life event which made them angry or resentful of what they knew as God and had pronounceable turned and rejected. Im sure there are many others who feel science shows fully to them that testing hasnt shown a god so its not possible for Him to exist.

A few here have made good points about how do you prove or disprove existence of something that would expectedly be so much bigger than we are; modern science shows clearly that at certain physical states of higher or lower gravity, temperature, pressure and etcetera, the laws of physics and all seem to change. We strain to see and understand our internal and external world by our faint senses, equipment and mental processes... it has been my thought that our universe which we see and interpret as having been around for billions or googleplex oodles of years, could very well be the swirl of gases and sparks in the initially forming edge of a flame, on top of a match that God has struck to light his pipe . If how atoms and particles interact and things form changed by when an action or reaction process point has progressed, we could have trillions of lifetimes in the span of another existence just barely having started. We would never be able to measure. Science is just us scratching around trying to find appropriate yardsticks with which to try and make sense of what we have just barely begun to realize exists around us. For people to make such huge statements and pronouncements of what is or isnt, really is them making their own religion to prove there isnt a God, and wanting to fend off the others who say that there is One


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, people are complicated and self contradictory...often on the fence about deep philosophical issues..which, depending on where the pendulum swings, they may 'know' there is no god one day (when they are feeling cynical about the world for example) and maybe the next day they proclaim they dont know but dont believe


You made a very clear point about the distinction of our understanding of physics depending on the parameters involved. So often what the general public hears about science is filtered through media...which has its own agenda. As a student in physics..I have yet to see anyone express obstination about theoretical models without stating the preponderance of evidence. Often what is said about theoretical challenges is "then show me the evidence".

I have seen exchanges between noted scientists (in history) stick to their guns with what they believe ..getting into these ego battles of will..but these tend to be more about personality clashes among professionals. Physics rarely intersects with the general population in any meaningful way..and when it does (as in the case of special relativity)...much of it is strewed about by the media ..perhaps to create drama and red herrings...but in the end scientists are only human also..and susceptible to the same egotistical defenses that everyone on this board suffers from

 

[h_mossy]

Heard the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac?

He used to lay awake at night wondering if there really was a dog.