Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights Gay and Lesbian Political Rights Forum - For topics and discussions about LGBT


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 12th, 2012, 11:06 AM   #31
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
It is NOT "reasonable" (or rational) to believe in ANYTHING without empirical evidence...


Why not?



Do you believe in love?
garysher is offline  
Old February 12th, 2012, 12:57 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329076868' post='382606

It is NOT "reasonable" (or rational) to believe in ANYTHING without empirical evidence...


Why not?



Do you believe in love?


And there is plenty of empirical evidence for love....



There is none for a supernatrual diety.
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Old February 12th, 2012, 01:00 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Up in the hills hidin' out
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1329077170' post='382607

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329076868' post='382606']

It is NOT "reasonable" (or rational) to believe in ANYTHING without empirical evidence...


Why not?



Do you believe in love?


And there is plenty of empirical evidence for love....



There is none for a supernatrual diety.

[/quote]



There was enough for Einstein. He believed in a Creator.
Tony Perkins is offline  
Old February 12th, 2012, 01:15 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Perkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329083861' post='382618

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1329077170' post='382607']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329076868' post='382606']

It is NOT "reasonable" (or rational) to believe in ANYTHING without empirical evidence...


Why not?



Do you believe in love?


And there is plenty of empirical evidence for love....



There is none for a supernatrual diety.

[/quote]



There was enough for Einstein. He believed in a Creator.

[/quote]



Nope, Einstein believed in "Spinoza's God"...He did not believe in a personal creator in the form of an omnipotent being. He believed in "the God of Nature" or "Nature's God"...the overall wonder of the universe...not in a intelligent being who created the universe.



"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems." - Albert Einstien in a letter to Murray W. Gross dated April 26, 1947



In 1954 or 1955 Eienstein letter citing a statement of his and a seemingly contradictory statement by a noted evolutionist concerning the place of intelligence in the Universe. Here is a translation of the German draft of a reply. It is not known whether a reply was actually sent:



"The misunderstanding here is due to a faulty translation of a German text, in particular the use of the word "mystical." I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." - Albert Eienstien











But even if Einstien believed in the God of the Jewish/Christian tradition...so what? It proves nothing. A human being is a very complex creature....you can hold the most rational views on subject A and still be completely irrational on subject B. Showing that somene very smart in the area of physics believed in a personal God proves nothing about the actual existence of that personal God
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Old February 12th, 2012, 01:21 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Up in the hills hidin' out
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329084033' post='382619

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329083861' post='382618']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1329077170' post='382607']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329076868' post='382606']

It is NOT "reasonable" (or rational) to believe in ANYTHING without empirical evidence...


Why not?



Do you believe in love?


And there is plenty of empirical evidence for love....



There is none for a supernatrual diety.

[/quote]



There was enough for Einstein. He believed in a Creator.

[/quote]



Nope, Einstein believed in "Spinoza's God"...He did not believe in a personal creator in the form of an omnipotent being. He believed in "the God of Nature" or "Nature's God"...the overall wonder of the universe...not in a intelligent being who created the universe.



"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems." - Albert Einstien in a letter to Murray W. Gross dated April 26, 1947



In 1954 or 1955 Eienstein letter citing a statement of his and a seemingly contradictory statement by a noted evolutionist concerning the place of intelligence in the Universe. Here is a translation of the German draft of a reply. It is not known whether a reply was actually sent:



"The misunderstanding here is due to a faulty translation of a German text, in particular the use of the word "mystical." I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." - Albert Eienstien











But even if Einstien believed in the God of the Jewish/Christian tradition...so what? It proves nothing. A human being is a very complex creature....you can hold the most rational views on subject A and still be completely irrational on subject B. Showing that somene very smart in the area of physics believed in a personal God proves nothing about the actual existence of that personal God

[/quote]



Einstein clearly believed in an "INTELLIGENT" creator. Ingelligence is a living being.



"In a 1930 essay entitled “What I Believe” Einstein wrote: “To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man” (Ibid. 47).

He also made the following statement in an essay entitled “The Religiousness of Science,” which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title “The World As I See It”:



“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire” (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added])."



http://www.rae.org/E...ntelDesign.html
Tony Perkins is offline  
Old February 12th, 2012, 01:34 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Perkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329084958' post='382620

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329084033' post='382619']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329083861' post='382618']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1329077170' post='382607']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329076868' post='382606']

It is NOT "reasonable" (or rational) to believe in ANYTHING without empirical evidence...


Why not?



Do you believe in love?


And there is plenty of empirical evidence for love....



There is none for a supernatrual diety.

[/quote]



There was enough for Einstein. He believed in a Creator.

[/quote]



Nope, Einstein believed in "Spinoza's God"...He did not believe in a personal creator in the form of an omnipotent being. He believed in "the God of Nature" or "Nature's God"...the overall wonder of the universe...not in a intelligent being who created the universe.



"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems." - Albert Einstien in a letter to Murray W. Gross dated April 26, 1947



In 1954 or 1955 Eienstein letter citing a statement of his and a seemingly contradictory statement by a noted evolutionist concerning the place of intelligence in the Universe. Here is a translation of the German draft of a reply. It is not known whether a reply was actually sent:



"The misunderstanding here is due to a faulty translation of a German text, in particular the use of the word "mystical." I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." - Albert Eienstien











But even if Einstien believed in the God of the Jewish/Christian tradition...so what? It proves nothing. A human being is a very complex creature....you can hold the most rational views on subject A and still be completely irrational on subject B. Showing that somene very smart in the area of physics believed in a personal God proves nothing about the actual existence of that personal God

[/quote]



Einstein clearly believed in an "INTELLIGENT" creator. Ingelligence is a living being.



"In a 1930 essay entitled “What I Believe” Einstein wrote: “To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man” (Ibid. 47).

He also made the following statement in an essay entitled “The Religiousness of Science,” which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title “The World As I See It”:



“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire” (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added])."



http://www.rae.org/E...ntelDesign.html

[/quote]



1) You complain about people posting quotes and references from "atheist" sites.....well what about this? www.rae.org (Revolution Against Evolution)...why are we to take them seriously on anything havng to do with this?



2) Even if you want to use them as a source, the first quote from Einstien one what he believes says NOTHING about an intelligence.... “To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man”...Einstein was simply acknowledging that the universe was far bigger, far more complex that what our minds can grasp....and at this point in history he was correct, we are only begining to understand how the universe works. Does that mean it will ALWAYS be beyond our minds ability to grasp? No...but it sure as hell does not mean that there is some kind of greater mind out there that concieved.



3) I see you completely ignore Einstiens quotes about his PERSONAL belief that an anthropomorphic God is not something he can take seriously. Instead you try to counter a quote where he used the word "intelligent" describing a generic scientist.
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Old February 12th, 2012, 01:36 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Up in the hills hidin' out
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329085298' post='382621

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329084958' post='382620']

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329084033' post='382619']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329083861' post='382618']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1329077170' post='382607']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329076868' post='382606']

It is NOT "reasonable" (or rational) to believe in ANYTHING without empirical evidence...


Why not?



Do you believe in love?


And there is plenty of empirical evidence for love....



There is none for a supernatrual diety.

[/quote]



There was enough for Einstein. He believed in a Creator.

[/quote]



Nope, Einstein believed in "Spinoza's God"...He did not believe in a personal creator in the form of an omnipotent being. He believed in "the God of Nature" or "Nature's God"...the overall wonder of the universe...not in a intelligent being who created the universe.



"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems." - Albert Einstien in a letter to Murray W. Gross dated April 26, 1947



In 1954 or 1955 Eienstein letter citing a statement of his and a seemingly contradictory statement by a noted evolutionist concerning the place of intelligence in the Universe. Here is a translation of the German draft of a reply. It is not known whether a reply was actually sent:



"The misunderstanding here is due to a faulty translation of a German text, in particular the use of the word "mystical." I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." - Albert Eienstien











But even if Einstien believed in the God of the Jewish/Christian tradition...so what? It proves nothing. A human being is a very complex creature....you can hold the most rational views on subject A and still be completely irrational on subject B. Showing that somene very smart in the area of physics believed in a personal God proves nothing about the actual existence of that personal God

[/quote]



Einstein clearly believed in an "INTELLIGENT" creator. Ingelligence is a living being.



"In a 1930 essay entitled “What I Believe” Einstein wrote: “To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man” (Ibid. 47).

He also made the following statement in an essay entitled “The Religiousness of Science,” which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title “The World As I See It”:



“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire” (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added])."



http://www.rae.org/E...ntelDesign.html

[/quote]



1) You complain about people posting quotes and references from "atheist" sites.....well what about this? www.rae.org (Revolution Against Evolution)...why are we to take them seriously on anything havng to do with this?



2) Even if you want to use them as a source, the first quote from Einstien one what he believes says NOTHING about an intelligence.... “To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man”...Einstein was simply acknowledging that the universe was far bigger, far more complex that what our minds can grasp....and at this point in history he was correct, we are only begining to understand how the universe works. Does that mean it will ALWAYS be beyond our minds ability to grasp? No...but it sure as hell does not mean that there is some kind of greater mind out there that concieved.



3) I see you completely ignore Einstiens quotes about his PERSONAL belief that an anthropomorphic God is not something he can take seriously. Instead you try to counter a quote where he used the word "intelligent" describing a generic scientist.

[/quote]



This quote is all I need to prove Einstein believed in 'Intelligent Design", which means a "Creator".



If you don't believe Einstein was speaking of a "Creator", then tell us who this intelligence is that is so superior to man?



“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire."
Tony Perkins is offline  
Old February 12th, 2012, 03:02 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1329074237' post='382591

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329072822' post='382584']

[quote name='PaperAlchemist' timestamp='1329072185' post='382582']

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329071407' post='382579']

[quote name='PaperAlchemist' timestamp='1329071196' post='382578']

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329071013' post='382576']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1329066367' post='382563']

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329065910' post='382559']

Atheism is a religion. The atheist "believes" there is no God. Therefore, he has a "belief", a "faith".


Hmmmm, been down this road before, and I guarantee it's going to snow some.....






Logical argument in my opinion. Of course I don't expect athiests to agree with the logic. When you live in La La Land, you make it up as you go along.

[/quote]



Funny how you say atheists live in la la land when Christians follow a religion based around virgin births and talking snakes. Now, I don't have a problem with the Christian religion but when it is misused, then I have a problem.



But I don't feel like getting into that, instead, I'll say this:



I'm not an Atheist, and I don't speak for Atheists, but I don't believe that Atheism is a religion. It is a form of thinking, but it is not a religion. Having a belief does not constitute having a religion. I think you're confusing things here. And then of course the last part of your post is just another childish insult that you decided to throw in there.

[/quote]



Are you an agnostic or do you believe there is a Creator?

[/quote]



No idea. I don't follow the Christian faith, but I'm not an Atheist, nor do I consider myself an agnostic.

[/quote]



So why do you have a problem with people who believe in a virgin birth and talking snakes? If there is a Creator, wouldn't the Creator of the universe be able to create a virgin birth and a talking snake? Seems that would be small stuff. So me mocking athiests is wrong, but you mocking Christians is perfectly okay?

[/quote]



I don't think PA was using those terms in a mocking manner, though some here regularly do use those terms to ridicule.



One of the primary questions a person's worldview answers is the origin of everything. "Creator" is a good, all-inclusive term, and some believe that a creator is responsible for the universe, its physical laws, and life itself.



Of course, agnostics simply say, "We don't know." Atheists, however, assume there's a "natural" reason for the universe and all in it. That answer begs the question, "What's responsible for natural laws?"



While empirical evidence for a creator isn't available, theists at least admit that intelligence greater than ours, intelligence that may be located in extra-dimensional locales, is reasonable. It is reasonable to believe that. In fact, it's arrogant to deny that.



Arrogance is a trait of some atheists, inarguably, and some theists too.

[/quote]



This is also incorrect.



An atheist does not "assume" there is a natural reason for the unviverse. An atheist simply does not believe in a supernatural explanation since there is no evidence of such an explanaition.



It is NOT "reasonable" (or rational) to believe in ANYTHING without empirical evidence....that is, in fact, the defintion of UNresasonalble (or IRrational). The very root of the word reasonable is REASON....to believe in something with no evidence (or no reason) is, by definition, UNreasonable.

[/quote]



Clearly, you put full faith in reason and three-dimensional science and their full ability to describe eventually, in three-dimensional terms, the reality in which we live.



It's a wholly unsubstantiated faith, yet you promote this faith with evangelical zeal.



You could say, well look at the track record so far. I hope you don't say that. It would be, logically, a scientific version of an appeal to tradition.
imaginethat is offline  
Old February 12th, 2012, 03:05 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Perkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329086058' post='382624

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329085298' post='382621']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329084958' post='382620']

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329084033' post='382619']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329083861' post='382618']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1329077170' post='382607']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329076868' post='382606']

It is NOT "reasonable" (or rational) to believe in ANYTHING without empirical evidence...


Why not?



Do you believe in love?


And there is plenty of empirical evidence for love....



There is none for a supernatrual diety.

[/quote]



There was enough for Einstein. He believed in a Creator.

[/quote]



Nope, Einstein believed in "Spinoza's God"...He did not believe in a personal creator in the form of an omnipotent being. He believed in "the God of Nature" or "Nature's God"...the overall wonder of the universe...not in a intelligent being who created the universe.



"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems." - Albert Einstien in a letter to Murray W. Gross dated April 26, 1947



In 1954 or 1955 Eienstein letter citing a statement of his and a seemingly contradictory statement by a noted evolutionist concerning the place of intelligence in the Universe. Here is a translation of the German draft of a reply. It is not known whether a reply was actually sent:



"The misunderstanding here is due to a faulty translation of a German text, in particular the use of the word "mystical." I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." - Albert Eienstien











But even if Einstien believed in the God of the Jewish/Christian tradition...so what? It proves nothing. A human being is a very complex creature....you can hold the most rational views on subject A and still be completely irrational on subject B. Showing that somene very smart in the area of physics believed in a personal God proves nothing about the actual existence of that personal God

[/quote]



Einstein clearly believed in an "INTELLIGENT" creator. Ingelligence is a living being.



"In a 1930 essay entitled “What I Believe” Einstein wrote: “To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man” (Ibid. 47).

He also made the following statement in an essay entitled “The Religiousness of Science,” which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title “The World As I See It”:



“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire” (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added])."



http://www.rae.org/E...ntelDesign.html

[/quote]



1) You complain about people posting quotes and references from "atheist" sites.....well what about this? www.rae.org (Revolution Against Evolution)...why are we to take them seriously on anything havng to do with this?



2) Even if you want to use them as a source, the first quote from Einstien one what he believes says NOTHING about an intelligence.... “To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man”...Einstein was simply acknowledging that the universe was far bigger, far more complex that what our minds can grasp....and at this point in history he was correct, we are only begining to understand how the universe works. Does that mean it will ALWAYS be beyond our minds ability to grasp? No...but it sure as hell does not mean that there is some kind of greater mind out there that concieved.



3) I see you completely ignore Einstiens quotes about his PERSONAL belief that an anthropomorphic God is not something he can take seriously. Instead you try to counter a quote where he used the word "intelligent" describing a generic scientist.

[/quote]



This quote is all I need to prove Einstein believed in 'Intelligent Design", which means a "Creator".



If you don't believe Einstein was speaking of a "Creator", then tell us who this intelligence is that is so superior to man?



“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire."

[/quote]



You have one quote of Einstien talking about "the scientist" (a generic trerm not referring to his own beliefs) that mentions an "intelligence"...



Meanwhile I can give you at least a dozen quotes where Einstien empahtically states that he, personally, does not believe in a personal ahthropomorphic God....yet you don't address those.



So why should I be answering your question while you ignore mine?
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Old February 12th, 2012, 03:11 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1329076868' post='382606

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1329074237' post='382591']

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329072822' post='382584']

[quote name='PaperAlchemist' timestamp='1329072185' post='382582']

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329071407' post='382579']

[quote name='PaperAlchemist' timestamp='1329071196' post='382578']

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329071013' post='382576']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1329066367' post='382563']

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1329065910' post='382559']

Atheism is a religion. The atheist "believes" there is no God. Therefore, he has a "belief", a "faith".


Hmmmm, been down this road before, and I guarantee it's going to snow some.....






Logical argument in my opinion. Of course I don't expect athiests to agree with the logic. When you live in La La Land, you make it up as you go along.

[/quote]



Funny how you say atheists live in la la land when Christians follow a religion based around virgin births and talking snakes. Now, I don't have a problem with the Christian religion but when it is misused, then I have a problem.



But I don't feel like getting into that, instead, I'll say this:



I'm not an Atheist, and I don't speak for Atheists, but I don't believe that Atheism is a religion. It is a form of thinking, but it is not a religion. Having a belief does not constitute having a religion. I think you're confusing things here. And then of course the last part of your post is just another childish insult that you decided to throw in there.

[/quote]



Are you an agnostic or do you believe there is a Creator?

[/quote]



No idea. I don't follow the Christian faith, but I'm not an Atheist, nor do I consider myself an agnostic.

[/quote]



So why do you have a problem with people who believe in a virgin birth and talking snakes? If there is a Creator, wouldn't the Creator of the universe be able to create a virgin birth and a talking snake? Seems that would be small stuff. So me mocking athiests is wrong, but you mocking Christians is perfectly okay?

[/quote]



I don't think PA was using those terms in a mocking manner, though some here regularly do use those terms to ridicule.



One of the primary questions a person's worldview answers is the origin of everything. "Creator" is a good, all-inclusive term, and some believe that a creator is responsible for the universe, its physical laws, and life itself.



Of course, agnostics simply say, "We don't know." Atheists, however, assume there's a "natural" reason for the universe and all in it. That answer begs the question, "What's responsible for natural laws?"



While empirical evidence for a creator isn't available, theists at least admit that intelligence greater than ours, intelligence that may be located in extra-dimensional locales, is reasonable. It is reasonable to believe that. In fact, it's arrogant to deny that.



Arrogance is a trait of some atheists, inarguably, and some theists too.

[/quote]



This is also incorrect.



An atheist does not "assume" there is a natural reason for the unviverse. An atheist simply does not believe in a supernatural explanation since there is no evidence of such an explanaition.



It is NOT "reasonable" (or rational) to believe in ANYTHING without empirical evidence....that is, in fact, the defintion of UNresasonalble (or IRrational). The very root of the word reasonable is REASON....to believe in something with no evidence (or no reason) is, by definition, UNreasonable.

[/quote]



Clearly, you put full faith in reason and three-dimensional science and their ability to describe the reality in which we live.



It's unsubstantiated faith.



You could say, well look at the track record so far. I hope you don't say that. It would be, logically, a scientific version of an appeal to tradition.

[/quote]



No, tradition are beliefs and rituals that are sustained simply through repetition...



Scientific progress is continually checked and revised by observation....



I do say look at the track record so far.....we have gone from a species of cave dwellers to a species that has landed men on another celestial body. That wasn't done by tradition....tradition told us that man could not fly (The story of Icarus)...that if we, as a race, attempted to reach for the sky that God would object (The story of the tower of Babylon). Those are traditions.



It is the scientific method, that took us out of those caves and landed us on the moon, that questioned those traditions and found them unsatisfactory.
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Tags
acted, atheists, religious



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
.............. What About the Atheists ? dadman Atheism 170 November 28th, 2012 04:03 AM
What Atheists Are dusty Atheism 341 November 26th, 2012 01:43 PM
Sheriff: Suspect may not have acted alone msnbc.com Current Events 1 January 17th, 2011 07:15 AM
Obama: Police 'acted stupidly' in Harvard arrest CNN Current Events 217 August 16th, 2009 05:54 PM
Religious people discriminate Atheists DONT!! Adam&Steve Religion 7 March 2nd, 2007 01:44 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.