Torellion wrote:
Old men, rocks, trees, houses and cars are plain an booooring. If you exaggerate you will of course use stuff that is a bit far out, to make the point. We do it about every other thing we discuss so why is religion excempted from that?
I never said it was. Why do you think it is exempt? What I said was, that I dont believe in ridiculing people or labeling them. I might call people a lot of things in private, but I would never do so in public or in the presence of such people, because I understand that they are sensitive about it - that is, I understand how much their faith means to them and I believe it is their right to have one, even if I do think it is completely irrational. I would certainly express to them that I disagreed with teir faith, and debate it, but that's not what we are talking about here.
Torellion wrote:
I, for one, would label the american republicans idiots, politicians slimy, flat-earthers airheads and conspiracy theorists moronic. Apply any of these labels on any religious group and people cringe. WHY?
Because it reminds some of us of all the crap that has happened throughout history because people of a particular race/religion/sex/political view/ have been given a grossly generalized derogatory label.
Torellion wrote:
And what is wrong with the spagetti monster? It isn't an insult as much as it is just ridiculous. The religion isn't being compared to ze germans or other negative stuff, just ordinary silly stuff!
Like I said, it's aim is to ridicule, not to debate.
Torellion wrote:
Also, I do believe we have to make people less sensitive about their religions and this is one way to do it.
No, I dont believe we have to make people do anything when it comes to religion, except to follow the law like everybody else. Being sensitive abut your religion should not be banned. If you wan't to hurt people in order to make them be as sensitive about their religion as you would like, then I'd say that was incredibly unempathic of you, - especially if the religion you were talking about was a minority.
I dont belive in calling black people niggers either, even if that somehow over time might make them less sensitive to the word.
I got this one from a friend to today. Hope you enjoy.
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, the Almighty.
He asks one of his new students to stand and.....
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Is Satan good?
Student: No
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and serve the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, and smelled your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Yes, faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have any thing called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light.... But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it is called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class is in uproar.)
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelled it?..... No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student.)
Prof: Â Â Â Â Â Â I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it, sir.. The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.
Guess who that young man was ?
 Â
 ALBERT EINSTEIN......
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.
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind". Expanding on this he later wrote: "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza... I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."
or
Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
or
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. It is no mere chance that our older universities developed from clerical schools. Both churches and universities — insofar as they live up to their true function — serve the ennoblement of the individual. They seek to fulfill this great task by spreading moral and cultural understanding, renouncing the use of brute force.
The essential unity of ecclesiastical and secular institutions was lost during the 19th century, to the point of senseless hostility. Yet there was never any doubt as to the striving for culture. No one doubted the sacredness of the goal. It was the approach that was disputed.
"Moral Decay" (1937); Later published in Out of My Later Years (1950)
or (although disputed)
I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.
or
Viereck interview (1929)
"What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck" The Saturday Evening Post (26 October 1929) p. 17. As reported in Einstein — A Life (1996) by Denis Brian, when asked about a clipping from a magazine article reporting his comments on Christianity as taken down by Viereck, Einstein carefully read the clipping and replied, "That is what I believe."
-As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.
-Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.
-No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.
I agree that AE's religious belief can is a bit hard to figure out from the material presented. But my point was that the story is an urban myth.
It is a cute little story, although not really realistic, in my opinion
Spinoza's God? Maybe you should look up what that means before you use that quote to allege that Einstein believed in god. I have opened a new thread on this matter.
