Einstein Letter Critical of Religion To Be Auctioned On EBay

cheesecake23 writes "In an admirably concise piece in The Atlantic, Rebecca J. Rosen summarizes Einstein's subtle views on religion and profound respect for the inexplicable, along with the news that a letter handwritten by the legendary scientist that describes the Bible as a 'collection of honorable, but still primitive legends' and 'pretty childish' will be auctioned off on eBay over the next two weeks. Bidding will begin at $3 million."

Comments

2012

[coma_bug]

Einstein is dead. Jesus is alive.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

I just shit my pants and it's running down my legs.

Badum-tish!

Re:2012

[zippo01]

Um, something about Jesus, Jews and a cross, keeps coming to mind.

Re:2012

[ThatsMyNick]

Was it about, Jesus being cross with the Jews?

Re:2012

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Um, something about Jesus, Jews and a cross, keeps coming to mind.

You must mean the famous joke:

What happens when you drive nails through the hands of the son of a jewish carpenter? He gets very cross...

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it. Saying you feel it in your soul doesn't count. A book with very little forensic evidence backing it up, while concurrently having ample evidence of several rewrites by parties with something to gain over the centuries also doesn't count.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

No... why did Jesus get crucified? He forgot the safe word.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus promised the end of all wicked people.
Thor promised the end of all ice giants.

I don't see many ice giants around.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus continues to give us problems; Einsteins' many contributions continue to benefit us while he himself become forgotten.

Re:2012

[harlequinn]

Actually it's not a "book" as such. It is distinctly a collection of stories and letters that were at one stage compiled and bound together. The original authors never intended for them to be in a book. Many of the letters were probably never even meant for more than one person. Go figure.

What "ample evidence" is there that any individual part was rewritten?

Re:2012

[grouchomarxist]

All praise Thor!!

Re:2012

[coma_bug]

Prove it.

woosh. "2012" too subtle?

Re:2012

[Zuriel]

30 seconds on Google turned up this article and a speech on the subject.

The bible has been in human hands for centuries and copied by hand before printing presses came in. A spelling mistake here, bad handwriting there, the next guy comes along and misreads a word and then 'fixes' the sentence so that it makes sense. I'd be shocked if there was a single page in there that hadn't changed. And that's only accidental changes.

Looking at the things politicians do today, when it's easier to fact-check and catch them out than ever before, I find it completely believable that people just... mis-copied parts of the bible to justify whatever they felt like doing. It's not like people in the year 900 were going to get on Facebook and compare notes with people in other countries. They'd probably never touched a copy of the Bible. Probably couldn't read. A man with a bible could tell people it said anything. Make some changes in his copy, noone would ever know.

Re:2012

[thatskinnyguy]

...And a Spaniard.

Re:2012

[Smartcowboy]

Hey mod: This is not Flamebait -1. This should be Funny +1. It's funny. Laugh. Why so serious?

Re:2012

[Crypto Gnome]

The bible has been in human hands for centuries and copied by hand before printing presses came in. A spelling mistake here, bad handwriting there, the next guy comes along and misreads a word and then 'fixes' the sentence so that it makes sense. I'd be shocked if there was a single page in there that hadn't changed. And that's only accidental changes.

Of course, The Faithful claim that $DEITY in his glorious omnipotence has kept The Holy Word pure and absolutely identical to The Original.

In common-speek that's a circular proof and can thusly be completely ignored.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really sad, that grown men organize their lives around some rules that an iron age tribe wrote on the skin of dead animals to keep the peace in their tents.

Re:2012

[cold fjord]

The bible has been in human hands for centuries and copied by hand before printing presses came in. A spelling mistake here, bad handwriting there, the next guy comes along and misreads a word and then 'fixes' the sentence so that it makes sense. I'd be shocked if there was a single page in there that hadn't changed. And that's only accidental changes.

Looking at the things politicians do today, when it's easier to fact-check and catch them out than ever before, I find it completely believable that people just... mis-copied parts of the bible to justify whatever they felt like doing. It's not like people in the year 900 were going to get on Facebook and compare notes with people in other countries. They'd probably never touched a copy of the Bible. Probably couldn't read. A man with a bible could tell people it said anything. Make some changes in his copy, noone would ever know.

You are way wrong on this.

Transmission

B. The Masoretes

The Masoretic scribes (A.D. 500-1000) in charge of the Old Testament manuscript copying used a very meticulous system of transcription and had a deep reverence for the text. God used their almost obsessive respect for the text to preserve the text’s accuracy. They had specific rules on the type of ink and the quality and size of parchment sheets. No individual letter could be written down without having looked back at the copy in front of them. The scribe could not write God’s name with a newly dipped pen (lest it blotch) and even if the king should address him, while writing God’s name, he should take no notice of him. They were so meticulous that they counted all the paragraphs, words and even letters, so they could know by counting, if they had done it perfectly. They knew the middle letter of each book so they could count back and see if they had missed anything. . .

D. The Dead Sea Scrolls

Since the oldest complete copy of a Hebrew Old Testament in existence is dated about A.D. 1000, that’s a long time after the originals were written (1450-400 B.C.). But there are portions that date back farther. Most significant are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in caves in 1947 by an Arabian shepherd boy. These well-preserved Hebrew text fragments date back to 100 B.C. They include many Bible portions, including some complete books. Their value to the credibility of our Bible is that amazingly, there is virtual agreement between these Hebrew texts and the ones dated 1,100 years later! This proves how accurately the scribes copies for all those years.

The evidence shows that our Old Testaments today are extremely accurate reflections of the original manuscripts.

Meticulous Care in the Transmission of the Bible

So how reliable are the manuscripts that all these Bibles are translated from? The evidence is overwhelming and seldom disputed. Manuscripts prepared from different individuals spread over various parts of the Middle East and Mediterranean region agree remarkably with each other. Also, the manuscripts agree with the Septuagint, which was translated to Greek from Hebrew possibly as far back as the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1947 also provided a profound testimony to the reliability of the centuries of transmission of the Bible text, as every Old Testament book found was virtually word for word with today's Bible! (the few differences were "obvious slips of the pen or variations in spelling"1).

The scribes who were in charge of the Old Testament text dedicated their lives to preserving the text's accuracy when they made copies. The great lengths the scribes went to guarantee the reliability of the copies is illustrated by the fact that they would count every letter and every word, and record in the margins such things as the middle letter and word of the Torah. If

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

I asked God: "Do you want me to believe in you?" And God told me: "Write the following program, and you will receive my answer." I haven't run the program yet. Maybe I am scared of what it will tell me.

/* Copyright (C) 2012 God
  *
  * I asked God. Do you want me to believe in you? I didn't hear an answer, but
  * immediately after asking the question, this program formed inside my mind.
  * If God does indeed exist, then this program was given to me directly by God.
  * If God does not exist, then this program must have been formed by my own
  * mind. And my intelligent reasoning tells me, that if God exists, then God
  * controls the output of this program, and if the program produces a
  * nontrivial output, then the message was indeed carrying a digital signature
  * produced by God himself. Thus the output will be authentic.
  */
#include <openssl/sha.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
#include <sys/fcntl.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define RANDOM_SOURCE "/dev/random"
ssize_t read_retry(int fd, uint8_t *buf, size_t count)
{
  size_t done=0;
  while (done<count) {
    int r=read(fd,buf+done,count-done);
    if (r < 1) {
      if (done) return done;
      return r;
    }
    done+=r;
  }
  return done;
}
int main()
{
  uint8_t buffer[111];
  uint8_t hash[64];
  int fd=open(RANDOM_SOURCE, O_RDONLY);
  if (fd == -1) {
    perror(RANDOM_SOURCE);
    return EXIT_FAILURE;
  }
  if (read_retry(fd,buffer,111) != 111) {
    perror(RANDOM_SOURCE);
    return EXIT_FAILURE;
  }
  while (!memchr(buffer,0,111)) {
    uint8_t buffer2[111];
    int i;
    if (read_retry(fd,buffer2,111) != 111) {
      perror(RANDOM_SOURCE);
      return EXIT_FAILURE;
    }
    for (i=0;i<111;++i) {
      buffer[i] ^= buffer2[i];
    }
  }
  SHA512(buffer,111,hash);
  if (memcmp(buffer+47,hash,64)) {
    printf("God wants you to be an atheist\n");
  } else {
    printf("God exists\n");
    if (buffer[0]) {
/* When this path is taken the output of the program is from 42 to 151
      * characters long. Of this output 41 characters is boilerplate and 1 to
      * 110 characters is the message from God.
      */
      printf("And he has a message for you\n%s\n",buffer);
    }
  }
  return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but I would give those sources more credit if their entire existence wouldn't be completely undermined by saying anything to the contrary.

And if it wasn't completely unrealistic and contradicted by the incredibly well documented existence of Apocrypha, multiple councils to determine the true gospels, and the fact that the Church has always been far more political than religious even if its followers are not.

Re:2012

[cold fjord]

Um, something about Jesus, Jews and a cross, keeps coming to mind.

You seem to be forgetting something - kind of important too, as far as Christianity goes - something about an empty tomb.

Re:2012

[wonkey_monkey]

The reliability of the New Testament is also beyond reproach.

Now there's a scientific attitude.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

I am no programmer, but i am guessing its very bad code. No good comments, no explanation of what and why. Just like in the real religion!

Re:2012

[qwak23]

You are way wrong on this.

Transmission

B. The Masoretes

The Masoretic scribes (A.D. 500-1000) in charge of the Old Testament manuscript copying used a very meticulous system of transcription and had a deep reverence for the text. God used their almost obsessive respect for the text to preserve the text’s accuracy. They had specific rules on the type of ink and the quality and size of parchment sheets. No individual letter could be written down without having looked back at the copy in front of them. The scribe could not write God’s name with a newly dipped pen (lest it blotch) and even if the king should address him, while writing God’s name, he should take no notice of him. They were so meticulous that they counted all the paragraphs, words and even letters, so they could know by counting, if they had done it perfectly. They knew the middle letter of each book so they could count back and see if they had missed anything. . .

D. The Dead Sea Scrolls

Since the oldest complete copy of a Hebrew Old Testament in existence is dated about A.D. 1000, that’s a long time after the originals were written (1450-400 B.C.). But there are portions that date back farther. Most significant are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in caves in 1947 by an Arabian shepherd boy. These well-preserved Hebrew text fragments date back to 100 B.C. They include many Bible portions, including some complete books. Their value to the credibility of our Bible is that amazingly, there is virtual agreement between these Hebrew texts and the ones dated 1,100 years later! This proves how accurately the scribes copies for all those years.

The evidence shows that our Old Testaments today are extremely accurate reflections of the original manuscripts.

So how reliable are the manuscripts that all these Bibles are translated from? The evidence is overwhelming and seldom disputed. Manuscripts prepared from different individuals spread over various parts of the Middle East and Mediterranean region agree remarkably with each other. Also, the manuscripts agree with the Septuagint, which was translated to Greek from Hebrew possibly as far back as the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1947 also provided a profound testimony to the reliability of the centuries of transmission of the Bible text, as every Old Testament book found was virtually word for word with today's Bible! (the few differences were "obvious slips of the pen or variations in spelling"1).

I see your possibly biased sources and raise you a wikipedia!

According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.

Sure, wikipedia may not be the best academic source on the planet, but at least the source article above is well cited. Oh, and that doesn't sound like "slips of the pen" to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls

Re:2012

[Dodgy G33za]

That's because all the wicked people killed them...

Re:2012

[Dodgy G33za]

And you can't see the problem with believing information published on sites with a vested interest in the bible being reliable?

Various religious people I have spoken to talk about the divine hand of God guiding the translators. A deity who is only "virtually free from any corruption" doesn't sound that good to me.

Re:2012

[pantaril]

Actually it's not a "book" as such. It is distinctly a collection of stories and letters that were at one stage compiled and bound together. The original authors never intended for them to be in a book. Many of the letters were probably never even meant for more than one person. Go figure.

What "ample evidence" is there that any individual part was rewritten?

There were religious councils held in europe through the middle-ages that specificaly focused on rewriting parts of the bible so they suited the changing views of church.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought he went out to get nailed.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

I am no programmer, but i am guessing its very bad code. No good comments, no explanation of what and why. Just like in the real religion!

There two most central lines of the code to understand are these:

SHA512(buffer,111,hash);
if (memcmp(buffer+47,hash,64)) {

The first computes a SHA512 hash of a 111 byte buffer. The second checks if the last 64 bytes of that buffer was actually the hash of the buffer itself. Producing a 111 byte string with that property would require you to either find a security problem in SHA512 or perform a brute force computation which is out of reach even for the best know quantum algorithms. So the theory would be, that only God could produce such an input. I say the existence of a weakness in SHA512 is more likely than the existence of God. Hence even if the program did produce any nontrivial output, it doesn't prove the existence of God.

Where does the contents of that buffer come from in the first place? It reads data from /dev/random, and repeatedly XORs 111 bytes blocks from there until the result contains a NUL character. Looks like some lame approach to ensure that the contents of the buffer is NUL terminated if it is finally printed out (which is never going to happen anyway).

One can ask whether the bytes read from /dev/random are given by God. I don't feel qualified to attempt an answer to that question, since I am already convinced about the non-existence of God, and hence that question makes little sense to me.

Re:2012

[Clovert Agent]

30 seconds on Google turned up this article

Good grief, that's hilarious. Not the article, the comments. I love the whole thread about "lol so your book is wrong and so are everyone else's but it's a fact that the quran is flawless so you must believe its every word".

I love the faithful. They are the source of endless amusement. I'm convinced if they'd just stop and listen to themselves for _one moment_ they'd realise how ridiculous they are.

Re:2012

[Seeteufel]

Thanks god Einstein did question Islamic writings.

Re:2012

[SternisheFan]

A saying I heard some years back might help, or perhaps confuse, but anyway here goes...

"Don't worry if you don't believe in God. Just know that God believes in you."

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

That's some nice religious propaganda there.

Re:2012

[cold fjord]

Thank you, that is an interesting post. Of course it accepts that the transmission of the Old Testament for at least 2,100 years or so as being very accurate. It then raises some issues about older versions. I've started looking at it, and have already found some interesting things.

. . . some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.

It turns out that the book of Daniel was found with several variants as well, but it appears that actually helped clarify some matters with careful study. I won't be surprised if other books turn out the same. And it is worth noting that having three "families" of versions of a book with accurate transmission is a different question than chaos in the content.

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

The premise is flawed in any case. If there is a God and he is powerful, he could just as well shout in a loud voice from the sky. The program appears designed to detect the presence of a weak god, who is able to influence only small things. If a powerful God refuses to shout from the sky every time some arb asks, why should he then influence the /dev/random pseudo random process? Or the path of one program?

Re:2012

[smittyoneeach]

If everyone is an ice giant, then no one is an ice giant.
After Walt Simonson, Thor was a bore.

Re:2012

[Stizark]

Of course, The Faithful claim that $DEITY in his glorious omnipotence has kept The Holy Word pure and absolutely identical to The Original.

Actually, many Christians are taught that the bible is a living thing, that changes and adopts to culture and society so as to always give us the meaning god truly intended. Many churches also teach that we all get from the bible that which we need at that time, allowing for our interpretation of the writing to change as we want/need.

Mighty convenient, if you ask me.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

The most effective "propaganda" is the truth.

Re:2012

[cold fjord]

And you can't see the problem with believing information published on sites with a vested interest in the bible being reliable?

Please, feel free to find contradictory evidence. I doubt you'll find much. The accuracy of transmission of the Bible has been know for quite some time.

Being able to reconstruct the New Testament from just contemporaneous quotations alone is kind of hard to fake. That is a problem that the "birthers" run into with Obama's birth announcement in the Hawaii paper from the time. But feel free to be a Bible "birther", it probably won't be more credible.

A deity who is only "virtually free from any corruption" doesn't sound that good to me.

God is free from corruption, but the Bible that man has copied has rare and generally insignificant variations in the text. Of course, you are deliberately misstating things too.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh huh. Where are the transitional bible fossils then!?

Re:2012

[Galactic Dominator]

"Don't worry if you don't believe in God. Just know that God believes in you.

AFAICT, you don't have enough evidence to warrant a knowledge claim. I consider it likely you don't even have enough evidence to make a belief based claim. That only leaves you with a faith based claim. Faith and delusion share the same definition -- eg they are synonyms. What does this tell you?

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is a God and he is powerful, he could just as well shout in a loud voice from the sky.

If there existed an omnipotent god, who would like all humans to believe in him, then there would be no atheists.

Re:2012

[mnooning]

>suited the changing views of church.

This wild accusation is entirely untrue. The scriptures of the different centuries, whether 200AD or 2000AD, or anywhere in-between, agree with one another. We also have many writings from different centuries that quote the scriptures. It is said that those quotes are of sufficient volume to recreate the scriptures of most eras on their own, if the scriptures of those eras were suddenly unavailable.

Re:2012

[Galactic Dominator]

So a land littered with empty tombs and the spawn of tomb raiders is some sort of evidence for your belief?

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

Not necessarily. What if the omnipotent God desired humans to be free to make a choice, to interpret the world as they would? Some sects of Christianity would argue that there is an omnipotent God who does not desire all humans(only some) to believe. It is not so simply dismissed.

Re:2012

[Dcnjoe60]

30 seconds on Google turned up this article and a speech on the subject.

The bible has been in human hands for centuries and copied by hand before printing presses came in. A spelling mistake here, bad handwriting there, the next guy comes along and misreads a word and then 'fixes' the sentence so that it makes sense. I'd be shocked if there was a single page in there that hadn't changed. And that's only accidental changes.

Looking at the things politicians do today, when it's easier to fact-check and catch them out than ever before, I find it completely believable that people just... mis-copied parts of the bible to justify whatever they felt like doing. It's not like people in the year 900 were going to get on Facebook and compare notes with people in other countries. They'd probably never touched a copy of the Bible. Probably couldn't read. A man with a bible could tell people it said anything. Make some changes in his copy, noone would ever know.

Case in point, many protestants accept that "For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory" as the ending of the lord's prayer (or our father), when in fact, it was added to the margin by a monk copying the original text, either because it was part of a liturgical prayer or his own personal inspiration. The earlier texts, however, do not have it. But the King James version of the bible included it.

Re:2012

[WillKemp]

If there was a god and it was powerful, then humans wouldn't have needed to invent it. And the evidence that humans did invent it is all over every religion.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

I see your possibly biased sources and raise you a wikipedia!

But your source disagrees with mine, so that means it's biased! See? Seeeeeee? Just admit I'm right already! I devoted a lot of my life to these stories! They're really really really important! Waaaaaaah!

Hm... actually, maybe I should stop that line of satirical response, given how legitimately devoted some people around here are to specific comic books, cartoons, and novels...

Re:2012

[beelsebob]

Not convenient, deliberate. The priests at these churches are just being more honest... "The bible means what I say it means just now, and what's convenient just now... Now do what I say, it's in the bible!"

Re:2012

[Dcnjoe60]

Of course, The Faithful claim that $DEITY in his glorious omnipotence has kept The Holy Word pure and absolutely identical to The Original.

In common-speek that's a circular proof and can thusly be completely ignored.

Actually, the catholics, which are the largest christian denomination on the planet do not hold this point of view. They talk about the "truth" contained, but accept that variations in the text have crept in. So, at least for the largest christian sect, your circular proof argument is invalid. Also, the Jews don't hold that point of view, either. So, it's not valid for them, either. And finally, the Muslims don't care about the judeo-christian bible, so it doesn't apply to them, either.

Re:2012

[Dcnjoe60]

No offense, but I would give those sources more credit if their entire existence wouldn't be completely undermined by saying anything to the contrary.

And if it wasn't completely unrealistic and contradicted by the incredibly well documented existence of Apocrypha, multiple councils to determine the true gospels, and the fact that the Church has always been far more political than religious even if its followers are not.

Hmmm, sounds like a disgruntled Catholic. However, even with all of those multiple councils to determine the true gospels and the apocryphal books, there is no evidence that the words of the accepted books were changed, which is what the previous post is trying to show with the citations given. Now, if you have citations to the contrary then I'm sure the readers here would love to see them.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Just know that God believes in you.

No-one believes in me, hence God does not exist. QED.

Re:2012

[Dcnjoe60]

Actually it's not a "book" as such. It is distinctly a collection of stories and letters that were at one stage compiled and bound together. The original authors never intended for them to be in a book. Many of the letters were probably never even meant for more than one person. Go figure.

What "ample evidence" is there that any individual part was rewritten?

There were religious councils held in europe through the middle-ages that specificaly focused on rewriting parts of the bible so they suited the changing views of church.

Citations please.

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

I disagree. The existence or non existence of any God (or indeed most things in general) is not dependent on human viewpoints. Your logic is broken for all deists for example. What if there is a god who chooses not to intervene? In which case he/she/it might be amused by those who believe. Or not care. Even if we allow your first statement, there exist multiple possible variations on the concept of God which would lead someone like you to conclude that the concept was invented even if such a God really existed. It is therefore impossible to conclude from your logic anything about the existence of any god, unless we delve much deeper into probabilities and philosophies. Such questions are never so easily dismissed.

Re:2012

[tolkienfan]

Suppose I've never encountered religion before, and I discovered God and desire to become religious.
What religion should I choose, and why?

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the omnipotent God desired humans to be free to make a choice, to interpret the world as they would? Some sects of Christianity would argue that there is an omnipotent God who does not desire all humans(only some) to believe.

By your own argument, God wants me to be an atheist. Hence the GP is right.

Re:2012

[tolkienfan]

It's generous to ascribe peace as the goal.
In history the high priests have been adept at wielding political power over the credulous.

Re:2012

[mcgrew]

Look, buddy, I'm a Christian. Stop trying to make me look bad, you're coming across as the same type of troll I'm always castigating antitheists about.

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

What argument? I simply stated two possibilities. One in which there is a God who desires your atheism and one in which there is a God who desires your ability to choose(which is not the same thing). I did not assert anything about the existence of God. In both cases there can exist atheists and (a) god(s). How is he/she correct? GP asserts that a God desiring everyone to believe and atheists are mutually exclusive. I showed one possibility where this is the case. Therefore he or she is incorrect. You could however make a case for the view being probable.

Re:2012

[Lucas123]

You're a sub-atomic particle looking out at the vastness of the universe. In fact, if the universe is nothing more than another particle in a vastly larger organism, scientists trying to discover the particles that make up that universe wouldn't be able to see you. On top of that, you consider the logic capability of your infinitesimally small brain to have the capacity of understanding the beginning of the universe, how life began, as well as why -- for some yet unexplained reason -- life propagated itself over and over again. Yet, you're the one saying "prove it", as if you have some special comprehension of the facts that others who disagree with you don't. The fact that you want to require physical proof for a spiritual experience only proves your lack and capacity for critical thought on the topic.

Re:2012

[umghhh]

of course you are right. There is not one single bible even today as the gathering of books that bible is looks differently depending on for which version of Christianity the book was prepared. Even if you take the book catholics use now it is still a compendium that at some point has been accepted as a 'proper' version so that unified book can be promoted and used. This process of unification involved removal of some texts. There have also been different translations. All this means that the book albeit for some holy is just some sort of base for those that consider it a book of truths. IN reality all big religions have this problem that their canon has been changed over time. Some ignore this, some use this fact as a reason to dismiss the whole thing as a valid source of anything and for some it is just a good hint pointing them in the some direction. I guess Einstein was in the 3rd group also when he did not follow the direction as considered the whole book of christianity as a set of rather primitive stories. I guess one thing that we usually miss on this is that majority of humans living so far have been primitive in this respect independently what religion or not they committed themselves to.

Re:2012

[hazah]

He was pissed at him self?

Re:2012

[grep_rocks]

Actually maybe you should read "Misquoting Jesus" by B. Ehrman - it is written by a blblical scholar, actually the farther back in time you go the _less_ consistent the texts of the new testament are - the exact opposite of what you would expect if they all derived from a common source - this coupled with the fact that stories similar to story of Jesus (except with Egyptian or other mediteranean gods as heros) had been floating around for years before the supposed birth of Christ and finally the lack of any historical Roman records of Christ's existence make even the statment that "Christ was a historical figure" that I hear from even many atheists and agnostic completely untenable - there is no evidence for a historical Christ

Re:2012

[mcgrew]

AFAICT, you don't have enough evidence to warrant a knowledge claim.

Without evidence one way or another, the only logical conclusion is agnosticism. So why am I a Christian? Easy -- God has revealed himself to me. He'd reveal himself to you if you weren't so afraid he might actually exist.

You won't find what you're not looking for, and you certainly won't find something you're sure doesn't exist.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the omnipotent God desired humans to be free to make a choice, to interpret the world as they would? Some sects of Christianity would argue that there is an omnipotent God who does not desire all humans(only some) to believe.

By your own argument, God wants me to be an atheist. Hence the GP is right.

Allow is not the same as wants.

Re:2012

[hazah]

Such questions are never so easily dismissed.

I disagree. I have desmissed it, truly.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's not a "book" as such. It is distinctly a collection of stories and letters that were at one stage compiled and bound together. The original authors never intended for them to be in a book. Many of the letters were probably never even meant for more than one person. Go figure.

What "ample evidence" is there that any individual part was rewritten?

There were religious councils held in europe through the middle-ages that specificaly focused on rewriting parts of the bible so they suited the changing views of church.

Well there's some "ample evidence". Too bad it's contradicted by this evidence: There were no councils in Europe that specifically focused on rewriting parts of the Bible.

Re:2012

[sglewis100]

Actually maybe you should read "Misquoting Jesus" by B. Ehrman - it is written by a blblical scholar, actually the farther back in time you go the _less_ consistent the texts of the new testament are - the exact opposite of what you would expect if they all derived from a common source - this coupled with the fact that stories similar to story of Jesus (except with Egyptian or other mediteranean gods as heros) had been floating around for years before the supposed birth of Christ and finally the lack of any historical Roman records of Christ's existence make even the statment that "Christ was a historical figure" that I hear from even many atheists and agnostic completely untenable - there is no evidence for a historical Christ

I'm not sure you understand Ehrman very well. Have you read Did Jesus Exist? If you are going to cite Bart Ehrman, a former Christian, a current professor of the New Testament, and the holder of a Masters in Divinity, why not quote the part where he's 100% certain the evidence points to there being a historical Christ. Ehrman has many doubts about Christianity, but one of them isn't whether Jesus was a historical figure.

Re:2012

[hazah]

Wouldn't you already be doing the right thing? I mean you found God at that point.

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

Well done. I have never desmissed anything in my life, but kudos to you. How is it done exactly? But then I shall dismiss your disagreement, as it is really in the grand scheme of things unimportant to me...

Re:2012

[grep_rocks]

I reference Ehrman in relation to the consistency of various biblical documenst over time, which was the topic the post I was replying to was refering to - I was not refering to his opinion about a historical Jesus, in fact I referenced the historical stories floating around the middle east and the fact that there are no Roman records of Jesus as collaborating evidence _along_ with bibilical inconsistency which point to Jesus not being a historical figure.

Re:2012

[Pieroxy]

God has revealed himself to me as well. Then I realized it was just this hashish joint I got a bit earlier.

Ok, I'll bite anyway. How can you tell it's God reveling himself and not some random hallucination?

Re:2012

[SternisheFan]

Agreed. He "wants" to be an atheist, and that is fine, free-will in action! And if not for free will, wouldn't we all just be mindless robots carrying out our pre-programmed responses? That gets boring after a time, re: The Dinosaurs. Now, add beings with sentience, free will and a curious mind, now you've got something! A game that's way more interesting to observe. To see all the different types of human interactions. And perhaps God's not into self-promotion, doesn't need to resort to outrageous P.R. stunts, and prefers to stay 'low-key'.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

God has revealed himself to me.

There is a problem with your statement. If you take some statement made by somebody on the Internet, there is a probability that the person was lying. That probability is higher than the probability that God exists. Hence any rational person would consider it more likely that you are lying than that you are telling the truth. If you want to make such a statement and have rational people believe you, you have to support it with evidence.

He'd reveal himself to you if you weren't so afraid he might actually exist.

Making unfounded statements about what other people think, does not improve your credibility. Suppose Galactic Dominator is not afraid that God might exist. Then Galactic Dominator knows that this particular statement of yours is invalid. I would not expect Galactic Dominator to take you serious at all.

Besides, why would anybody be afraid that God might exist? People have been saying God is good. Are you telling us that God is not good, and we should be afraid he might exist?

There are plenty of people who was never afraid God might exist, who have seen no evidence indicating the existence of any God. That means there is loads of empirical evidence against your claim that God reveals himself to somebody who is not afraid he might exist.

You won't find what you're not looking for, and you certainly won't find something you're sure doesn't exist.

You say it doesn't happen. The facts say otherwise. It happens all the time that people find something they thought didn't exist in the first place. Throughout history people have gone looking for God over and over again. Either they searched and found nothing, or they searched and found something, which they misinterpreted to mean that God was there.

Re:2012

[SternisheFan]

I believe the closest answer would be "Deism". Benjamin Franklin was one.

Deism ( i/di.zm/[1][2] or /de.zm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge.[3][4][5][6][7] Deism became more prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany and America—among intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one God, but found fault with organized religion and could not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Re:2012

[mcgrew]

Actually, many Christians are taught that the bible is a living thing, that changes and adopts to culture and society so as to always give us the meaning god truly intended.

I've been in a lot of different Christian churches. I've been to a catholic mass, Lutheran, Baptist, methodist, I attend a nondenominational church weekly. Not once have I ever heard this espoused. What church does this, the Mormons maybe? JWs? Christian Scientists? The Church of Satan? The FSM?

Re:2012

[FictionPimp]

In that case, he wants them to not just believe, but blindly believe like a fool. When I want someone to believe in something, I make sure I have some evidence to show them to make my case.

The whole belief thing doesn't make any sense anyway. What does god get out of people believing in him? Why would this even matter to all powerful being? Punishment for being rational and logical is his 'love'. "You don't believe I exist even though there is really no good reason to believe I exist...here's a world of endless torment for your efforts..."

This is the argument for a hateful, spiteful, self indulging, evil god. A god not worthy of my worship.

Re:2012

[SternisheFan]

People should believe in something greater than themselves, I feel. To take the view that you are the greatest being in existance is myopic, don't you think. Did you create you? Are you able to create any living thing? Okay, forget about living beings, just show me say... a star you made. No, how about a planet? A simple moon? Still too much for you, huh? A rock? Gosh, maybe there's a possibility, stick with me now, of a being greater than yourself. One that may just be omnipotent and all powerful, despite your "belief" that there is no such thing. BTW, it is a 'belief' you have, and you cannot prove your belief that there is no God.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Many years ago I read the book "Teachings of the Church Fathers", which has or refers to many writings from the 100-200 AD era. There are also many ancient Roman writings, such as from the Roman historians Tacitus and Josephus. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. 116 AD).

As for the ancient non-biblical writings you allude to, yes, there were many, but only after a number of generations. Once Christianity spread among enough people, it became profitable for hucksters and frauds to write such things. One of the primary reasons for gathering the first big Christian counsel around 320 AD was because the appearance of the fake gospels and other writings were becoming a problem.

Re:2012

[hazah]

Dismissing the question? It took about 20 years. It helped to realize that the answer is unattainable. Any reason you are so smug about it? I certainly was not.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. The existence or non existence of any God (or indeed most things in general) is not dependent on human viewpoints.

What humans think or do not think cannot influence the existence of a God. However the existence of a God can influence what humans think. Hence human viewpoints can still be used as evidence about the existence of a God.

Re:2012

[hazah]

Sounds like a variation on some Buddhist themes. Cool.

Re:2012

[Cajun Hell]

"Don't worry if you don't believe in God. Just know that God believes in you."

That doesn't help anyone, because it just raises the question: How can I know God believes in me? Telling me "just know" isn't enough; if I had the capacity to accept that kind of dogmatic command, I'd probably already believe in gods.

Re:2012

[Galactic Dominator]

Without evidence one way or another, the only logical conclusion is agnosticism.

Wrong. Contrary to popular opinion, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

God has revealed himself to me. He'd reveal himself to you if you weren't so afraid he might actually exist.

You won't find what you're not looking for, and you certainly won't find something you're sure doesn't exist.

Sounds startling similar to wish-thinking. What criteria do you use to separate the two?

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's not a "book" as such. It is distinctly a collection of stories and letters that were at one stage compiled and bound together. The original authors never intended for them to be in a book. Many of the letters were probably never even meant for more than one person. Go figure.

What "ample evidence" is there that any individual part was rewritten?

There were religious councils held in europe through the middle-ages that specificaly focused on rewriting parts of the bible so they suited the changing views of church.

Citations please.

A start, but you didn't even try.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen here shmuck, if you don't like 3.5, you can always go start your own 4th Ed. group somewhere else.
Yeah, ok, you're right, it's a little dated. But we own all the books, knows the rules, and upgrading would be a pain. We like it, we know it, and damnit it's enjoyable. We're also the only group in town so it's not like you really have a choice. Stop rocking the boat. Now roll 6x 3d6 in a row and pick a class.

Re:2012

[G00F]

What "ample evidence" is there that any individual part was rewritten?

Is the fact that there are different versions of the bible not ample evidence enough?

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

I never said such a God required blind belief. I suppose one variation might. People have different ways of perceiving reality, and human experience is not completely shared. In any case, this is about the existence of (a) god(s), not the character of such a being. Besides how do you even define "evil" then? Who is to say your definition is correct? You? Society? Why do people always want to pull the argument around to this? The whole "argument is for a hateful [etc] god" is a false dilemma.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

I was making fun of your spelling.... But you seem to have missed that. :P

Re:2012

[hazah]

I didn't miss it. I ignored it. :)

Re:2012

[rhsanborn]

Yes, but in science, we don't believe in things pending their refutation. If that's the standard, I suspect you also believe in the giant squid of Pampanelle who has infinite appendages, and rapes you for eternity if you don't sing the sacred song each morning. You haven't proved he doesn't exist, right? You really ought to start singing ...

The universe, and nature are majestic in their own right. Stop cheapening them by implying that they couldn't exist on their own. They do, and that's really freaking awesome.

Re:2012

[mcgrew]

Thor was the cave nerd who invented the hammer. So yes, he does indeed deserve praise. Imagine a man with a hammer in a world without hammers. In that world, your hammer makes you a god.

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

However the existence of a God can influence what humans think.

Ah, if only it were that simple. The existence of God may influence what humans think in diverse ways. It is an oversimplification to think that this can easily be used to prove/disprove god(s) existence. One of the central tenants to most religions appears to be some sort of conflict with one side negative the other positive. If true it means there is more than one influence... Perhaps even more than two.

Re:2012

[rhsanborn]

The Josephus references are HIGHLY suspect. For example, he was decidedly NOT Christian, but the Testimonium states, 'Jesus, who was the Christ". A non-Christian wouldn't have referred to him like that. Christian apologists don't begin to reference the works until early 4th century. Josephus was the man, he was huge, and having such a prominent reference would have been slung far and wide.

Tacitus is a Roman historian living well after the events supposedly happening. He's explain the story of the Christians who are popping up in Rome.

Richard Carrier is coming out with a book on the historicity of Jesus in the next several months.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you implying that only ice giants are (were) wicked people?

Bonus captcha: objector

Re:2012

[Twinbee]

Since my brother had a severe nervous breakdown (lack of sleep), 'God' revealed himself to him too. Except it wasn't a single god, but two of them which he calls 'ma' and 'pa'. He's otherwise sane now, but he firmly believes in them. He's an ace person, but as blind as you are in this respect.

Re:2012

[MightyMartian]

The original KJV, while certainly one of the great masterpieces of Early Modern English, is notorious for errors in translation. I own a copy simply because it's probably the most readable of all English Bibles, but when I'm in serious debate with a true believer, it's not what I view as a good source. The American Standard and modern KJV are much better Bibles.

Re:2012

[MightyMartian]

And which councils were these?

Re:2012

[MightyMartian]

There is enough knowledge of the untainted writings of Josephus to give weight to the notion that there was a man named Jesus teaching around the third decade of the 1st century AD. When you look at it that way, all Josephus was doing was giving some relatively minor notice to a religious figure who had been executed by the Romans and who had a number of followers.

There are plenty of ludicrous things in the Bible, and specifically ludicrous claims about Jesus, but that the man, no matter how much nonsense may have been piled on him later, did exist I don't think one can reasonably question.

Re:2012

[rhsanborn]

No, there isn't enough knowledge of the untainted writings. We have 11th century copies of Jospehus' works, and 3rd century references. Coincidently, the 3rd century references, by Christian apologists, don't reference the passages that talk about Jesus. It wasn't until the 4th century that they start claiming Josephus as a source for Jesus' historicity.

The primary references for Jesus are the items in the Bible which are, themselves, 2 or 3 times removed.

Jesus is taken as a given because of Christianity.

Re:2012

[MightyMartian]

Scholars, you know, are able to recognize interpolations in texts. It is by no means 100% reliable, but neither are they utterly incapable of determining where it has happened.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Your understanding of the actual bible is not as good as you might think.

Bible, indeed, is a "collection of books" (more similar to a library than a book) but it was kept as a historic record. The Old Testament is extremely unique among historical records, however, as it does not clean up anyone's mess. There are no glorious, perfect kings seeking physical immortality. There are no all-knowing prophets who never make mistakes. There are bumbling kings, discouraged/faithless/ignorant prophets, and a chosen people who screw up everything they're given. Their fathers are not paragons, rather thieves, drunkards, and sinners. All in all, these candid admissions are evidence that the bible the most accurate glimpse of history we have, despite the existence of historical texts dated older than the books of Moses/Job (such as the Bhagivad Gita).

You also have a misunderstanding of epistles. Epistles are meant for everyone. They are addressed to a single individual, from a single individual, but they are "open letters" in truth. The most interesting examples are the negotiations before a war, where the enemy generals/leaders would use the epistle's language to rally his troops and demoralize the enemy's. It would be addressed from one general to the other, yes, but it was meant to first, be read aloud and distributed amongst the writer's supporters and then read aloud and distributed amongst the enemy, calling for all traitors, cowards, worms, and defectors to abandon the enemy army. The most famous of such, in recent history, would be this beauty.

If Paul had meant a private communication for Timothy, he would not have had his letter distributed amongst all the believers, recited in secret, etc. He would not have used an epistle, either, as epistles follow a strict, unmistakeable (in their time) form.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's not a "book" as such. It is distinctly a collection of stories and letters that were at one stage compiled and bound together. The original authors never intended for them to be in a book. Many of the letters were probably never even meant for more than one person. Go figure.

What "ample evidence" is there that any individual part was rewritten?

Well, the fact that an average bookstore has more than a single version on sale for one.

It's also a matter of historical record that the council of Trent convened to decide which texts to exclude from the bible.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming will do that.

Re:2012

[N0Man74]

Not necessarily. What if the omnipotent God desired humans to be free to make a choice, to interpret the world as they would? Some sects of Christianity would argue that there is an omnipotent God who does not desire all humans(only some) to believe. It is not so simply dismissed.

If God exists, then it is obvious that he expects us to believe in him contrary to the available evidence. He is effectively hiding from man, but at the same time demanding that we believe in him and follow him anyway. That makes him a demanding and needy prick.

If he is omniscient, then he knows what horrors would come out of his creation. But he created everything anyway, despite how many innocents would suffer. If he is willing to subject creation to countless horrors so that one day a small minority could hang out with him in heaven one day, then he is a selfish needy prick.

If he is all omnipotent, and could have stopped suffering of the innocent, then he is an apathetic prick.

If he isn't omniscient and omnipotent, as his followers claim that he claims, then he is a lying prick.

So, it seems to me, that either he is a prick or that everything important about him is made up.

Re:2012

[SternisheFan]

First, as I stated, it is a saying, your reaction is more telling of your bias, and your inability to be open to ideas that don't fit neatly your perfect model. But that's cool, we're all at differing levels of knowing, I harbor no ill feelings. Second, that saying does help some people, I've used it, and people come up to me later (months) and told me so, and I also happen to know it's so. Others here have now read it for the first time in their lives, I hope it helps them. And please. Don't reply with the old " prove. it or it doesn't exist " line, it's old, and I don't waste my breath on people whose minds are closed. You can't prove God doesn't exist. I cannot prove He/She/It does. (God don't sit for polaroids.) I see my post modded troll, first time for me, yay me! (Actually, I'm much taller than 4feet)

Re:2012

[FictionPimp]

It is not a false dilemma. Even if god exists, if I am going to worship him he must be worthy of my affection. So far nothing the christian god has shown me makes him worthy of my attention.

And if he doesn't want my attention, isn't directly helping me or affect my life, why call him god?

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

If God exists, then it is obvious that he expects us to believe in him contrary to the available evidence.

Yet all your reasoning falls apart if we do not grant the above. And most religious people don't. Available evidence is subject to interpretation through point of view. Humans do not all share exactly the same experience of reality. And we have some control over our points of view. Therefore, no, we can not grant the above - God if he exists does not necessarily expect people to believe in him contrary to available evidence - religious people have plenty of evidence. Your acceptance of that evidence is not critical to their acceptance of it.

If he is omniscient, then he knows what horrors would come out of his creation. But he created everything anyway, despite how many innocents would suffer.

Which do you value more? Freedom or absence of suffering? Perhaps such a being might value one above the other? Trouble with all you strong atheists is you don't seem to realise your arguments aren't really all that convincing. But you like them, so carry on....

Re:2012

[Galactic Dominator]

My need to prove a supreme deity doesn't exist is exactly the same as my need to prove Godzilla isn't lying in a slumber in a deep chamber somewhere under the Pacific waiting for a prime moment to cause chaos.

I don't waste my breath on people whose minds aren't susceptible to con jobs

Fixed.

Re:2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone has an opinion, and now we've heard yours.

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

It is a false dilemma. You assume that the only two options are "hateful god" or "no god". You ignore all other possibilities or variations in between. This is the very definition of "false dilemma". Go look it up if you do not believe me. All this black and white thinking sickens me somewhat. I should never have joined this discussion. I came here for the science and tech news, not the religious debates....

Re:2012

[Galactic Dominator]

Quoting Hitchens:

Of course you have free will, the boss insists upon it.

Re:2012

[RicktheBrick]

Why are we arguing about the validity of a book that makes no sense and contradicts itself. One does not need to read past Genesis chapter 3 to find several verses that do not make sense. One verse says that if one eats of the forbidden fruit one will surely die on that day or even when eating it. If one takes the later to be literal than Eve should have died seconds after the fruit was in her stomach. Adam would have not eaten it but even if they were to die on the same day than none of us should be existing since they would have had no time to produce any children. In chapter 3 god ask Adam if he ate of the fruit. Why would Adam tell god he ate of the fruit if he thought he was going to die? Why would god not have already known this fact. Why would Jesus not have known that they were going to eat of the fruit and at least tried to talk them out of it? Surely he would have known that if they had eaten the fruit he would have had to die on the cross. Besides none of that matters since it has already been proven that mankind did not descend from just two people. Second is when Jesus comes to judge us and separate the sheep from the goats. Jesus never ask if we had faith in him or if we were baptized but if we can answer yes to his question about feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the sick or imprisoned than we would have a place reserved for in heaven. But other verses say we need to have faith in Jesus and need to be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven and so they contradict each other. Jesus does not say every time either so my reading of the 25th chapter of Matthew is that if one can say that one feed the poor or clothed the naked or visited the sick or imprison even only once than one will go to heaven. This is also contradicted by the story about a woman who anoints Jesus with expensive oil. If her salvation depended on feeding the poor than surely she should have saved that money for that purpose.

Re:2012

[LurkerXXX]

The FSM literature only varies with the blasphemers who belive god is al dente.

Re:2012

[icebraining]

So, why do you believe in only one god? I think your mind is unable to be open to the idea that there are actually hundreds of gods. It simple doesn't fit neatly your monotheistic model.

Re:2012

[icebraining]

Which do you value more? Freedom or absence of suffering? Perhaps such a being might value one above the other?

Why would a god have to choose?

Re:2012

[icebraining]

Since theists can paint god under whatever light it suits them, nothing can be concluded about it, regardless of philosophies or probabilities. Therefore, the question is irrelevant and dismissed as such, until an actual concrete definition of god is brought forth.

Which is why the Ignostic position is the only sensible one.

Re:2012

[tolkienfan]

No one is going to suggest a particular religion?
Perhaps because none is a defensible choice.

Re:2012

[SternisheFan]

Hey there, Mr. flamebaiter "Galactic Dummander" (FTFY), are you for real with that pompous handle?! It's me, Mr. Troll here (lol), and I've come back like a bad dream to defend our God, not that God needs anyone to do that. But, you know us 'faithful', we're crazed like that.

Anyways, allow me to waste some breath and 'expand your mind' for you, and not to worry, it won't damage your brain any more than the drugs you must've been on when you were choosing your /. user name, I promise.

There are things in this life that just can't explained scientifically. We know there are more than three dimensions, but no hard 'proof' yet, and we're starting on the path to seeing that there could be infinite dimensions, all existing in the same space. We're only just beginning the process of learning that there are so many things that are possible, we just don't have the capacity yet, if we ever do, to understand them fully. Is the universe one large 'computer', perhaps the collective mind of God? These are just a couple of the questions that greater minds than yours are probing today. Einstein had an open mind. But if we only listen to the closed off minds of the 'Captain Galaxy Commando' types of this world, we'll never have even asked those ?'s, much less find answers for them. So, should we all accept the taliban theory that muhammed is the one true prophet, no. Should we accept Galactoid Commander's edict that there is no God, because he has decreed it? Hell NO! God does not show himself to just anybody, you have to WANT to find him. I've heard God likes to be searched for, you might want to try, someday. So, live out your little life, like all of us do. But down the through years, you may have a change in your thinking, as the grim reaper begins to look in your direction. You might actually hear yourself crying out to the God you don't believe in today to save you. And he will, because that's what an all powerful, all loving God would do. We all find our answers our own way, in our own time. Don't dismiss ideas just because they are not like yours so easily, that's being short-sighted, imo..

Good night, and good life to you sir. (p.s. Many religions, but one God. Coincidence? Methinks not.)

Re:2012

[SternisheFan]

So, why do you believe in only one god? I think your mind is unable to be open to the idea that there are actually hundreds of gods. It simple doesn't fit neatly your monotheistic model.

When talking with God, pick any, or all. It won't matter to the 'Big Boss'. Just be sincere.

Re:2012

[SternisheFan]

"Don't worry if you don't believe in God. Just know that God believes in you."

That doesn't help anyone, because it just raises the question: How can I know God believes in me? Telling me "just know" isn't enough; if I had the capacity to accept that kind of dogmatic command, I'd probably already believe in gods.

It has helped some people though. And as I said, it's a saying. Not an edict. (And for all we know, the gods of myth might well have been ET's, lots of statues of 'gods' wearing what look like spacesuits.)

I've read the posts here, and not one has 'demanded ' that anyone else has to believe what they do. Not one, no Taliban or zealots read /., I guess. And not one putdown has been posted by intelligent people who believe in a "higher power". But I've read plenty by the /.'ers who claim "prove it or it doesn't exist!", acting like petulant children, I wonder why that is. Give yourself time in your life to consider all the options available first, then you can make a thoughtful reasoned response to the "God" question, that's my free advice to you and everyone here. Enjoy your amazing lives, be good to each other, laugh, sing and dance, have fun, make love often. If God exists, that would make him happy, and what's so wrong with that?

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

If an infinite god exists, it follows that any definition finite beings come up with will be inadequate, so what you are asking is impossible. Most religions describe god as indefinable in full. Therefore to one such as you the question logically never could be relevant. This does not say much about the existence or non existence of god, but it does say a bit about your point of view. You might still consider it sensible, but I consider it inadequate. on that point we will probably have to agree to disagree.

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

The concept of freedom includes the concept of consequences. If such a being removes consequences, we also break the concept of freedom. We could of course speculate on a universe where this is not logically the case, however our universe seems to operate on cause and effect. I can't of course prove that, but I think you might agree. There is also the idea of conflict. A dualistic view, or a polytheistic view. Even the Christian concept of a devil.

Re:2012

[dala1]

You're setting up a strawman. Atheists aren't claiming to be god. Many don't even believe that there's no god. You should really consider looking into the idea and make sure you understand it before dismissing it.

Re:2012

[cheekyjohnson]

Everything proves that I'm right! Look around you... God created all that! Since I can't think of another explanation, God did it! And why not look deep into your heart? You know you believe in God; you just haven't consciously accepted it yet.

Re:2012

[icebraining]

This does not say much about the existence or non existence of god

Of course it doesn't, if god is undefined, nothing can say anything about its existence. That's my point!

Re:2012

[icebraining]

Well, that leaves me out of almost every other religion, from the ancient Greeks with their conflicting gods, to Judaism and Christianity, whose god will be filled with a "godly jealously" if one worships the wrong god.

I guess you're my new Messiah. I expect promises of eternal life and preferably 40 good-looking women. The virgin part is optional.

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

So, you're saying nothing can exist which can not be defined by a human being? Sounds a Lot like a philosophical position to me. Fair enough, but I see no reason to subscribe to that view.

Re:2012

[SternisheFan]

Hang in there, my friend. It gets better. Much love to you. SF ;-)

Re:2012

[FictionPimp]

Not true at all. There very well could be a good god. I'm debating that if it is the established christian god, he's an evil asshole. If it is the absent god, there is no point in calling him god.

You worship a god purely for selfish reasons. You want a good life, you want a good afterlife. If your god isn't bothering to give you that, if he isn't affecting the world, why bother calling him god?

If there is a purely good god, and he simply hasn't laid down his religion or story to 'show it'. Then again, why call him god? He obviously doesn't want us to know he's there and obviously must not want our worship.

If god is a 97 chevy truck with 4 wheel drive, then why worship him if I don't have a couch to move?

If there is a good god, who wants us to worship a false god while he does the work on the backend, well then again. Why the fuck do we bother. We obviously can't win, and god can be anything I make up because god is unprovable.

So without knowing who and what to worship, does it even matter if god exists?

Re:2012

[hazah]

What for?

Re:2012

[tolkienfan]

Because that was the question, of course.

No answer is, perhaps, the most revealing response.

Re:2012

[Stizark]

I suppose you've not heard of the phrase 'the living bible'? It was annoyingly shoved in my face, while I was growing up. I attended lutheran, methodist, presbyterian, church of christ, and baptist churches where I experienced the aforesaid language used. I'd agree that catholics absolutely do not espouse what I said. At least, at the few of their churches I've been to. I have a few catholic friends who have suggested the possiblity of such, but, I somehow doubt that their leaders would encourage that type of thought.

Too, I haven't been to a church in over 10 years, and I am no longer interested in christianity, so I can't really claim to know what's going on these days. I was, however, raised in a christian environment till I was about 19. And I actually believed it, too.

It's my experience that each church is a microreligion in and of itself, with its own rituals and celebrations. In my later teenage years several friends and I attended a few dozen local churches of vairous denominations, to better understand christianity. The fundamentals (Jesus, sins, the priest having the divine power, martyrdom) remains the same, but how they control you is up to their interpretation. And I intend no offense in saying this. I view each religion as a guideline-- as a path to walk in life with complete with guard rails and construction signs. Most churches weren't arrogant enough to say that their path was the only right one. They would just quote the familiar 'Jesus is the only way to heaven,' until you were black and blue with it. If you asked them to talk about the legitimacy of the bible, which, when I was growing up, was aflame with revelations that the books weren't written for some 70-200 years after their apparent writer's death, they would, overwhelmingly, state that the holy spirit moved the writers of the new testament to write the books. That the bible, as it is today, is perfect, and as it was intended. That despite many cultural, environmental, governmental, etc. changes, that the rules still applied-- if in a different manner of their choice. Those that accepted that it may be flawed, and even taught its other translations, still found ways to encompass the lessons as they felt was right. And this was the case in most churches that I visited.

And, to bring back my original point-- after studying these different christian denominations for years, I found it all to be highly convenient.

Re:2012

[mcgrew]

You'll not only know, you'll know.

Re:2012

[icebraining]

No, I'm saying that it doesn't even make sense to talk about the existence of undefined. Please read on ignosticism and theological noncognitivism.

To put it in another way: Does _ exist?

Re:2012

[SternisheFan]

Well, that leaves me out of almost every other religion, from the ancient Greeks with their conflicting gods, to Judaism and Christianity, whose god will be filled with a "godly jealously" if one worships the wrong god.

I guess you're my new Messiah. I expect promises of eternal life and preferably 40 good-looking women. The virgin part is optional.

I don't want the job, but thanks for the vote of confidence, even a sarcastic vote is still a vote! (and btw, wouldn't the leader get first pick o' da' womenfolk? Like what mormon leaders do, make sure their rules say that the leaders get pick of the litter? Some sickass religions out there, boy...

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

Perhaps let me clarify. You seem to be stating that it does not make sense to talk about something we can not fully define? even if we may define parts of it?

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

if you're debating only the Christian god, then you failed reading comprehension. Even so, the false dilemma remains. You are not considering all possibilities. I find your responses emotional, not objective. Therefore I do not see the point in continuing this discussion. Have fun.

Re:2012

[icebraining]

I've re-read the posts, and I think I've mistaken your position, and I apologize.

Yes, a definition doesn't have to be complete to be useful. But history shows that whenever parts of the definition are put into question, those are suddenly considered optional or figurative.

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

no worries. I am not defending any particular group or viewpoint. I simply don't discount the possibility because the advocates may be closed minded. The search for truth has little to do with who can debate better.

Re:2012

[FictionPimp]

Please point out where I've said I'm only debating a christian god. I have addressed all your points and yet you still redirect. I have no dog in the fight, I simply wanted to discuss the issue at hand. I mentioned situations covering every possible assumption of god I could come up with in the time I wrote that post.

Christian god,
Absent god
Fraudulent god
A god that is really just my old truck
etc

My point stands, either god doesn't exist, is interactive, and thus we have to pick a religion (and that is pointless because we have no way of knowing we picked the right one), or god is non-interactive (or fraudulent) and for all intents and purposes he simply doesn't matter. In which case we might discuss flying ponies. What other possibilities am I missing?

I can't see how I can be any more clear.

Re:2012

[inasity_rules]

One might suggest you read your previous posts to find where you said what. If a god is interactive, it follows you can establish the correct position through interaction. Your tone appears emotional, which is fine, but not so useful for discussion. You do appear to have a dog in the fight to use your expression. I see no reason to continue this. The truth of a matter does not depend on its advocates abilities to defend it. Leave it at that. I intend to.

Re:2012

[Pieroxy]

You mean, I'll know ???

Re:2012

[TimMD909]

Jesus technically is correct, as all evil men eventually die. Ask Jerry Falwell,

As for Thor, I'm pretty sure that's not how it happened...

Re:2012

[mcgrew]

Yes.

Re:2012

[Pieroxy]

Yes.

Can't wait.

Oh. Yay.

[Anonymous Coward]

Something's come up. I'll, uh, see you guys later. Have a cold one for me.

3 million

[Urthas]

I'm fairly certain that were Einstein still alive, he would be shaking his head at such ridiculousness.

Re:3 million

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the safe bet is that they are equally alive, or not, however you choose to look at it. And that by pretty much any worthwhile definition of "alive".

Re:3 million

[TapeCutter]

Yes, but as soon as his head stopped shaking in disbelief, he would would start to learning how to touch type.

Re:3 million

[tinkerton]

On the other hand, now he 'll be turning in his grave, which beats shaking your head by eh, a long way.

Re:3 million

[mlk]

I suspect he would be writing the squeal.

Re:3 million

[Anonymous Coward]

good thing you arent in charge of anything important, because I think Einstein would be overcome with tears knowing that the intellectual progress of our species is such that the magnitude of the sentiment with respect to evolving beyond ancient myths brings numismatic value in the order of 3 million dollars on ebay.

Re:3 million

[tomhath]

I'm fairly certain that were Einstein still alive, he would be shaking his head at such ridiculousness.

More likely he'd be rolling over in his grave, because they buried him a long time ago.

Re:3 million

[Dcnjoe60]

I'm fairly certain that were Einstein still alive, he would be shaking his head at such ridiculousness.

I'm fairly certain that Einstein, no longer being alive, now knows more about the existence of God (or not) than all of the people posting comments on his religious views.

Re:3 million

[mcgrew]

I suspect he would be writing the squeal.

A horror movie about a giant man-eating pig running amok, frightening townspeople and causing havok?

Re:3 million

[perry64]

Actually, he'd probably be writing more letters to sell.

Re:3 million

[firewrought]

I'm fairly certain that Einstein, no longer being alive, now knows more about the existence of God (or not) than all of the people posting comments on his religious views.

Given that his brain was preserved and diced up into sugar-cubes, I think his ability to form new memories is... rather limited.

Of course, he might have had a soul that magically took a copy of his brain in the moments prior to death, but the storage media of the era would have had difficulty handling the couple of petabytes that represent a raw, uncompressed brain.... and you know how unreliable those things were, right? :O

Re:3 million

[Outta_the_way_peck!]

ManBearPig? You're thinking of the wrong Al.

Re:3 million

[karbonforms]

Lions, Tigers and Bears?

Re:3 million

[Dcnjoe60]

touche :)

Re:3 million

[i]

I'm fairly certain that Einstein know about nothing now.

Re:3 million

[Golddess]

Still alive, not come back to life. Unless you're implying that Einstein was buried alive...

Re:3 million

[Tablizer]

I'm fairly certain that were Einstein still alive, he would be shaking his head at such ridiculousness [$3 million]

Nah, he'd say it's all relative.
   

Re:3 million

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly certain that the parent was referring to the starting bid price.

Re:3 million

[Puppet Master]

You're of course referring to the this shaking.

Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Also Einstein said:

"Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. . . ."

"Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."

ORIGINAL SOURCE (you need a paid subscription): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765103,00.html
ALTERNATIVE SOURCE: http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/12/time-christians-in-germany-during-world-war-ii/

Re:Church and Einstein

[Sique]

And still - just because you praise an organisation for its stand in a conflict, you don't need to subscribe to her ideology.

Re:Church and Einstein

[bloodhawk]

He praised their actions not their beliefs, I also praise the actions of church groups that help the needy and homeless. But I still don't believe in the mythology they try and push.

Re:Church and Einstein

[raahul_da_man]

"Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth."

Einstein was wrong about this one, if it is in fact an authentic Einstein quote. Can someone please verify for me?
The Catholic and Protestant Churches supported both Nazism and Fascism.

On the Protestant side:

European Protestantism bore the fierce impress of Martin Luther, whose 1543 tract On the Jews and Their Lies was a principal inspiration for Mein Kampf. In addition to his anti-Semitism, Luther was also a fervent authoritarian. Against the Robbing and Murdering Peasants, his vituperative commentary on a contemporary rebellion, contributed to the deaths of perhaps 100,000 Christians and helped to lay the groundwork for an increasingly severe Germo-Christian autocracy.

On the Catholic:

The Lateran Treaty of 1929 was when the Catholic Church threw its full formal support behind Mussolini. Of course, there had been longstanding informal support long before this, but this is the formal document that the Church cannot deny! It is a impossibility to win power in heavily Christian countries like Italy and Germany were in the 1920's without the active support of the church.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Black Parrot]

Interestingly, I recently read that when Japan joined the Axis they passed a law forbidding persecuting the Jews in Japan.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

What? The Catholic church handed all their record to the Nazis for blood line determination and actually celebrated Hitlers birthday nationally during the war. Further, the Pope that came in during the war was a vocal supporter of Hitler. I am not arguing Einstein did not say those words, but I wouldn't be surprised if second one is out of context or at least sarcastic.

Re:Church and Einstein

[artor3]

Absolutely. But if you praise an organization for its stand in a conflict, perhaps you should not be so quick to call for its complete obliteration. Einstein, to my knowledge, never called for the complete elimination of religion. But I'd wager that someone will do just that before this thread falls off the first page.

Re:Church and Einstein

[meerling]

Correct. For instance, the Nazis actually did great things for Germany's economy and national pride. On the other hand, their methods and ideals are why the entire world reviles even the mention of their name.
As Sique was saying, just because a group does one good thing, you don't have to like or agree with them. (My paraphrasing of his statement.)

Re:Church and Einstein

[Sique]

Just because you don't subscribe to the ideology of an organisation you don't call for its elimination.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll do that right now. As they say, Hitler made the trains run on time, but I still think we're better off without him around.

People have the capacity for decency, with or without superstitions of an all-seeing magician looking over their shoulder. Furthermore, I think it's fair to say the world has been a more perilous place because of organized religion.

There's just no good reason I can think of to keep harmful, vestigial garbage like that around. Our species is better off without it.

Re:Church and Einstein

[ohnocitizen]

The behavior of the Church during (and leading up to) world war 2 was entirely more complex than standing squarely across the path of hitler's ambitions and campaigns: Wikipedia. Especially the words and actions of pope pius.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Another interesting and related link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/archive/200706A19.html

Re:Church and Einstein

[tinkerton]

The Catholic and Protestant Churches supported both Nazism and Fascism.

Actually I think you're the one that is wrong on that one. And so was I until not so long ago. The main thing that can be said against the Catholic church is that it didn't openly oppose nazism under the war - but they surely opposed them. Read up on Pius XI and XII . Wikipedia is a start.

Re:Church and Einstein

[flyingfsck]

"Man will only be free, once the last King has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -- Heinlain.

Re:Church and Einstein

[thatskinnyguy]

[Citation Needed]

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, cite sources or stop spreeding lies and black legends.

Catholic Church saved more than 700000 jews from Nazis:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40300640/ns/world_news-europe/t/popes-praise-pius-dismays-holocaust-survivors
http://www.amazon.com/Pius-XII-Holocaust-Understanding-Controversy/dp/081321081X

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Sources are very important when you talk about controversial history. If you don't cite it please stop spreeding lies and black legends...

Catholic Church saved more than 700000 jews from Nazis:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40300640/ns/world_news-europe/t/popes-praise-pius-dismays-holocaust-survivors
http://www.amazon.com/Pius-XII-Holocaust-Understanding-Controversy/dp/081321081X

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

It is their beliefs that hold the organization together and make it all possible in the first place. You do not have top believe in their message but it would be wise of you to allow it to exist.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

The Catholic and Protestant Churches supported both Nazism and Fascism.

What the churches "supported" in both Nazism and Fascism (before was clear what both Nazism and Fascism actually supported! - it ended quickly, when both Nazism and Fascism expressed their true nature) was their opposition to Communism (the other great evil competing for world domination, with eliminating Christianity as one of their top priority).

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLucless]

So, your evidence that protestants supported Hitler was that a single protestant, who lived ~400 years before Hitler was born, didn't like Jews either?

Re:Church and Einstein

[jalet]

Certainely not "Heinlain" or whatever...
"Je voudrais, et ce sera le dernier et le plus ardent de mes souhaits, je voudrais que le dernier des rois fût étranglé avec les boyaux du dernier prêtre."
It's from Jean Meslier (1664-1729), who was... a catholic priest !

Re:Church and Einstein

[cheesecake23]

Einstein was wrong about this one, if it is in fact an authentic Einstein quote. Can someone please verify for me?

Here is an apparently honest attempt at verification by a math professor who put a lot of effort into sourcing the quote in 2006. He concludes that it is probably not authentic.

HOWEVER, in 2008, a woman brought a series of letters to an episode of Antiques Roadshow. Apparently her father had also attempted to source the quote. Her father finally received a letter from Einstein himself:

"It's true that I made a statement which corresponds approximately with the text you quoted. I made this statement during the first years of the Nazi regime-- much earlier than 1940-- and my expressions were a little more moderate."

Re:Church and Einstein

[quantaman]

Churches form a of counter-government in Western society. Thus in a time of revolution they are one of the few organizations that have the ability to resist. That is not so much an argument for churches as an argument for spreading out the concentration of power in a society. The news media and Universities have both grown stronger since Hitler, but neither really has the ability to act as an independent and alternate government to the same degree.

Re:Church and Einstein

[bloodhawk]

That is faulty logic, it assumes people are only capable of doing good because they believe some mythical being is looking over their shoulder. Personally I believe most people are good and do not require the threat of constant supervision to perform good deeds and any that do require it I try to avoid like the plague. Their are plenty of non-religious organisations around the world devoted to helping others.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a shame that religion is actually the very thing that has been intolerant throughout history. Without religions I feel the world would be a safer and healthier place. a few good deeds do not offset the large amount of death and destruction that religion has brought to humanity. Just as Hitler did many good deeds too, we are still way better off without him and his beliefs.

Re:Church and Einstein

[artor3]

Uhh, yes, that's true. I never suggested otherwise. But the fact that some atheists don't call the elimination of religion does not mean that no atheists do. As with any belief set, you've got extremists who want to force their views on everyone.

Indeed, just five minutes after you posted, an AC posted to say that our species is better off without religion (going as far to include a Hitler analogy), thus proving me right.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Crypto Gnome]

Just because you don't subscribe to the ideology of an organisation you don't call for its elimination.

Someone please tell that to The Jews/The Arabs.

Re:Church and Einstein

[fnj]

As they say, Hitler made the trains run on time

They don't really say that. They say Mussolini made the trains run on time. What they say about Hitler is that the Autobahn system was a great advance.

Re:Church and Einstein

[risom]

Correct. For instance, the Nazis actually did great things for Germany's economy and national pride.

Except they didn't do great things for Germany's economy. Neither in workers wages nor in GDP.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The entire hierarchy of the Catholic church, top to bottom, colluded to hide the rape and torture of small children by priests in Ireland only a few years ago. I guarantee said rape and sexual abuse is still going on TODAY in less enlightened places where the church still holds power, and when it is unearthed, it will be covered up as much as possible as well.

Re:Church and Einstein

[vlad30]

And still - just because you praise an organisation for its stand in a conflict, you don't need to subscribe to her ideology.

The ideology behind religions is generally not bad, most teach good behaviour, morals and tolerance as the basis of the religion. For some humans who cannot think for themselves need something to guide them. The problem is those that deliberately misinterpret the teachings to promote their own agenda

Re:Church and Einstein

[Sique]

Someone please tell that to the <fundamentalist group de jour>.

Re:Church and Einstein

[dbIII]

Which is why combining church and government is such an incredibly scary thing, yet there are so many naive idiots on the authoritarian side of politics that want to do exactly that.
A fascist state run by televangalists would be just as nasty as a communist state where the church is outlawed.
Tell those Godless "Christians" that go to Church for just the political power to look at their Bible for the bit about Caesar.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Sique]

You also don't burn down the stadium of the opponent you play in your next game, if you lose. But you will still have people in your fan crowd demanding exactly that.

My personal stance is quite similar to this one:

Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one.
It's fine to be proud of it.
But, please don't pull it out and wave it around in public.
And never ever force it down the throat of my children.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure who you think Judaism calls for the elimination of. In fact, Judaism is very unusual among religions in that it has no interest in converting the masses, nor has any issue with them living in peace.
Now you're going to say "not Judaism, I said 'The Jews' (!)", whatever that is supposed to mean - maybe something to do with the world Jewish conspiracy or something. Well, still no. Instead of eating up antisemitic rhetoric, go do some research of your own.

Re:Church and Einstein

[IrquiM]

I actually believe that only persons without beliefs can be real, good humans, as they're the only ones who are not pressured into doing good deeds without the threat of some kind of deitys wrath. I do not trust the others to be 100% unselfish.

Re:Church and Einstein

[garaged]

I mostly agree with you, until the point of not thinking by themselves. I am religious, and I do learn science and have a very letftiah libertarian way of thinking, so I dont see how can someone say that I dont think by myself, still I might be blind.

There are some people working an agenda thru religion, but most are really not, they are learning just as any scientist, every day trying to discover a little new thing about what God left us. And you can be surprised by the good things you get to learn when you actually take the time to reading the bible, of course, if you want to deform ideas it is just as easy as with science or political laws.

Re:Church and Einstein

[garaged]

The world has never had so little proportion of religious people... Do you think it is getting better aside from technollogy? Even more, do you think it will be better in let's say 100 years? a thousand?

Re:Church and Einstein

[meglon]

Which explains why the Vatican was the first governing body to recognize Hitlers election, and why Catholic churches aided ODESSA to move high ranking SS officers out of Germany as the war ended, instead of allowing them to be captured and tried as war criminals.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html

http://www.catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/RC_scandal-3.html

...but some of us in the US are not the only ones with seeing things this way...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/10/a_papal_dustup_over_the_holoca

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be noted that one Church spoke out against Hitler, the other did not, Germany has proud Protestant and and Catholic traditions, and one of them was united into a single faith with Hitler as its head. Einstein was speaking specifically about the Catholic Church.

Re:Church and Einstein

[meglon]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/10/a_papal_dustup_over_the_holoca

.... talk to the Israelis. You might remember the old saying: "All that is gold does not glitter, and all "facts" not cited in EVERY post are not lies." I may have paraphrased a little.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Duly noted, though apparently both are common...
https://www.google.com/search?q=hitler+trains+run+on+time

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

as you get older, as in into and out of your 20s, you will learn the hard way that people are fundamental selfish, regardless of their religion or lack of it. As I got past 30 it just got so easy to see how people live for themselves. You have allot of pain ahead of you if you choose to think as you have written.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't jump to conclusions. "Elmination" and "obliteration" are strong words that are actually pretty vague.

If you asked me if organized religion should be obliterated, I say yes. In my mind, that means we should treat superstitions like they're superstitions, and the problem will solve itself with time. That would be good.

If you ask me if we should force people not to practice their religions, by way of law or even violence, the answer is "of course not." Obviously, exceptions exist where practicing your religion adversely affects someone else's life. We can't have Westboro types firebombing places.

Re:Church and Einstein

[jhoegl]

where("[Citation Needed]")
"[Faith Found]"

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry but you don't get it.
He did not say that anybody without a $DEITY is automatically good. He only said that a truly good (pure) deed can only occur when it happens out of your own free will and not because you are scared to get punished by your $DEITY.

Not being afraid simply means that I can be as good or evil as I want to be but this is by choice.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Worthless_Comments]

Mussolini making the trains run on time is a joke; the rail system in Italy at that time was still abysmal. Mussolini made the trains run on thyme.

Re:Church and Einstein

[chill]

In the example given it is more like

Re:Church and Einstein

[chill]

Whee! Slasdot escaping is FUN!

<Fundamentalist group du millenaires>

Re:Church and Einstein

[jadrian]

According to wikipedia this is what Einstein said himself about that quote:

In a 1943 letter Einstein said he made a statement "which corresponds approximately" with Time article, but that it was made much earlier than 1940 "during the first years of the Nazi regime" and that his actual comments were "more moderate."[4] In a 1950 letter Einstein said that his quoted remarks from the Time article were "not my own", that they had been "elaborated and exaggerated nearly beyond recognition" and that he was "predominantly critical" of the clergy.[5] In a 1943 interview Einstein was extremely critical of the Catholic Church's behavior under the Nazis, and also singled out Pope Pius XII for criticism because of his Concordat with Hitler, saying "Since when can one make a pact with Christ and Satan at the same time?"

Re:Church and Einstein

[jawtheshark]

A fascist state run by televangalists would be just as nasty

Ever read "The Handmaid's Tale" by Atwood? That's pretty much that world depicted.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dodgy G33za]

To right. I would be happy if the organisation just kept its hands off our children, both by keeping out of our schools, and by keeping the hands of the priests tied firmly behind their backs.

Re:Church and Einstein

[TFAFalcon]

They kept supporting Nazis until the end of the war (at least in Yugoslavia). The church supported 'Home guard' units, which swore loyalty to Hitler.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dodgy G33za]

Saying that we would be better off without a religion is not the same as calling for its elimination.

We would be better off without stupid people, but that doesn't mean we should round 'em up.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd wager if you posted that all you want is the best for everyone, someone would attack your position as well.

In fact, you made your statement so smugly, you invited exactly what you predicted, so you have proved only that you are a troll.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure where you live but it sounds like an unpleasant place,I live in Australia and I turn 40 next year and while I certainly know some selfish people I think they are definitely outnumbered by people I know that would and do happily help others. incidentally the majority of people I know are not religious. Just thinking about my friends Their are 2 that volunteer for camp quality, 1 that volunteers at the museum, 1 that is in volunteer fire service, 3 that are in rescue services. In fact embarressingly I am probably the least active in the community of my group of friends but I try. Perhaps you just live in a bad community.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Jawnn]

Absolutely. But if you praise an organization for its stand in a conflict, perhaps you should not be so quick to call for its complete obliteration. Einstein, to my knowledge, never called for the complete elimination of religion. But I'd wager that someone will do just that before this thread falls off the first page.

No, but here's a call for the complete elimination of religion from any role in law or government. Huge difference of course, but sadly, that difference will be lost on a great many "true believers".

Re:Church and Einstein

[Jawnn]

The world has never had so little proportion of religious people... Do you think it is getting better aside from technollogy? Even more, do you think it will be better in let's say 100 years? a thousand?

I do not. I think it is getting worse... because of the "religious people".

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

> But, please don't pull it out and wave it around in public.

I suggest removing this line, as marking body parts offensive is technically as arbitrary as imposing the burqa. The rest of the reasoning works well anyway.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

The church explicitly supported Hitler and the Nazi party.

Hitler and religious official A
Hitler and religious official B
Current Pope as a "Hitler Youth"

Pretty damning photographic evidence actually...

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dodgy G33za]

It is certainly getting safer. The world in 2012 is a less violent, less belligerent place than at any time in recorded history :

http://hnn.us/articles/10-3-11/the-world-is-actually-safer.html

While there is no concrete reason to think that this won't continue, we have major time of upheaval on the horizon with shrinking food supplied due to global warming, and the impending robotisation of manufacturing which will displace millions of manual workers worldwide.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the teachings are mostly the crooked morality from barbaric times and most holy books are pick and choose according to the mood of the gods and the needs of the moment. For instance, in the bible the same guy that receives the ten commands directly of the hand of God himself, smash them to the ground right away and ignoring the command of not to kill and respect your parents, orders the massacre of his own people, explicitly including neighbors and parents for the heavy crime of appeasing their fears by worshiping a stupid golden calf.

My concern is that when someone too lazy to think for himself meets a barbaric set of contradictions and is asked to live by it, he sooner or later will come to the realization that everything is justified if is done in the name of God, or more specifically, since God is the source of morality, ANY action taken in the name of God is good and morally correct, including bombing clinics, crashing planes into buildings, torturing and killing people to make them repent of their sins and accept god as the savior, trying to force their faith in others and so on.

Not to mention that their ultimate aspiration is the end of the world and the destruction of all the heatens.

Re:Church and Einstein

[porjo]

Thankyou for the post. I never knew this about Einstein and I'm glad I do now.

Re:Church and Einstein

[ultranova]

Religion is like a penis.

So atheism is basically faith envy ?-)

Re:Church and Einstein

[SternisheFan]

George Carlin says: "I believe in the 11th commandment. Keep thine own religion to thineself!"

Re:Church and Einstein

[Xest]

The only reason the Church would stand up against nazism was because it was a threat to their control over the populace anyway, so it wasn't for some altruistic stand against nazism, but entirely about self-interest protectionism.

To highlight the hypocrisy of defending the church over this, consider that in an imaginary scenario the country you live in decides to do away with religious influence from all public life to mitigate the issues of police abusing the vulnerable - no more church schools to indoctrinate the young, no more church run addiction clinics etc. and they would all be replaced by secular state funded institutions. In this scenario the church would do exactly the same thing - fight against said government, but it wouldn't make them right. This is all they were doing against Nazism - fighting it not because of an inherent disagreement with Nazism, but simply to protect their own ability to manipulate and control people for their own ends.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

why not? why already do this for socially unacceptable people of various degrees in prison,
and we did it for people living on inconveniently rich lands like american natives,
so why not with stupids? /sarcasm

Re:Church and Einstein

[tinkerton]

Why don't you talk to Israelis about it? There is no doubt that the catholic church did a lot for European Jews during WWII and this has been officially acknowledged by Israel multiple times.

Re:Church and Einstein

[porjo]

The Catholic and Protestant Churches supported both Nazism and Fascism.

You're taking a very black and white view on what is an incredibly complex issue. The truth is a lot of people, Christians included, did things that they deeply regretted later. Post-war came a period of incredible soul-searching and repentance for both Catholics and Protestants.

Regarding the Protestants, I think it's a bit of stretch to invoke Martin Luther. While his views most certainly influenced Germany as a whole - both good and bad, to say that the Lutheran, and by extension Protestant, Church as a whole still held those particular views is inaccurate and misleading.

Regardless! providing the quote is genuine, Einstein's observation stands and I'm inclined to take him at his word.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be far more correct to say that evangelicals are compensating.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm didn't the Church help Nazi's escape justice after the war?

Re:Church and Einstein

[w_dragon]

It's only unusual if you only consider it and Christianity. In fact, it would probably be more correct to say that the offshoots of Judaism are unusual for their interest in converting the masses and disliking nonbelievers. I've never known a Hindu to try to convert someone. Or a Buddhist. I've never met someone into Zoroastrianism or Confucianism, but I've never heard about them being pushy. I've talked to native Americans about their spiritual beliefs and they were happy to talk, but certainly didn't try to make me share their beliefs.

Re:Church and Einstein

[mnooning]

Where on earth do you get your information?

Most Catholics and Lutherans were very much against Hitler, as Einstein said. Have you ever heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

The Lateran Treaty of 1929 had to do with settling the question of Vatican land areas, not things of a political nature. As the head of the Italian government, of course it was Mussolini who (amongst others) signed it. The United States and Japan ended World War II by signing an agreement on the deck of the battleship Missouri. Suggesting that the Catholic church was supporting Mussolini because he, too, signed the Lateran Treaty, is like suggesting that the US was throwing its support to Japan because it also signed the stated Japanese agreement.

Re:Church and Einstein

[mnooning]

I should add, though, that you are correct about Martin Luther's virulent anti-Jewish writings.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Skinny Rav]

"Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth."

Einstein was wrong about this one, if it is in fact an authentic Einstein quote. Can someone please verify for me?
The Catholic and Protestant Churches supported both Nazism and Fascism.

On the Catholic:

The Lateran Treaty of 1929 was when the Catholic Church threw its full formal support behind Mussolini. Of course, there had been longstanding informal support long before this, but this is the formal document that the Church cannot deny! It is a impossibility to win power in heavily Christian countries like Italy and Germany were in the 1920's without the active support of the church.

Typical fallacy of equating Nazism and Fascism. Did the Catholic Church supported Fascism? Probaby, I do not know. It did support Franco, if only due to "enemy of my enemy is my friend" reasons, but maybe for other as well. But while both Franco's and Mussolini's regimes were authoritarian and commited crimes, they do not in any scale compare with Nazis. Even today many tyrans oppress opposition and even attack whole cities (see Syria or Libya), but atrocities on the level of Nazis or Red Khmers are something absolutely unique.

So Einstein might have been right that the Church opposed Nazis even though it supported Fascism. In fact Nazis disdained Christianity as a Jewish sect propagating, as they saw it, "weakness". You know, that whole stuff about the other cheek and submitting to torture because of the God and the Truth - completely in opposition to "healthy" Aryan values of strength, victory and the whole "Ubermensch" concept.

Re:Church and Einstein

[umghhh]

What does being good actually mean? How does helping others become universally good? I am asking because you used word logic which to me means you have some nice definitions and better view on which basis you build your world view of among others god's existence or lack thereof. This is not even touching the subject of people being good sometimes but generally being assholes - how does that fit?

I find discussion on /. (and other internet fora) on any subject related to religion, (none) existence of god and such rather silly if sometimes entertaining. They inevitable end up in rants. I guess that is so because the subjects require quite some power in the brain that majority of participants in such discussions do not have. They also require quite some foundations - starting on definitions of good/ness, what religion is, sense of having organized religions or religious organisations and relationship between belief or believes, the origins of virtues in context of complex structures our societies became and existence or not of god(s). All this are interesting subjects that you can spend a lot of time analyzing and discussing by which I mean exchange of ideas allowing determination of truth not annihilation of the opponent which fun as it may be is not furthering our understanding of reality.

Re:Church and Einstein

[khallow]

I actually believe that only persons without beliefs can be real, good humans

Well, then that settles that problem since no one really is and probably can be without beliefs.

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLimecat]

What would you think of the moral character of someone who believed you were going to hell unless you did something, but they couldnt be bothered to warn you of that fact?

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLimecat]

Id be interested to know what the role of religion is in this government.

Biden and Ryan BOTH seemed to agree that you cannot simply excise one half of your beliefs from your political leanings, so we can just take that off the table right now.

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLimecat]

The only reason the Church would stand up against nazism was because it was a threat to their control over the populace anyway, so it wasn't for some altruistic stand against nazism, but entirely about self-interest protectionism.

In other words, no matter WHAT the church does, you will never find anything satisfactory about it because you can always come up with some (spurious) ulterior motive for it.

Got it.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

The Lateran Treaty of 1929 was when the Catholic Church threw its full formal support behind Mussolini.

"Full support" is a bit much. Here's what Wikipedia has to say on it:

The pacts consisted of two documents, with four annexes:[2]
* A political treaty recognising the full sovereignty of the Holy See in the State of Vatican City, which was thereby established, a document accompanied by the annexes:
** A plan of the territory of the Vatican City State
** A list and plans of the buildings with extraterritorial privilege and exemption from expropriation and taxes
** A list and plans of the buildings with exemption from expropriation and taxes
** A financial convention agreed on as a definitive settlement of the claims of the Holy See following the loss of its territories and property
* A concordat regulating relations between the Catholic Church and the Italian state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

Given that "Italy" as we know it today didn't exist until the late 1800s, the Treaty was simply a recognition of the new State by the Holy See, and recognition of the Holy See/Vatican by the Italian State.

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLimecat]

European Protestantism bore the fierce impress of Martin Luther,

Luther started the protestant reformation, but its a long stretch to try to claim that hes the sole influence. He also believed a great many things that protestants over the last century would object pretty heavily to. Its also a long stretch to try to claim that he was the sole founder of the reformation, since there were a great many who came before him like Jan Hus (Luther was, in fact, "accused" of being a Hussite).

Just because he provided the spark and had some questionable views doesnt mean you can draw a line from him to Hitler and try to place the blame in the laps of the 20th century church. Can you provide any evidence that the church of the day supported either authoritarianism OR anti-semitism?

Re:Church and Einstein

[Ksevio]

I'm sure if you were in the tank building death camp business, you saw great economic times under the Nazis

Re:Church and Einstein

[Xest]

Ensuring preservation of itself is one of the things the church has done since it's inception, why would you naively believe things were different in this case?

I'm not sure why you'd take offence to a practical observation of the history of the church (and all religions) and the way they've managed themselves over the years unless you have a vested interest in maintaining the myth that the church has at it's heart any real interest in altruism. Are you religious or something?

Re:Church and Einstein

[ilguido]

Einstein was wrong about this one, if it is in fact an authentic Einstein quote. Can someone please verify for me?

Given the fact that Einstein never defined "quite childish" the Bible like TFA asserts, you may have a point.

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLimecat]

My objection is that I am unaware of any evidence that the protestant church of the 1900s in germany was exercising control over the populace, hence the "spurious".

Yes, I am religious. Is that supposed to be an ad hominem?

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

And still - just because you praise an organisation for its stand in a conflict, you don't need to subscribe to her ideology.

That is very true. It's important, though to also look at what stand Einstein is praising the organization for and that would be intellectual truth and moral freedom. Even if Einstein disagreed with the theology, that theology is what caused the foundation of Einstein's praise.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Pieroxy]

The ideology behind religions is generally not bad, most teach good behaviour, morals and tolerance as the basis of the religion.

Too bad Urban II wasn't in the confidence. Could have helped save a few million death.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

What would you think of the moral character of someone who believed you were going to hell unless you did something, but they couldnt be bothered to warn you of that fact?

Wait, so you are opposed to religion because it does not proselytize enough?

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

Saying that we would be better off without a religion is not the same as calling for its elimination.

We would be better off without stupid people, but that doesn't mean we should round 'em up.

Actually, saying we are better off without religion IS calling for its elimination, just like we are better off without without totalitarianism. We have a long history of trying to get rid of things we are better off without -- polio, smallpox, Marxism, Communism, people who think different than we do, etc. etc.

Re:Church and Einstein

[ArsonSmith]

The only altruistic act results in the knowing death of the one doing the act. All other acts are motivated purely out of self interest.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

To right. I would be happy if the organisation just kept its hands off our children, both by keeping out of our schools, and by keeping the hands of the priests tied firmly behind their backs.

Assuming you are in the US, you wouldn't have a public school system if it weren't for the church schools that the PS system was created to counter. As for priests, I'd be far more worried about the pedophiles not in clerical garb that have far more access to your children than the clergy. Abuse requires access and coaches, teachers, scout leaders, neighbors and relatives all have significantly more access today than does a local parish priest.

If you really want to protect children, you need to be vigilant everywhere and not just assume the danger is from one very small sub-group of an already small group known as clergy. Pedophiles count on societies ignorance to get away with what they do.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

I'll do that right now. As they say, Hitler made the trains run on time, but I still think we're better off without him around.

People have the capacity for decency, with or without superstitions of an all-seeing magician looking over their shoulder. Furthermore, I think it's fair to say the world has been a more perilous place because of organized religion.

There's just no good reason I can think of to keep harmful, vestigial garbage like that around. Our species is better off without it.

Actually, it was Mussolini who made the trains run on time, not Hitler. As for the rest of your post, all of today's morality is based on primitive superstitions (especially if you consider religion a superstition). It is fair to say that without organized religion, the world would be far different than today - for one, it was the monks that preserved all of the ancient texts we have today when most of the civilized world was overrun by the the many hoards. It was the church that developed the structures that we, today, call our judicial system. Same for universities, hospitals and a plethora of other social institutions that until recent times, were taken over by the government.

One cannot simply dismiss the role of religion, both good and bad, in the formation of our modern societies. Whether religion is based on a real deity or is just superstition, does not change the impact it has had. One has only to look at the so called godless societies of the past to envision a world today that would not have had religion. Things like survival of the fittest, subjugation of women, slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc. all would be prevalent. Moral codes that put an end to those all stemmed from societies that believed there was a greater purpose, outside of themselves.

Maybe we don't need those structures anymore today, but to deny that they shaped and influenced what we accept today is like denying the earth revolves around the sun.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

So are you really attempting to compare organized religion to Nazi Germany?

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

you need to take it more literally.

a church full of people was in their way to the east - so they burnt it.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

And the work of Father Hugh O'Flaherty (the 'Scarlet Pimpernel of the Vatican'). I also read a book by a former SOE officer parachuted into France who encountered 3 nuns who saved ~20,000 Jews but I forget who they are.

And as you said, the Catholic Church, particularly in the latter stages when surrounded by Nazis, was in no state to oppose. But it makes a nice myth I guess.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Xest]

"My objection is that I am unaware of any evidence that the protestant church of the 1900s in germany was exercising control over the populace, hence the "spurious"."

What do you think the purpose of religious schools are other than to instill religion in kids to ensure another generation of follows exists to fund the church?

Why do you think so many congregations are told they need to try and bring people in to the church if they want to do their bit to ensure they are a good Christian?

Why do you think they run adoption agencies that prioritise religious adopting couples other than to ensure the child is brought up in a religious environment?

"Yes, I am religious. Is that supposed to be an ad hominem?"

No, but it at least goes to explain why you have a refusal to accept what is pretty obvious to everyone else that isn't blinkered by such beliefs - that the sort of organisation you follow doesn't exist for altruistic reasons but acts only to sustain it's own existence to ensure continued comfort and influence for it's leaders. That's why religious institutions have always existed, that's why they exist to this very day and that's why so much of what they do revolves around trying to bring others into the fold, not because they actually inherently care about the wellbeing of those people.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

He praised their actions not their beliefs, I also praise the actions of church groups that help the needy and homeless. But I still don't believe in the mythology they try and push.

But it was their beliefs that led to their actions. Some would argue that the two are inseparable and therefore praising one is praising the other. However, just because one praises their belief (system) does not mean one has to follow it themselves.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but this is just too hiliarious:

For instance, the Nazis actually did great things for Germany's economy and national pride. On the other hand, their methods and ideals are why the entire world reviles even the mention of their name.

You don't even need to look at the the methods and ideals, in order for the Nazis to be reviled. Look at what they did to Germany's economy: completely destroyed by 1945. Look at what the did to Germany's national pride: completely destroyed by 1945. They were an unmitigated disaster for Germany, on the two points that you just cited as being Nazis' bright side. Please find better examples for your main point, because your point wasn't wrong; maybe there are even good things to say about Nazis (e.g. I happen to think their uniforms were cool-looking).

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

That is faulty logic, it assumes people are only capable of doing good because they believe some mythical being is looking over their shoulder. Personally I believe most people are good and do not require the threat of constant supervision to perform good deeds and any that do require it I try to avoid like the plague. Their are plenty of non-religious organisations around the world devoted to helping others.

No, that is not true at all. It assumes that people have free will to do good or evil. That capability does not require a deity looking over their shoulder and actually encourages the opposite -- making ones own choices. Where religion comes in, or the mythical being as you put it, is that there are consequences and ultimately accountability for those choices. That doesn't take a deity to observe the reality of consequences for choices or behavior.

As for the non-religious organizations around the world devoted to helping others, but most of them were founded by religious types. Even most government humanitarian and social programs are based on religious principles towards society, even though in the US, anyway, they can't directly mention those principles.

In the end, one cannot escape the profound impact that religion has had on the world, both good and bad. We would not have the modern society we have today, if not for the influence of religion in the past. And I say that as someone who is not a theist.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

The only reason the Church would stand up against nazism was because it was a threat to their control over the populace anyway, so it wasn't for some altruistic stand against nazism, but entirely about self-interest protectionism.

To highlight the hypocrisy of defending the church over this, consider that in an imaginary scenario the country you live in decides to do away with religious influence from all public life to mitigate the issues of police abusing the vulnerable - no more church schools to indoctrinate the young, no more church run addiction clinics etc. and they would all be replaced by secular state funded institutions. In this scenario the church would do exactly the same thing - fight against said government, but it wouldn't make them right. This is all they were doing against Nazism - fighting it not because of an inherent disagreement with Nazism, but simply to protect their own ability to manipulate and control people for their own ends.

Yeah, that's why 60,000 priests in Poland sacrificed their lives because of the threat to their control over the populace. Same for the 3 million catholics who died along with the 6 million jews in the concentration camps.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, you must be new to /. Here's the golden rule: if you're an atheist, make sure to announce such at every available opportunity, even when it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

"As an atheist, I demand the best hard drives for my business"
"So I was walking my dog and thinking about how I don't believe in any god, and....."

Also, bash religion at every available opportunity. It's a guaranteed +5 mod. Never defend it overtly, that's always a -1 Troll or Flamebait.

"Religion sucks destroy it all brah brah brah I'm smart because I believe in nothing!"
"The spaghetti monster doesn't exist! I'm right because I'm right!"

Ironic captcha: discuss

Re:Church and Einstein

[ath1901]

And here is the truth behind that statement:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-01-05/

It is unlikely those were his words and the statement has most likely been "been drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own".

It not the first time I hear religious people (jews and christians) claim he was "one of theirs" using dubious or out of context quotes. I can excuse the historical inaccuracies in your old books but I can't excuse the making up of new ones.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

The Catholic and Protestant Churches supported both Nazism and Fascism.

Actually I think you're the one that is wrong on that one. And so was I until not so long ago. The main thing that can be said against the Catholic church is that it didn't openly oppose nazism under the war - but they surely opposed them. Read up on Pius XI and XII . Wikipedia is a start.

You can't even say they didn't openly oppose nazism. 60,000 polish priests and 3 million catholics were killed in the concentration camps for opposing nazism.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Jason Levine]

Interestingly, one group who opposed the Nazis, and was persecuted for it, were the Jehovah's Witnesses. They were told to just keep quiet and they'd be left alone, but they couldn't. Whatever my feelings for Jehovah's Witnesses today, I have some respect for any group which is given a chance to turn a blind eye towards evil and instead puts themselves in harm's way trying to stop it.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

Which explains why the Vatican was the first governing body to recognize Hitlers election, and why Catholic churches aided ODESSA to move high ranking SS officers out of Germany as the war ended, instead of allowing them to be captured and tried as war criminals.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html

http://www.catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/RC_scandal-3.html ...but some of us in the US are not the only ones with seeing things this way...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/10/a_papal_dustup_over_the_holoca

Do you have any citations that are not propaganda sites? As for the Catholic Church recognizing Hitler's election, well, in 1932 when he was legally and validly elected, why would they, along with every other authority recognize it? Isn't that how democracy works. You get who you vote for, even if that person isn't a very good person?

Again, if you have any sites that are validly recognized to support your claim as to why any group recognizing the free election in 1932 was wrong. Then please share it. But leave the propaganda and bashing sites to those who need them to justify their own untenable position.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

Which is why combining church and government is such an incredibly scary thing, yet there are so many naive idiots on the authoritarian side of politics that want to do exactly that.
A fascist state run by televangalists would be just as nasty as a communist state where the church is outlawed.
Tell those Godless "Christians" that go to Church for just the political power to look at their Bible for the bit about Caesar.

A fascist state doesn't need to be run by televangelists to be just as nasty as a community state, or any other totalitarian state. There is also a fast difference between having laws that also have a founding in religious teachings (thou shalt not kill) and having a church run state. Religion influences morality and laws reflect that morality. That is different than a church run state where the laws do not necessarily reflect the morality of the people but the moral precepts of the religion.

It doesn't take religion to corrupt government. Man can do that quite well. It just takes the accumulation of power in the hands of the few instead of the many.

Spock said it best - "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one." Of course, that was almost a direct quote, according to Leonard Nimoy from his Jewish teachings as a child.

Religion has the power to influence. However, it is individual people who use that power for their own ends that is the problem. Because of that, should we get rid of religion? I hope not. We wouldn't have things like the Peace Corps, the International Red Cross, the YMCA, most hospitals and universities, etc. if it weren't for religion. Religion is not the problem. Those who use it to push their own agenda, that is the problem.

 

Re:Church and Einstein

[MightyMartian]

The Japanese didn't have a lot of Jews to do bad things to. Not to worry, there were no lack of Chinese and Koreans.

Re:Church and Einstein

[tyrione]

Reality sucks some times. The Roman Catholic Church leveraged the Roman Empire for its bidding, along with the Spanish, Portuguese and British Empires, yet you're shocked it did the same with Hitler? Grow up. All Abrahamic Religions have fought to repress counter culture and I include all branches of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. They cling to fairy tales that are nothing but bastardized versions of much older pagan religions--all of which were far more interesting and balanced towards the feminine divine.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Jawnn]

Sure you can. You don't make laws based on your religious beliefs. Period. Either prove, via a rational process, the need for this or that law or STFU about it. Let your superstitions govern _your_ behavior and I will defend to the death your right to do so. Attempt to apply your superstitious beliefs to my behavior (or that of my fellow citizens) and expect a fight.

Re:Church and Einstein

[mcgrew]

You see, he has faith that there is no God (without proof, faith is needed for belief). There is no point in arguing with him, he is convinced that there is no god, can be no god, and any talk of a god is foolishness.

You and I know better; like me, you've probably met God yourself. But to a dedicated antitheist, God himself could slap him upside the head and he would rationalize it away.

There are some people working an agenda thru religion

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Sanrorum, Pat Robertson, that evil Baptist preacher in Florida... And these wolves in sheeps' clothing have fooled the faithful. Pat Robertson has probably converted more Christians to athiesm than Rochard Dawkins could ever dream of.

Re:Church and Einstein

[mcgrew]

The only reason the Church would stand up against nazism was because it was a threat to their control over the populace anyway

That's about a thousand years late, dude. There is no one Christian church since Luther broke away. The church has no control over its members, they are free to break from the church whenever they want.

no more church schools to indoctrinate the young, no more church run addiction clinics etc. and they would all be replaced by secular state funded institutions

Your are either deluding yourself or trying to delude others. A secular state run organization is not going to go against the state -- the state runs it. Now tell me, where are all the secular private schools and secular drug abuse facilities?

This is all they were doing against Nazism - fighting it not because of an inherent disagreement with Nazism, but simply to protect their own ability to manipulate and control people for their own ends.

If that were true they wouldn't have fought Nazism, but would have joined the Nazis and simply stated that Hitler was doing God's work against the Godless communist USSR and China.

Of course, my argumants are pointless since you're a fanatical antitheist. Might as well try to convince a Republican that rich people don't pay enough tax, or convincing a Democrat that Social Security is a bad idea.

Re:Church and Einstein

[mcgrew]

The world has never had so little proportion of religious people

2/3s of the world's population is either Christian or Muslim, with millions more Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, and other religious people.

It is true that denominational Christianity is shrinking in the US, but that's because of the growth of nondenominational churches which are growing wildly.

And the world is getting better. Does your country have capital punishment? Few do these days, and none execute prisoners by torture as was done in historical times. I credit religion for this.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Darby]

So are you really attempting to compare organized religion to Nazi Germany?

You do know the Nazis were *very* explicitly Christian, right?
You know the holocaust was an explicitly Christian event following step by step the script written by Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism and with the explicit official support of the Catholic Church, right?

Nazi Germany was just another one of the evils of organized religion. pretending otherwise just makes you look ignorant or dishonest.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody denies that organized religion has had a massive (if often deleterious) impact on history.

That said, the idea that we wouldn't have had people transcribing books without religion works only as well as suggesting that we wouldn't have put human progress on hold during the dark ages. That's to say, highly specious. Your reference to universities is on even shakier ground. And suggesting that religion rescued humanity from "survival of the fittest, subjugation of women, slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc" is closing in on absurd.

So I repeat, while religious people have done good things, we'd be much better off without religion. It's irrational, it's harmful, and we get precious little (if anything) in return.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Darby]

In fact Nazis disdained Christianity as a Jewish sect propagating, as they saw it, "weakness".

If you are too lazy to learn anything about the topic, please have at least the bare level of decency not to bald facedly lie through your teeth about basic historical facts.

The Nazis were *extremely* explicit Christians. It was a fundamental part of their philosophy which they were zealous at pushing on the populace.
This is obvious and backed up be every single relevant fact bar none.

Please stop lying to aid and abet the reputation of Nazis. It's really disgusting.

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLimecat]

Is it your assumption that I am against religion, simply because I am posting on slashdot?

I suppose that WOULD be true for the majority of users.

Re:Church and Einstein

[specific]

For the most part, religion is not about being pressured to do good deeds. It's about being pressured to not commit heinous acts against one another, under the threat of suffering consequences in the afterlife. It's entirely possible to live and let live without performing a list of "good deeds".

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLimecat]

Bullocks. Who defines which personal convictions are allowed, and which arent?

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolute bullcrap. It's the religions that have subjugated women and rationalized slavery, genocide and infanticide (hell, just read the bible!) Moral codes evolve from societal structures as a method of protecting one's community and therefore progeny. Religion is a parasitic perversion of natural moral codes with the purpose of creating a ruling class that lives on the backs of others.

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLimecat]

No, but it at least goes to explain why you have a refusal to accept what is pretty obvious to everyone else that isn't blinkered by such beliefs

So it was an ad hominem: Instead of focusing on what I said, you are diverting attention to ME. In case you were not aware, this is a fallacy.

that the sort of organisation you follow doesn't exist for altruistic reasons but acts only to sustain it's own existence

You know absolutely nothing about what my religious beliefs are. That you are so quick to assume so many things about it neatly demonstrates the bias I was talking about.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

Is it your assumption that I am against religion, simply because I am posting on slashdot?

I suppose that WOULD be true for the majority of users.

No,it is my assumption that you are against religion because you stated "What would you think of the moral character of someone who believed you were going to hell unless you did something, but they couldnt be bothered to warn you of that fact?" which seems to be a disparaging remark against religion.

As for the majority of slashdot users being against religion, unless they are not representative of the population as a whole, then it is likely that most of them do believe in a deity or practice some sort of religion. However, that doesn't not mean they are the frequent posters to topics like this. Anyway, I do not have any empirical evidence one way or the other, just unsubstantiated projections based on generally available statistics regarding world populations and religion.

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLimecat]

I didnt answer your other questions, so I will do so:

Why do you think so many congregations are told they need to try and bring people in to the church if they want to do their bit to ensure they are a good Christian?

"Congregations are told"? By whom? Does this include mine? Are you painting us all with the same brush as if all congregations are equal (despite believing WIDELY divergent things)?

All of that aside: If we truly believe that hearing the gospel is necessary for someone to avoid eternal judgement-- why would we NOT encourage them to come hear the message preached?

Why do you think they run adoption agencies that prioritise religious adopting couples other than to ensure the child is brought up in a religious environment?

Who is this "they" you keep talking of?

Re:Church and Einstein

[specific]

I would disagree with the idea that conquest is dead. These days it's less about land boundaries and physical occupation than it is about psychological subversion. Conquest is very much alive.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the rest of your post, all of today's morality is based on primitive superstitions (especially if you consider religion a superstition).

Morality is independent of religion, someone once said that it was hijacked.

One has only to look at the so called godless societies of the past to envision a world today that would not have had religion. Things like survival of the fittest, subjugation of women, slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc. all would be prevalent.

At least subjugation of woman, slavery and genocide (read the Old Testament) were also practiced by not-so-godless societies.

Moral codes that put an end to those all stemmed from societies that believed there was a greater purpose, outside of themselves.

Some of those things ended with Enlightenment, which was one of the most godless periods in our history.

It's right that organized religion did some good things, but it's a stretch to say that all morality comes from religion

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

The Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Empire are not synonymous anymore. The Holy Roman Empire ceased to exist in 1802 or over 100 years before Hitler rose to power. Most scholars recognize the difference between the governing power of the Holy Roman Empire and the religious side of the Roman Catholic Church. Also, even in catholicism, there are many different branches or rites and then there are the orthodox and then the protestants so lumping them all under the governmental entity of the Holy Roman Empire really dismisses most of what the reality was.

Yes, the papacy evolved into a monarchy like most of the other monarchies at the time. That is how most of the world was and is not surprising as it is an efficient form of governing. Again, that monarchy and the Holy Roman Empire it governed ceased to exist in 1802 and the Roman Catholic Church returned to a non-secular body.

I would challenge your assertion of all Abrahamic Religions have fought to repress counter culture. It would seem most cultural groups at some point fight to maintain their culture at the expense of others. That doesn't seem to be anything specifically tied to a religious group, Abrahamic or otherwise. It very often seems that it was the religious societies and those that practiced the religion were the ones being repressed because by its very nature Judea-Christian philosophies are counter-cultural. However, if you have a citation to show that repression of counter culture was something unique to religious bodies, particularly Abrahamic ones, I would be interested in seeing that. I would imagine, though that you won't find it as that tendency is inherent to all cultures, religious or otherwise.

One does not have to be religious to see and appreciate the positive things that have come out of organized religion. Likewise, one does not have to be anti-religious to see the negative things, too. But, to discuss these things, both positive and negative, one needs to be able to do so rationally. And from the tone of your post, it sounds like you don't really want to discus, but like many, just want to vent. That is your choice, but I'm afraid that even Einstein would not have shared your disdain and he was no supporter of religion (but was of intelligent discussion).

Re:Church and Einstein

[Kjella]

Things like survival of the fittest, subjugation of women, slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc. all would be prevalent. Moral codes that put an end to those all stemmed from societies that believed there was a greater purpose, outside of themselves.

Except for oh say all the societies that institutionalized those bad characteristics because $deity told them so? You should try reading some of those books sometime, there's very little there that sound anything like "all men are created free and equal", most of them are "all other gods are false" "convert the unbelievers" "do as I say and get rewarded, don't do as I say and get punished" - even the post-Jesus book when God wasn't genocidal on Sodoma and Gomorrah and incesticidal by killing all the first born sons in Egypt contains some pretty heavy stuff. For at least 1900 out of the last 2000 years Christianity has had no problem with the subjugation of women, stop trying to make revisionist history to pretend that they did.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it was Mussolini who made the trains run on time, not Hitler.

Actually, he didn't either. Statistical analysis of train times in Italy before, during, and after Mussolini showed absolutely no improvement during his regime.

AC

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

2/3s of the world's population is either Christian or Muslim, with millions more Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, and other religious people.

Worldwide people are divided into six roughly equal parts by religion: Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Other, None. And until fairly recently "None" wasn't really an option in most places, and government was essentially an extension of the religion of its people. I can't think of any time in recorded history that the population of nonreligious people (or at least openly nonreligious people) could have been higher.

It is true that denominational Christianity is shrinking in the US, but that's because of the growth of nondenominational churches which are growing wildly.

Sorry, but the fastest growing religious preference in the US is "none". But you are right that since people generally go in a direction that goes from fundamentalist to mainstream to nondenominational to spiritual but not religious to none, and mainstream currently has the highest population, that there is a big movement going on there.

Does your country have capital punishment?

Yes.

Few do these days, and none execute prisoners by torture as was done in historical times. I credit religion for this.

And I would credit secularism - the only people I know who support the death penalty justify it with religion, while the "atheistic European" nations don't seem to have much of that.

Re:Church and Einstein

[2short]

Actually it was Mussolini who claimed to make the trains run on time, but didn't.

Subjugation of women, slavery, genocide, and infanticide are all approved and even required by easily found Bible verses. And there are plenty of examples of religious believers who followed the instructions.

Survival of the fittest on the other hand "would be prevalent"??? WTF? It's as universal today as ever. It's also not a result of adverse human action, nor does it have a moral dimension of any sort. The fact that organisms more suited to survival in their environment are more likely to reproduce isn't bad or good, it's just true. And stupidly obvious, IMO.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Flayed_Banana]

That quote was published by Time Magazine (without source or any indication that their reporter heard him say it). Since I am a terrible writer, I shall quote what "The Manic Street Preacher" ( From http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/einstein-statement-church ) who wrote:

"The statement first appeared in an article entitled “German Martyrs” which was published in Time magazine on 23 December 1940. You will find it posted on many religious websites and repeated by clergymen. Christian historian, Michael Burleigh, quotes it point-blank in his study of religion and politics in the 20th century, Sacred Causes, before rambling into a highly selective and ultimately, disingenuous defence of the Church during the Second World War.

Nevertheless, a superb piece by the analyst, William Waterhouse, first published in Skeptic (Volume 12, Number 3, Fall 2005), has exposed the statement as an exaggeration at best and a fabrication at worst by those eager to abuse Einstein’s prestigious reputation rather than convey his real opinions.

For starters, the statement appeared without any source or attribution when it was first published in Time. It is not known whether the reporter personally heard Einstein say it. The statement does not appear in the definitive collection of Einstein’s sayings, The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Any reference to the treatment of Europe’s Jews is also conspicuously absent.

In addition, the language is too flamboyant compared to Einstein’s usual style, with its reference to “great editors” and “flaming editorials”. The statement is also unlikely to have come from a scientist, stating as it does that Einstein “despised” something immediately after saying that he “never had any special interest” in it."

Highly exaggerated at best and outright fabrication at worst. Christopher Hitches says it better than I can in his his book "God is not great":

“Those who seek to misrepresent the man who gave us an alternative theory of the cosmos (as well as those who remained silent or worse while his fellow Jews were being deported and destroyed) betray the prickings of their bad consciences.”

I looked up the word "church" in the Albert Einstein Archives ( http://alberteinstein.info/ ) and only one document showed up. It is dated 11th of May, 1917:

"...If I were disposed toward the opposition and I saw in the state church an objectionable means of encouraging
people to maintain a mentality convenient for the ruling caste, then naturally I would not support this established
church. But if I loved the established church as a preserving element of the state which was according to my taste
(not mine), then I, as a free thinker, might safely join it .... "

http://alberteinstein.info/vufind1/images/einstein/11-457.tr.pdf

As a scientist he was more interested in the Enlightenment tradition and if the Church was an actor in support of that then he might have joined it, but then this happened:

"On January 1933, Franz Von Papen, leader of the Catholic Party of Germany, friend of E. Pacelli, the Papal Nuncio to Munich, later Pope Pius XII, became Hitler's Vice-Chancellor. Thus, the Leader of the German Catholic Party was second in command only to Hitler in Hitlerite Germany. Von Papen and Pacelli eventually negotiated for a Concordat in which Hitler pledged to support the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church to support Hitler (June 1933)."

From http://www.reformation.org/holoc15.html

I am not an historian or an Albert Einstein expert, but to me it looks like the Church was supporting everything which the great scientist found objectionab

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLimecat]

I was raising what I saw as a major flaw in the reasoning that "religion is OK, just dont bother anyone else with it"-- which is that if you believe your religion to be true, its hard to justify NOT telling someone about it.

Regarding portion of population and religion, I would recommend you check out the various gallup polls on "what people say they believe" versus polls that ask specifics ("do you believe in a personal god"; "whens the last time you opened your holy book", "whens the last time you gathered with others of your faith", etc). You might be shocked by how many claim to believe something but yet it oddly has no impact whatsoever on their life.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the Church a strong supporter of Hitler because he promised he would convert everyone to their faith?

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Even most government humanitarian and social programs are based on religious principles towards society, even though in the US, anyway, they can't directly mention those principles.

In the end, one cannot escape the profound impact that religion has had on the world, both good and bad. We would not have the modern society we have today, if not for the influence of religion in the past. And I say that as someone who is not a theist.

That simply isn't true, and relies on completely fallacious logic. It is actually the exact opposite, many religions are based on the moral standards and principles of the community in which they reside, usually trailing by 20 or 30 years. This is clearly shown by how inconsistent religions are over time and always conform somewhat to whatever the current society standards are. As for non religious charities founded by religious types I call BULLSHIT, sure their are some but that is definitely not the case for all, including some of the biggest.
Do some research before parroting such garbage. As point in proof

Doctors without Borders
Camp Quality
Amnesty International
UNICEF

they are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. The world would have been a far better place if it weren't for religion, we certainly would not be the modern society we are today without them, we would be a much BETTER one.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Xest]

"That's about a thousand years late, dude. There is no one Christian church since Luther broke away. The church has no control over its members, they are free to break from the church whenever they want."

Just because it's fragmented doesn't mean those fragmented portions don't still follow the same ethos.

What you've seriously never heard of the Pope, Vatican City etc.? You've never ever heard of The Church of England?

No wonder you have no idea what you're on about.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Xest]

""Congregations are told"? By whom? Does this include mine? Are you painting us all with the same brush as if all congregations are equal (despite believing WIDELY divergent things)?"

Look, I'm sorry you're taking personal offence to this, my point is about the general case that for the most part, religions are organised the way they are to sustain their own existence. To pretend there is no top down hierarchy in most religions is absurd - if you hadn't noticed the Catholic child abuse scandal in Europe was being managed and covered up all the way to the top. Just as if I say "Microsoft is a convicted monopolist" I'm not saying that some poor average Joe at Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, I'm saying the company is, and that it is the management of that company that is responsible. This is why in my original post, when I point out that actions of religions around the globe are what they are for the sake of self-preservation rather than inherent altruism because it's true. The Pope isn't in charge of the Catholic Church so he can inherently do good in the world, he's in charge of it because it means he gets to live like a king, and influence global politics the way he wants them to be influenced. He may believe he's doing good, he may not care, but his primary concern is maintaining the lifestyle him and his colleagues in Vatican City have. Why do you think Catholicism is so against Condoms? Most religion is like the world's biggest, longest running pyramid scheme in this respect- as long as you keep bringing more people into the fold it'll be okay, whether that's through indoctrination using tools such as adoption agencies, or whether that's by maximising children born to parents of that religion in the hope they will bring them up as members of that religion through telling people not to use contraception.

"All of that aside: If we truly believe that hearing the gospel is necessary for someone to avoid eternal judgement-- why would we NOT encourage them to come hear the message preached?"

Because it's selfish, because all you're doing is fulfilling your own selfish belief that you're somehow doing good, when in all likely hood you're often just getting on people's nerves. You're doing what you've been taught to do, you're maintaining your religion's existence because it suits those who have preached that message to you to have that religion maintained.

"Who is this "they" you keep talking of?"

Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews? Take your pick. Or are you suggesting none of these religions run adoption agencies?

Look, you may well be one of those who has religious beliefs that does genuinely do good, but don't try and pretend that if you are that you're representative of likely your (or just about any other) religion as whole. Don't try and pretend that just because you yourself are a good individual, that you are representative of the hierarchy that manages their respective religions around the globe.

If the likes of Catholicism were genuinely about atruism then Vatican City wouldn't be the magnificent place it is, and The Pope wouldn't get the servants he does, nor the gold and gem encrusted ornaments and garments he does. He'd sell it all off, live in a very humble abode, and use the cash to help mitigate problems like AIDs in Africa. The fact he doesn't do any of this, and lives the life of a king, whilst exacerbating the problem through discouragement of contradiction though is testament to the fact that he's in it for himself and his colleagues and relies on people like you (not necessarily you though, especially if you're not even Catholic) to keep bringing people into the fold to keep funding his lifestyle with absurd stories about how you're saving someone from what is, frankly, just a fairy tale.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

I was raising what I saw as a major flaw in the reasoning that "religion is OK, just dont bother anyone else with it"-- which is that if you believe your religion to be true, its hard to justify NOT telling someone about it.

Regarding portion of population and religion, I would recommend you check out the various gallup polls on "what people say they believe" versus polls that ask specifics ("do you believe in a personal god"; "whens the last time you opened your holy book", "whens the last time you gathered with others of your faith", etc). You might be shocked by how many claim to believe something but yet it oddly has no impact whatsoever on their life.

I have no doubt that what many "believers" say they believe and what they practice are two different things. However, I just let them and their god work out their consequences. :)

Re:Church and Einstein

[Dcnjoe60]

Actually it was Mussolini who claimed to make the trains run on time, but didn't.

Subjugation of women, slavery, genocide, and infanticide are all approved and even required by easily found Bible verses. And there are plenty of examples of religious believers who followed the instructions.

Survival of the fittest on the other hand "would be prevalent"??? WTF? It's as universal today as ever. It's also not a result of adverse human action, nor does it have a moral dimension of any sort. The fact that organisms more suited to survival in their environment are more likely to reproduce isn't bad or good, it's just true. And stupidly obvious, IMO.

Actually, survival of the fittest is no longer the predominant theory. It is true that organisms more suited to survival in their environment are more likely to reproduce, but that is not the same as survival of the fittest. There is a good deal of luck involved in which species survive or not and it has nothing to do with how suited they were to their environment but everything to do with chaos theory. Just ask the dinosaurs, if the asteroid had been 1 hour later, they'd most likely still be roaming the planet.

Re:Church and Einstein

[LordLimecat]

No offense has been taken, and I hope you take none from my response. But your post displays a profound ignorance about religion, what it teaches, its history, and the motivations behind believers

For starters so that you know where Im coming from, Im protestant, and my current convictions place me in a Southern Baptist church-- there is no formal heirarchy beyond the congregation and the elders, and in almost all things the congregation as a whole has the last word. I believe catholocism as a whole-- unlike other protestant denominations-- to be opposed to the core tenets of the faith; not going to go into it (its a long historical discussion), but I say that so you will not think i have some interest in defending them.

I dont think you are correct regarding the pope. Certainly I think his authority is a false one, but the reasons he is there are historical / theological . It is possible the pope doesnt actually believe those theological reasons, but I have a hard time imagining "power and control" being his sole motivations-- people everywhere have a need to feel justified. Again, I disagree regarding the condom issue, but the reason is not what you say it is.

You claim it is selfish for me to try to get others to believe what I believe-- but you can only say that by assuming at the outset that my beliefs are false. But I dont believe them to be false, and what I believe is what determines whether something is selfish (done for self-serving reasons). Given what I believe, it is in fact selfish to avoid sharing what I believe because I fear other's reactions-- I am placing my own fears above what I believe to be their highest good.

At the core, all of your comments demonstrate pretty neatly that the lenses you view the world through will color EVERYTHING. You believe "the church" (as if it were one entity) is devoted to trying to perpetuate itself above all other concerns, and to control others as a secondary goal; this means that ANYTHING you see in the church will be interpreted in that light. I think at some point you will run into the fact that those lenses are going to tell you things that fly in the face of reality.

Regarding your generalizations of church structure, you should know that there are a huge number of churches and denominations that have no central heirarchy. "Fundamentalists" tend (AFAIK) to be those who eschew such heirarchies, because any claimed biblical support for it is going to be very tenuous. Presbyterians arent even a single unit-- theres PCA and PCUSA and the difference between them is night and day, and they have separate heirarchies.

You are trying to generalize things that simply cannot be generalized, and its leading you to believe things that are as a matter of fact (not opinion) false, such as your interpretation of church structure.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

lol religitard

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

lol religitard #2

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

The independent Vatican State was created by Mussolini in return for the Catholic Church recognising and supporting his facist regime. All churches are by nature right wing conservative organisations. Get over it.

Re:Church and Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

What jews in Japan?

Re:Church and Einstein

[Xest]

"You claim it is selfish for me to try to get others to believe what I believe-- but you can only say that by assuming at the outset that my beliefs are false. But I dont believe them to be false, and what I believe is what determines whether something is selfish (done for self-serving reasons). Given what I believe, it is in fact selfish to avoid sharing what I believe because I fear other's reactions-- I am placing my own fears above what I believe to be their highest good."

Without meaning to Godwin the argument, this was exactly Hitler's justification for extermination of the jews though- that society was better off if they were to be terminated. The problem is this argument obviously has an unfair impact on those who disagree, particularly those who are the target of the viewpoint.

As such because what you believe is right, and what someone else believes is right are in conflict- whilst you believe you're doing the right thing by "saving" them, they think you're doing the wrong thing by pestering them. The only solution to the problem is the middle ground in that no matter how strongly you think you're doing them a favour, they disagree and so you should leave them be and keep that opinion to yourself. If you feel so strongly that you can't do this then that is why it is selfish - because you're effectively saying that your beliefs trump theirs - that your need to "save" them is more important than their wish to be left alone.

It's not hence an argument about whether your beliefs are right or wrong, but that the only way to ensure neutrality is for you to keep your beliefs to yourself- anything else has the implication that you believe your beliefs are more important, and that their beliefs are irrelevant to your goal of trying to convert them, and that is why it is selfish.

So sure from your point of view you may not see it as selfish, but that doesn't mean that it fundamentally, from an objective standpoint, isn't.

"You believe "the church" (as if it were one entity)"

I feel like you've led me into a trap here, I merely used the terminology "the church" as a follow on from your use of it earlier in the discussion in an attempt to try and keep things framed in your own language.

"Regarding your generalizations of church structure, you should know that there are a huge number of churches and denominations that have no central heirarchy."

I suspect that this is more due to cultural differences, in the US this is quite possibly true, and I suspect from having seen stories about them that this is indeed the case. Certainly in the "old world" though, especially the Middle East, and Europe, and to some extent Asia, things are still mostly much more hierachial- in fact, some countries of course build their entire political structure around it, hence Iran's Ayatollahs.

"You are trying to generalize things that simply cannot be generalized, and its leading you to believe things that are as a matter of fact (not opinion) false, such as your interpretation of church structure."

Again I suspect this is because of cultural differences, here in the UK the church of England is very much ingrained in everyday life. The House of Lords, which is the UK's institution that most closely mirrors the US Senate has a number of seats specifically reserved for non-elected religious leaders. Certainly here the whole Church of England hierarchy's primary focus is to maintain political power precisely because they have it and risk losing it if their institution is weakened. One example of something they vehemently defend is publicly funded schools that classify themselves as religious schools meaning they use state funded to subsidise schools that they then use to force children to prayer. Initially you might think that this is no big deal because it means parents of religious belief have somewhere to send their kids, but unfortunately what it means is you have schools that receive all the state funding of other schools, with extra cash on top from the church, meaning even atheist

IDK

[Anonymous Coward]

Religious nuts scare me.
They have no problem screwing over anyone not of their religion. They are only good at all because they think the invisible man is watching them all the time. And even that isnt absolute. They can be a tool. Confess. And hey! its all good!

All the non-religious peeps are good without the afterlife reward carrot in front of them.

Someday.. long after im dead im afraid.. society will finish growing up. and religion will earn its proper place. as a subset of CRAZY.
Sure wish i could see that.

Re:IDK

[harlequinn]

"All the non-religious peeps are good without the afterlife reward carrot in front of them."

All of them you say... yeah, no.

To start, only some are "good" (how you universally define that I do not know). Then only some will be good without prodding. You ignore that the rules and regulations of society are very much full of carrots and sticks.

I am sick and tired of this

[astropirate]

I am sick and tired of people (mostly atheists) confusing Christianity and Religion. Stop it. He was critical of Christianity not "Religion"

Re:I am sick and tired of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually his views were for religions in general, not just Christianity, though most of his comments were around Christianity as that is what he generally had to deal with. He basically has been quoted many times that the only religion he believes in are the laws of nature and the underlying physics of the universe.

Re:I am sick and tired of this

[Anonymous Coward]

All religion is insanity. Classification of the specific type of insanity is really beyond the scope of any single person.
Its easier to lump all religion into the one box marked CRAZY. Leave classification to those studying the insane.

Muslim, christian, jew, whatever. you've ALL killed people in the past for not believing in your specific brand of invisible sky wizard insanity. you're all just as bad AND just as crazy as each other. None of you have any high ground to denounce any other religion anymore. ALL OF YOU need to stfu. keep your religious beliefs between you and god and shut the fuck up. Stop making the world a worse place already! you're not helping!

And stop trying to drag atheists every fucking argument about religion. Thats just a strawman and you know it.
Really i don't expect much logic and common sense from you crazies tho.
But still. Stop making the world a worse place.

Re:I am sick and tired of this

[rtb61]

He simply used the religion he was most exposed to as an example, to look beyond that is simply vain attempts to promote other religions. More concisely the view is whether or not life has value, real value ie considered a dimension an expression of a different form of energy. Once down that path all life has value, not just select believers over non-believers and the remainder of the living biosphere. Obviously Einstein perceived a value of value of life, a distinct worth, something that has a true impact and influence upon the whole universe great and small.

Those choices that promote life as being honourable and those that detract from it, lessen it, diminish all life that is not your own as being dis-honourable ie forces positive and negative. More simply expressed in English as 'LIVE' being the literal opposite of 'EVIL', hardly an accident in literal expression. So people have always had this perception of value, in some ways religion support this and in their own lust for power the chief promoters of particular religions routinely abandon it. Psychopaths always find a place in organisation where they can manipulate circumstance to feed their own ego, greed and lust.

Corporations, governments and especially religions have all fallen under the sway of individual psychopaths who have used those organisation in the most destructive ways imaginable, costing the lives of hundreds of millions in the process. Whilst psychopathy can by it's action be considered the true evil of human society it still does not mean psychopaths themselves are evil, they just suffer from a genetic defect which impacts the cerebral functions, which relate to social behaviour and that makes them unfit for position of governance, control and influence.

Re:I am sick and tired of this

[EmagGeek]

Somebody mod parent up.

Seriously.

I tried to enjoy the Fall for Greenville festival over the weekend. Now, Greenville is quite a progressive city, so I was hoping to simply have a good time sampling new restaurants and enjoying a nice day out.

Then, I saw them. The large crosses being tugged around. The megaphones. The people standing on park benches. Uh oh. The evangelicals.

You couldn't walk 100 feet down Main st. without being accosted by some fanatical wizard-worshipping numbnut pushing a bible or end-of-the-world fantasy in your face.

Re:I am sick and tired of this

[RazorSharp]

keep your religious beliefs between you and god and shut the fuck up

Then keep your atheism between you and yourself and shut the fuck up.

Thats just a strawman and you know it.

Kind of like how your post is nothing but an extended ad hominem directed at anyone who practices religion? Don't incorrectly accuse someone of being guilty of a fallacy while engaging in one yourself. Stop making the world a worse place. Take Logic 101 and learn what a strawman argument actually is.

Re:I am sick and tired of this

[LordLimecat]

Muslim, christian, jew, whatever. you've ALL killed people in the past for not believing in your specific brand of invisible sky wizard insanity.

Remind me how many genocides were perpetrated by religious belief in the past 100 years?

Re:I am sick and tired of this

[Dcnjoe60]

All religion is insanity. Classification of the specific type of insanity is really beyond the scope of any single person.
Its easier to lump all religion into the one box marked CRAZY. Leave classification to those studying the insane.

Muslim, christian, jew, whatever. you've ALL killed people in the past for not believing in your specific brand of invisible sky wizard insanity. you're all just as bad AND just as crazy as each other. None of you have any high ground to denounce any other religion anymore. ALL OF YOU need to stfu. keep your religious beliefs between you and god and shut the fuck up. Stop making the world a worse place already! you're not helping!

And stop trying to drag atheists every fucking argument about religion. Thats just a strawman and you know it.
Really i don't expect much logic and common sense from you crazies tho.
But still. Stop making the world a worse place.

Dragging atheists into every argument about religion is a strawman. But then again so is saying how many people were killed in the past in religious wars, every time a religious topic is presented.

Re:I am sick and tired of this

[papasui]

Amen.

Re:I am sick and tired of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Emotion isn't a good ingredient for rational thinking whether it comes from religion or personal beliefs.
I believe in some sort of entity deliberately constructing the physics of the observable universe, not from the bible or anything else. Instead as Godel stated it just seems logical to me.
It would be false to assume that organized religion causes people to do bad things. It would seem that many people are angry, or aggressive and will look for any banner to join under to justify their actions.
In short, I'm worried about emotional, and angry people such as yourself. Whether they join together as atheists, christians, pantheists, agnostics, etc.

Thanks Rebecca

[Anonymous Coward]

You just saved me $3 million.

Einstein Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear me out here, but had Jesus said in the bible something like "judge not less ye be judged... and the earth is round, keep sailing west for months and there's a whole new land!"

or "I die for your sins... and gravity can be explained simply using numbers and counting on a few fingers, try it for other stuff and eventually you'll be in space and walking on the moon."

He may well have been the son of God to be able to impart such insights ahead of their time.

Einstein's insights I believe are like this, they were not for this age. Man remains too immature to wield such knowledge and the vast acceleration of understanding about the secrets of nature the universe he has brought about.

Politicians and businessmen still control the fruits of the knowledge of humanity, and not the scientists and learned who first discover them.

Anyway for this reason Einstein > Jesus. E=MC^2 = God

Good memories

[digitaltraveller]

This reminds me of catholic high school when I quoted Einstein for an assignment in my religion (indoctrination) class as a way of proving that god DID exist. To make my (nonunderstanding) teacher look foolish in front of the rest of the class. Good times.

Re:Good memories

[Tablizer]

Logic doesn't get you promotions, though. Kissing up has better odds, I hate to say. I doubt it helped your grade.

reply

[Anonymous Coward]

Shanghai Shunky Machinery Co.,ltd is a famous manufacturer of crushing and screening equipments in China. We provide our customers complete crushing plant, including cone crusher, jaw crusher, impact crusher, VSI sand making machine, mobile crusher and vibrating screen. What we provide is not just the high value-added products, but also the first class service team and problems solution suggestions. Our crushers are widely used in the fundamental construction projects. The complete crushing plants are exported to Russia, Mongolia, middle Asia, Africa and other regions around the world.
http://www.mcrushingplant.com
http://www.crusher007.com
http://www.sand-making-machine.com
http://www.china-impact-crusher.com
http://www.cnshunky.com
http://www.bestssj.com
http://www.shunkyen.com
http://www.crusheren.com
http://www.crusher02.com
http://www.portablecrusherplant.net
http://www.csconecrusher.com

Oh shit...now youve gone and done it...

[Spectrumanalyzer]

Any takers on how long it will take for the religious people to find this thread and turn it into a big nerd-vs-religion flame fest?

*ducks and hides*

Re:Oh shit...now youve gone and done it...

[meglon]

..about 5 posts...

Partly true

[SmallFurryCreature]

Urk is a fishing village in Holland known to be part of the bible belt. They were also FIERCE resisters, their fishing vessels carrying many a Jew and downed allied airmen to safety. There reasoning wasn't so much a love of Jews and others they helped to safety but a pigheaded resistance to being told what to do. They knew wrong and right and nazism was wrong, end of story. They were good men, who did do something.

But I wouldn't call them lovers of freedom, just people who when pushed, push back, by instinct. They would also have had nothing to do with mass religion, claiming "protestants" are one group is damn silly. Most consider the people in the next village to be weirdos.

Meanwhile the pope at the time was thought of to be a good man too. He just didn't do anything.

Mussoline and the holocaust were strange bed fellows, it has to be remembered that nazism and facism are not the same thing. And Mussolini was a fascist, not a nazi. He regonized Jews were part of Italy and should be left undisturbed, Jews were members of his party in quite high positions. It is only with the increasing power of Germany that this changed, resulting in Jews being stripped of citizenship rights in 1939.

This was not at all popular with the Italian fascists and the pope even send a strong letter of critism on this. To increasingly appease Hitler, Jews were started to be round up in Italian controlled areas and send to labor camps but Mussonlini until the Italy surrender refused to send them to German controlled extermination camps. The Germans complained that Italy and its territories were becoming a save haven in Europe for Jews.

After Italy surrendered, Mussonlini was freed by the Germans and they took over control over the remaining Italian land and started to put their holocaust plan into action. Italian soldiers who were not captured by Allied forced found themselves improsoned by the Germans, Italy very much became subjegated to full German control and all that entailed.

The role of religion in WW2 is far from clean, but it is not as simple as some Discovery Channel programs would like you to believe.

Re:Partly true

[Anonymous Coward]

"it has to be remembered that nazism and facism are not the same thing. And Mussolini was a fascist, not a nazi."

Both are totalitarian, dictatorships formally run by a close alliance between business and politics, having near 'total' control over society, with a government rep as head of every union, media outlet, hobby club etc. Differences between two two are mostly circumstantial, not principal.

I dig his definition of "God"

[Tablizer]

His definition is basically that "God" is the mystery, AKA creating force, of the universe itself. Whether that "force" turns out to be a bearded dude or natural laws is a lower level than the definition.

It's a great wiggle-room definition. Thus, you can be a geek who admires the "glory of God" without having to subscribe to a particular religion or "shape" or sentient-level of creator.

It's the kind of non-committal fuzz that would make Mitt Romney proud ;-)

Re:I dig his definition of "God"

[Epeeist]

It's a great wiggle-room definition. Thus, you can be a geek who admires the "glory of God" without having to subscribe to a particular religion or "shape" or sentient-level of creator.

All definitions of god have a huge amount of wiggle room, AKA incoherence. I always thought of Einstein as a pantheist due to his claim of following the god of Spinoza, perhaps though he would be better characterised as an igtheist.

Re:I dig his definition of "God"

[Tablizer]

I haven't seen a good description of the concept in such definitions, especially in terms of the indirection required. Basically it's appreciation for x in "x created the Universe" without having to first define x. Definitions for pantheism imply a belief in the supernatural. However, we are not assuming that here even. x may turn out to be anything.

Re:I dig his definition of "God"

[Crypto Gnome]

It's the kind of non-committal fuzz that would make Mitt Romney proud ;-)

Careful application of Occams Razor shows that under all that non-committal fuzz is a face-full of self-interest.

Re:I dig his definition of "God"

[bytesex]

Spinoza made a compelling case for 'nature' /being/ 'god', so I don't see how the two were any different. No need for a separate definition.

Re:I dig his definition of "God"

[Tablizer]

In my variation, I'm not limiting it to nature. Maybe there really is a "dude" running the show. Thus, it could be artificial.

For example, maybe we really are a simulation, and the equivalent of the server admin running it is a white-bearded dude who tells certain groups of people (in the emulation) not to eat pork on Wednesdays or whatever just to eff with them.

I leave the "x" wide open in "the x that created the Universe". My impression is that Einstein did the same, but maybe he limited it somewhere. (Saying a bearded top dude is "unlikely" is not the same as ruling it out.)

Textual analysis

[Benfea]

Evidence of alterations come from textual analysis. For example, some of the alterations use phrases that were in use much later than the stories were supposedly written down.

Re:Textual analysis

[smittyoneeach]

Also coming from textual analysis: a bunch of academics engaging in 'publish or perish' rituals, and selling their own books.
Celebrate capitalism!

Re:Textual analysis

[Dcnjoe60]

Evidence of alterations come from textual analysis. For example, some of the alterations use phrases that were in use much later than the stories were supposedly written down.

I am not a theist, but that is an invalid argument. The early Jews had an oral tradition and the stories were written down long afterwards. As each Hebrew community had it's own priests and texts there were variations. These were at some point in antiquity combined into a single text, but that does not mean they were altered in the sense you use the word. Finally, it is well established among historians that the texts in question were not meant to be a scientific account or even an historical one in the sense we use it today.

Now, whether it was inspired or not, that is for the theists to believe in.

Re:Textual analysis

[tolkienfan]

There were many conflicting writings to choose from at the time the Bible was formed. They could have made the Bible say many different things. That is says what it does is by choice.

Re:Textual analysis

[LordLimecat]

Specifics please.

Re:Textual analysis

[Dcnjoe60]

There were many conflicting writings to choose from at the time the Bible was formed. They could have made the Bible say many different things. That is says what it does is by choice.

That could be said about any field. There are mathematical models in existence that show how the everything revolves around the earth. But the scientific community has rejected those models. There are various models of evolution around (no, not intelligent design, but actual evolution) and yet the scientific community has rejected most of those. When I was growing up, there were 9 planets, now, because the scientific community has decided otherwise, there are only 8. Why is it okay for the scientific community to determine what is in its canons, but not the religious community?

Again, I am not a theist, but it seems that people go out of their ways to discount anything from alternative belief systems and yet ignore their own bias. I think there is a passage in the christian bible about removing the plank from one's own eye before the speck in another's.

As for my understanding of the various books not included - if you dismiss the ones that even modern scholars are skeptical about, they do not really change the central message or theme.

Re:Textual analysis

[tolkienfan]

I've never seen such a string of straw men.

How were the books of the Bible chosen vs how particular mathematical models are chosen?
The books of the Bible were, roughly, chosen by committee and aren't subject to change.
Mathematical models are chosen by testing and retesting and refinement. They are all subject to change based on new facts and findings.

Therefore the claim of scientific Canon is bogus. If authority decided which theories to accept, instead of merit, then science wouldn't work, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't think I discounted anything, but allow me to make a case now. It's pretty clear that I pointed out that writings were chosen to collect together. The implication is that the choices were made by men. It's really very clear that these men were politically motivated.

Also, there isn't a central message, nor even a coherent one. It's widely open to interpretation, and different sects do, in fact, ascribe to incompatible interpretations. Few of the stories in the Bible stand up to any standard of argument at all.

If one were to choose a religion solely by the strength of the arguments in it's holy book, one would never choose Christianity.

One might make the same argument about the strength of it's moral message. The vast amount of atrocity approved in biblical stories and the shear vindictiveness of the god described therein is truely astonishing.

My Credo.

[TapeCutter]

Albert hit the religion nail on the head in the last paragraph of his famous speech "My credo", which he gave to the German League of Human Rights in late 1932.

My Credo

It is a special blessing to belong among those who can and may devote their best energies to the contemplation and exploration of objective and timeless things. How happy and grateful I am for having been granted this blessing, which bestows upon one a large measure of independence from one's personal fate and from the attitude of one's contemporaries. Yet this independence must not inure us to the awareness of the duties that constantly bind us to the past, present and future of humankind at large.

Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here, involuntarily and uninvited, for a short stay, without knowing the why and the wherefore. In our daily lives we feel only that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own.

I am often troubled by the thought that my life is based to such a large extent on the work of my fellow human beings, and I am aware of my great indebtedness to them.

I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.

I have never coveted affluence and luxury and even despise them a good deal. My passion for social justice has often brought me into conflict with people, as has my aversion to any obligation and dependence I did not regard as absolutely necessary.

I have a high regard for the individual and an insuperable distaste for violence and fanaticism. All these motives have made me a passionate pacifist and antimilitarist. I am against any chauvinism, even in the guise of mere patriotism.

Privileges based on position and property have always seemed to me unjust and pernicious, as does any exaggerated personality cult. I am an adherent of the ideal of democracy, although I know well the weaknesses of the democratic form of government. Social equality and economic protection of the individual have always seemed to me the important communal aims of the state.

Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice keeps me from feeling isolated.

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all there is.

Einstein - 1932

lmfao

[Anonymous Coward]

3 million.

Why kill the 1 Jew when you can 1 million chinese?

[SmallFurryCreature]

The Japanese indeed never went after the Jews, specifically. They did however put civilians from conquered territories into labor camps and had their troops rape women and children for relaxation. Not specifically Jews, just anyone really who they had captured.

They did kill millions of Chinese in their holocaust but their generals were not sickened by a little blood so they never bothered with gas chambers.

Still, I don't think that exactly makes them the nice guys of the axis powers.

He was critical of anyone who...

[Benfea]

...believed in a "personal god", which includes but is not limited to Christianity.

"Childish" not in text, Incorrect translation...

[felixrising]

As several commenters on the source article mentioned already, the word "Childish" does not appear in the original text. My German may be rusty but I concur, "Kindish" is not present in the original letter... but lets not let the facts get in the way of a sensational headline...

Einstein never said that

[crabel]

Einstein never said that as he confirmed in an unpublished letter: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-01-05/

Re:Einstein never said that

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently he did, or something close.

Re:Einstein never said that

[Anonymous Coward]

If you check the comments in the article the quotation by Einstein has since been confirmed as authentic.

He did not say Childish

[aepervius]

He said "primitive susperstition". That's way different. You can look it up in the original yourself , it is barely recognizable in the JPG but you can see he said "primitiven Aberglauben" (http://www.auctioncause.com/cf/einstein/images/large.jpg see second picture middle) und nicht "kindisch" which would be childish. Methink the person translating made a bit of creative translation here.

Re:He did not say Childish

[Anonymous Coward]

While you did not put quotes around the und nicht words you typed, the use of German might mislead someone into thinking that this letter contained the phrase "und nicht kindisch" within the sentence that does contain "primitiven Aberglauben". The letter has more sentences than one. You shared your discovery of one phrase in the letter. Verifying the presence of "pretty childish" may require more than a simple search for "kindisch".

Re:He did not say Childish

[cyberdime]

Parent is correct. The following link contains the passage in question. Google translate the paragraph that begins with "Das Wort Gott ist für mich nichts":

"Das Wort Gott ist für mich nichts als Ausdruck und Produkt menschlicher Schwächen, die Bibel eine Sammlung ehrwürdiger, aber doch reichlich primitiver Legenden. Keine noch so feinsinnige Auslegung kann (für mich) etwas daran ändern. Diese verfeinerten Auslegungen sind naturgemäß höchst mannigfaltig und haben so gut wie nichts mit dem Urtext zu schaffen. Für mich ist die unverfälschte jüdische Religion wie alle anderen Religionen eine Incarnation des primitiven Aberglaubens."

The machine translation is pretty readable:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still plenty of primitive legends. No matter how subtle design can (for me) change this. This refined interpretations are naturally highly diverse and have next to nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other genuine religions is an incarnation of primitive superstition. "

"Reichlich Google appears to have reordered the adjective in the last sentence, transferring it from "the Jewish religion" (die unverfälschte jüdische Religion) to "all other (genuine) religions". Translating that part alone produces "the unadulterated Judaism".

Re:He did not say Childish

[cyberdime]

Bad copypasta: my last sentence should begin with "Google Translate appears to have reordered" etc.

Ever heard the one about the Polish Pope?

[dbIII]

He did a few things back in WWII and later went on to be Pope John Paul the second, I'm sure you've heard about him. He wasn't the only one.

Re:Ever heard the one about the Polish Pope?

[mcgrew]

He was a teenager in WWII, and the hitler stuff was mandatory.

DO NOT LET THIS FALL INTO THE THE WRONG HANDS

[WOOFYGOOFY]

DO NOT LET THIS FALL INTO THE HANDS OF RELIGIONSISTS who constantly use out of context quotes by Einstein to "prove" he variously a Christian a religious Jew, sympathetic to Christianity, a fundie, believed in god etc etc etc. none of which he did.

Re:DO NOT LET THIS FALL INTO THE THE WRONG HANDS

[pointyhat]

I'd upvote you if I could, but I can't. It really annoys me how the hell religious folk twist and bend words to their own meaning when it's clear what the intent is. It's almost as if being religious entitles you to misinterpret stuff and spin it towards your religion. That in itself puts me off the concept (bar from the fact it's bollocks). Religion enables the worst self-righteous individuals to push their views with a label to the detriment of all.

Re:DO NOT LET THIS FALL INTO THE THE WRONG HANDS

[royallthefourth]

DO NOT LET THIS FALL INTO THE HANDS OF RELIGIONSISTS who constantly use out of context quotes by Einstein to "prove" he variously a... fundie, believed

Just remind them of this
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

Re:DO NOT LET THIS FALL INTO THE THE WRONG HANDS

[LordLimecat]

Who cares what Einstein thought? That he was brilliant in one field doesnt make him an expert in all others; for all that he did he had some well known failings.

Good grief, can we cease with the appeals to authority?

Re:DO NOT LET THIS FALL INTO THE THE WRONG HANDS

[Anonymous Coward]

Good grief, can we cease with the appeals to authority?

Sure, if you say so.

That's hardly the problem.

[mosb1000]

I wouldn't be concerned with minor typographical errors, it's unlikely they could actually result in changed meaning. For the sake of argument, look at the dead sea scrolls, which are thousands of years old, and compare with the modern hebrew bible. What you'll find is that they are largely identical. So even over long spans of time, it seems that minor typographical errors won't add up to significant changes.

The problem areas with the text itself are the time between when the events occurred and when they were written down, and stories that were added to the text after the fact. We know that peoples memories change over time, and the more time passes the more details they fill in. So, it seems that the different authors filled in the details a little differently. But the details are hardly the point of the stories they wrote. The link you provided points out stories we know weren't included in the earliest manuscripts of the text, but since we don't have the originals, there may be (and probably are) others.

However, the real problem one which applies to all forms of human communication. The foundation of communication is shared experience. We experience concepts and then learn to associate words with them. But we all have different experiences, and have associated them to words differently. That means that when one person talks, what he's saying and what the other person's hearing are going to be different conceptually. I have an identical twin brother and even with him, I run into these kind of misunderstandings.

So when it comes to reading the Bible, some of which is probably 3500 years old, there are going to be some language barriers even if it's "perfectly" translated. The person writing it would have had many experiences that most of us will never have.

Re:That's hardly the problem.

[inasity_rules]

A sane balanced response? On Slashdot? What on earth is the world coming to?

A lot of genuine scholarship both from a religious and non-religious point of view goes into trying to understand the contexts in which these documents were written to try and better grasp the meanings. The cultural barriers are high. Certainly the subject is not as simple as most people think. Which is why a lot of non American Christians seem to think the American fundie bible bashers are quite insane.

Re:That's hardly the problem.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The problem areas with the text itself are the time between when the events occurred and when they were written down

That's actually quite mild. I have an even worse problem with events that - provably - hadn't occurred, and despite that, they were eventually written down.

Re:That's hardly the problem.

[heathen_01]

Nice try but, once you have accepted the existance of an omnipotent being it is no longer possible to prove an event hasn't occured. For example, god cleaned up after the flood so that is why no traces of a worldwide flood exist anymore.

Re:That's hardly the problem.

[beelsebob]

I wouldn't be concerned with minor typographical errors, it's unlikely they could actually result in changed meaning.

Next time you play Chinese whispers, think about this statement. It's incredible what a long series of minor changes can do to something.

Hell, next time you look at a dog, and a wolf side by side, think about this –same thing happening.

Re:That's hardly the problem.

[khallow]

Keep in mind that some stories were written down by people with an ax to grind. For example, a number of books were written down during the period of the Babylonian captivity when as I understand it, the upper class of the Kingdom of Judea were forced to move to Babylon (a standard tactic of the Babylonian kingdom was to move potential troublemakers and rivals to Babylon and out of their natural element).

I've heard theories that this period was a key one which transformed the ancient Hebrews into Jews (even to the point where it might have been the period when they finally embraced true monotheism). A lot of books supposed got written (and perhaps rewritten) during this time with an eye to supporting the religious positions of the exiles and preserving their culture.

Re:That's hardly the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem areas with the text itself are the time between when the events occurred and when they were written down, and stories that were added to the text after the fact. We know that peoples memories change over time, and the more time passes the more details they fill in. So, it seems that the different authors filled in the details a little differently. But the details are hardly the point of the stories they wrote. The link you provided points out stories we know weren't included in the earliest manuscripts of the text, but since we don't have the originals, there may be (and probably are) others.

People used to take remembering things much more seriously, as that was the only way to transfer knowledge until semi-recently in human knowledge. It would not be unremarkable for people to memorize the entire Bible (Old and New Testaments), and to be able to pull any specific verse/passage at the drop of a hat.

And even if you perhaps mispole and misremembered something, there would be a dozen or more people around you in an academic environment that would be able to correct you. Epic poems such as the Illiad and Odyssey by Homer were passed done over centuries in remarkably consistent form.

In the case of the New Testament, these were just some tales of Uncle Bob's fishing trip and were perhaps embelished: these were lessons and words said and done by the person who the believers thought was God Incarnate and came here to help acheive everlasting life. Changing "HIs" words wouldn't go over well at judgement time when you're facing St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.

It should be noted that there were critics of this new Jewish sect even with the first decades of the life of Christianity. They (e.g., Josephus) didn't deny any of the extraordinary events that Jesus of Nazareth did, but rather then having it being done via divine power, but through more darker means.

Re:That's hardly the problem.

[rhsanborn]

And any god who hides evidence of his existence to 'test the flock' or for any other reason, is either a douche, or he doesn't exist. As it stands, the universe looks exactly the way it would look if God doesn't exist. The theists continue to assert that either God set it in such a motion that it would look exactly this way from the beginning, or that he actively takes a part in our daily lives but then covers up the effects.

Re:That's hardly the problem.

[mosb1000]

The problem with that comparison is that it's comparing the transmission of spoken messages to the transcription of text. It's much easier to mishear something than it is to misread it. It's easy enough to make a word for word copy of text, while you'll forget and have to reconstruct parts of a sentence if you repeat it verbally.

Re:That's hardly the problem.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Nice try but, once you have accepted the existance of an omnipotent being it is no longer possible to prove an event hasn't occured. For example, god cleaned up after the flood so that is why no traces of a worldwide flood exist anymore.

In that case, anything is possible and I assert that the supreme being in all of existence is Satan and that He made most people worship the non-existent Jehova/Christian god/Allah just for fun and because he thinks that posing as evil is stylish. Only you don't remember any of that. Now prove that I'm wrong.

Yes they damn well did.

[Anonymous Coward]

They were roaring out of the global depression far faster than anyone else.

Re:Yes they damn well did.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was overinflated by the war industrial effort, it was not a real solid economy.

It could have ended only in two ways: using those tanks or busting under their production consumption.

Historical reason made for the first.

Re:Yes they damn well did.

[Cajun Hell]

It was overinflated by the war industrial effort, it was not a real solid economy.

Yeah, I think it's hilarious that people look at a situation where the populace is well employed, as being a good thing, even if they're employed doing something completely useless. Nazi Germany's pre-shooting-war war-buildup was a weakening economy, not a strengthening one. Every time someone spent time and metal to machine a part for an Me109 instead of a toaster, or burned a driver's time and a liter of fuel to transport ammunition instead of kegs of bock, the country became a little more impoverished.

Re:Yes they damn well did.

[MightyMartian]

And straight into a war that left Germany divided and devastated. The degree of economic damage the Nazis did to Germany was pretty high.

And most certainly the mass militarization project that Hitler undertook could not have been sustained forever. What he did was find a short term cure to a problem, but with a side effect that was immeasurably worse than the original disease.

Re:Yes they damn well did.

[TheRealLifeboy]

Nazi Germany's pre-shooting-war war-buildup was a weakening economy, not a strengthening one. Every time someone spent time and metal to machine a part for an Me109 instead of a toaster, or burned a driver's time and a liter of fuel to transport ammunition instead of kegs of bock, the country became a little more impoverished.

Bolloks! You've just stated that the US has been destroying itself since WWII. At 25% of your economy is based on making war. Of course, many more profit from the offensive destruction of other countries, so 25% is a conservative figure. By the way, are you German or did you live in Germany before WWII? Probably not, but if you were, you'd know that it was good before WWII and even during it in the beginning. And we still have Volkswagen and others to show for it.

Re:Why kill the 1 Jew when you can 1 million chine

[qbast]

And if anyone STILL thinks about them as nice guys, read about Unit 731

Re:Why kill the 1 Jew when you can 1 million chine

[Dodgy G33za]

Too true. The rape of Nanking by the Japanese, where a quarter of a million Chinese were massacred is still very much in the minds of the Chinese today.

Hmmm...

[kiriath]

For an 'open minded' group, you guys sure do like religious bashing. I am ashamed to call you fellow nerds. Grow the fuck up.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you keeping an open mind about Mohammed being the true prophet? Perhaps Buddha was correct and there is no God because everything is One. A bunch of people testified that they saw the Golden Plates, are you keeping an open mind to Mormonism? When you walk into church without sweeping the ground in front of you then you're going to Hell for kiling bugs. Unless you're closed minded to Jainism.

If you're religious then I somehow doubt you're keeping an open mind about it. Grow the fuck up.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the bashers here probably areyoung, in their 20's or less, and don't have the life experience needed to tackle this topic, not yet. Give them some time to 'ripen' a bit. :)

Re:Einstein Jesus

[SternisheFan]

I've read the bible a few times, didn't Jesus say something like, "There is nothing special about me." And if he's a son of God, then aren't we all equally sons and daughters of God?

Forget religion, which is all created by fallible men and women like you and me. It's all man-made', and imho has little to do with God.

I've personally evolved my thinking of God as a stern but fair dean of a college of learning, and we are all the students enrolled in that school. And if we do learn, in many ways, what we should know (play nice with the other students, don't hit, share your toys, etc.), when we die we may get to 'graduate' to a higher level. Those who don't graduate at the first attempt may have to go to summer school, or be 'held back', that's all. May God bless you all, regardless of whether you believe in God or not. :-)

make money money make.

[Spaghetti Stallion]

Just like candy to militant atheist millionaire babies.

Definition of not thinking for ones self.

[sjbe]

I mostly agree with you, until the point of not thinking by themselves. I am religious, and I do learn science and have a very letftiah libertarian way of thinking, so I dont see how can someone say that I dont think by myself, still I might be blind.

Religions can only exist if people accept someone else's story regarding the existence and nature of a mythical being based on no factual evidence whatsoever. People believe in religions because it brings them comfort. But if you accept anything purely on faith and especially if you cannot possibly verify the claims, that is pretty much the definition of not thinking for yourself. You have traded rational and independent thought for comfort. Seems a costly trade to me.

Re:Definition of not thinking for ones self.

[Dcnjoe60]

I mostly agree with you, until the point of not thinking by themselves. I am religious, and I do learn science and have a very letftiah libertarian way of thinking, so I dont see how can someone say that I dont think by myself, still I might be blind.

Religions can only exist if people accept someone else's story regarding the existence and nature of a mythical being based on no factual evidence whatsoever. People believe in religions because it brings them comfort. But if you accept anything purely on faith and especially if you cannot possibly verify the claims, that is pretty much the definition of not thinking for yourself. You have traded rational and independent thought for comfort. Seems a costly trade to me.

All knowledge can only exist if people accept someone else's story regarding the event. People also believe in science because it brings them comfort. It provides order to their universe (regardless of the effects of entropy). Most advanced physics is accepted purely on faith by your reasoning, because it cannot possibly be verified. Yes, it works out mathematically, as long as you use irrational numbers, and the like, but it cannot be proven. For the record, I am not against science at all, I am just pointing out that by the parameters you have set up, it fails, too.

Why is it irrational to follow "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but not just as irrational to accept the values enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence, the bill or rights, the constitution or anything else that is not based solely on the scientific method? We all rely on various belief systems, none of which are based on factual evidence.

So, using that as your criteria, we have all traded rational and independent thought for comfort.

Re:Definition of not thinking for ones self.

[2short]

"All knowledge can only exist if people accept someone else's story regarding the event"

Horseshit. "Nullius in verba" or it ain't science.

Re:Definition of not thinking for ones self.

[Dcnjoe60]

And Aubrey was raised by a pack of wolves with no human interaction and determined his view out of the blue? Of course not. Assuming he was born like any human being and had to be taught the basic necessities of life, by definition that knowledge was passed on from somebody else's experience. Now he goes to university, where he first develops his desire to free from politics and religious influence, but wait, he is at a university where the sole purpose is to pass down what happened in the past and make it real in the future. Even the phrase itself is in Latin, was Aubrey born speaking Latin or did somebody else have to impart that knowledge?

Nullius in verba is possible only after one has already acquired the knowledge past down from others and therefore logically inconsistent.

Re:Definition of not thinking for ones self.

[2short]

Scientific knowledge doesn't require taking anyone's word for it, but that doesn't mean you can't learn from others. Even if I can't figure out the law of gravitation until Newton tells me what it is, that doesn't mean I have to take his word for it: I can drop some various masses and measure their acceleration, and check Newton's claim myself. In fact, I have. (Spoiler: He was right.)

My time is not infinite, so I'm not going to repeat the work of every scientist who has come before me. Much of the time, I will actually take their word for it (Particularly if "they" includes not just the original discoverer, but a bunch more people who didn't take their word for it.) The distinction is that I don't have to take anyone's word. Darwin doesn't ask me to believe in evolution because he said so; he lays out the evidence he observed and the deductions he made from them, and invites me to follow along. I haven't gone to the Galapagos and checked out the finches, but I could. If Origin of Species had washed up on a beach, unsigned, the case it makes would be exactly as strong. It doesn't matter what I think of Darwin, the evidence and argument stand or fall on their own. Contrary to religious precepts, scientific knowledge depends upon the word of none.

Re:Definition of not thinking for ones self.

[Dcnjoe60]

Not to prolong this anymore, but Darwin's Origin of the Species has severe problems now that we have DNA testing. Scientific knowledge does not depend on the word of anyone in a theoretical sense, but most certainly does in a practical sense. I am sure there are theists who would point out that their God also spoke directly to them and therefore religious belief doesn't depend on the word of anyone, either. Again, in a theoretical sense that may be true, too.

However, like you said, even in your own field, you are not going to repeat the work of every scientist. You are going to accept what you were taught and build from that. Even if you did repeat it, the fact that you had knowledge of previous works so as to be in a position to repeat it means that you were handed down the knowledge.

So, while you could rediscover everything from scratch, it would be a futile endeavor and unlikely to arrive at the same conclusions as those that came before us, because a lot of the science was based on accidents and unless you somehow made the same mistakes to cause the same accident, you won't come up with the same experience.

Everything we know, has been handed down to us. The problem is that so much of it we take for granted that we forget that.

is the answer XLII; two score and two; 42

[mnemotronic]

and if not, the Big G will need to know the answer for future reference - She's mainly a Perl hack.

Re:is the answer XLII; two score and two; 42

[SternisheFan]

"God is coming, and BOY, is She Pissed!" : (Seen on a bumper sticker.)

Thank God pearls like these have been preserved !

[morto]

Exodus 21
20: “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. "
21: “If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."

Thanks to this scrutiny I can learn from Exodus 21 that it is okay to beat the crap out of my slave as long as I do not kill him and Leviticus 12 teaches me that baby girls leave their mothers twice as dirty as baby boys do. In Leviticus 21 I see that no hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles can approach the altar.

Where would civilization be without these priceless advices!

Breaking from the majority culture of religion

[bussdriver]

It takes an open mind to go against one's culture and possibly upbringing to apply critical thinking and education to religions devised and evolved in societies severely lacking in both.

To say somebody is close minded for dismissing the existence of Santa Claus, Zeus, or Scientology is just grasping for a defense. There are an infinite number of untestable positions as well as an infinite number of time-consuming difficult to test positions. We only have a finite amount of time.

I wasted too much of my time on religions; they do not deserve the time in our lives they got already.

You "open minded" religious people need to be more "open minded" Satan might the one true god. Jesus might have never existed or if he did he might have been married or GAY... you are not being "open minded"... Do you have a tin foil hat? Why not? WHY TAKE THE RISK if you are open to the possibilities? Have you read the Koran or Book of Mormon? Why are you not open to another prophet?

Re:Breaking from the majority culture of religion

[kiriath]

I'm not affiliated with any religion, I just noticed a large flame war waging, and wish you guys would get over yourselves. There are more important things for which we should utilize our mental resources, centuries old religious debates should be at the bottom of the list.

Just because I disagree with your bashing doesn't mean I'm 'religious people'.

better quotes from the article

[AnAlchemist]

It's a great article, IMHO. It's short, and definitely worth a read to get past the simplistic analyses of Slashdot posters. ;)
===========
That's not, however, because Einstein rejected the notion of God, but because he took the idea of God very seriously, elevating it above a religious conception to a mathematical one. To Einstein, the elegance of the phsyics guiding the universe were God's handiwork, the mark not of a humanlike being that maintains control over the world, but of a divine beauty in nature's laws. As Walter Issacson wrote in his biography, following a religious phase in childhood, Einstein retained "a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws." ....

The religion of the Bible was too provincial, too small, to contain the God Einstein revered. That God, the one he found in physics and who inspired his science, deserved more. But, nevertheless, Einstein didn't believe that differing views on God should interfere with the development of understanding among men.

The man was in awe of the beauty he saw in Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

From a science perspective, he advanced our understanding of how things work greatly, but the more he figured out, the more he understood that ultimately there would be no answer, and so you would have to rely on faith.

I think this was because to date, whenever we peel away an onion layer in our understanding of the Universe, there is always another layer. If you ask where did the Universe come from, you are left with the Universe just is. (Similar to the answer to who made God. God just is as well.)

By definition, the Universe includes everything which makes it all powerful. God is likewise. From a logic standpoint, you can't have two things being everything unless they are the same thing. I think this says the study of the Universe and the study of God should ultimately be the same path.

We can see the limits in progress our feeble minds have made on the path to understanding the Physics aspects of the Universe. This gives us humility. Folks who claim to understand the root of these matters (be they scientific or religious) seem silly at best.

It seems tragic that instead of joining forces to try to better understand this path, we use our differences in understanding as an excuse to cause harm to others.

Agreeing with Einstien about anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreeing with Einstien about anything doesn't make you smart. I you agree with the quote under discussion that makes you no smarter than the people who argue against religion thinking they're smart because they don't believe in a deity. All I can say it discussions of religion bring out the idiots from both sides.

let the floggings begin

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this subsequent slashdot article,
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/10/15/1238227/shut-up-and-play-nice-how-the-western-world-is-limiting-free-speech

this sale would be intolerant, which can't be tolerated. Clearly, we can soon expect Christians and Jews everywhere to begin slaughtering people until this horrible piece of paper is destroyed. It's obviously immoral to sell something that questions biblical teachings.

Right?

It's a pretty sad thing that I feel I need to post this anonymously.

Verfication

[sjbe]

All knowledge can only exist if people accept someone else's story regarding the event.

Utter nonsense. I don't need anyone else for me to figure out that the earth is round or that gravity behaves a certain way or that I am two inches taller than my wife. While it is true that I cannot verify everything around me, I certainly can verify things that I feel need verifying. If someone else comes up with a good explanation for why something behaves the way it does, I don't have to accept their model blindly. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is true. That is vastly different than reading some special book and accepting whatever it says as factual , no matter how absurd, without any critical thinking or correlation with ones own senses and logic.

People also believe in science because it brings them comfort.

People believe in science because it works and the findings can be verified. That's the whole point of it. Science makes a prediction about how something will behave and then we verify that it actually does behave that way. If the model is wrong we change the model rather than making up a fanciful story to protect our ignorance.

Most advanced physics is accepted purely on faith by your reasoning, because it cannot possibly be verified.

If you believe that you know nothing about physics. I absolutely can verify physics and in fact it doesn't work unless you can verify the models. We have verified with countless experiments the Standard Model to about 12 decimal places. It is incredibly well tested and you can test it yourself. When physicists don't know something they say "I don't know" instead of making up fairy tales and deities to explain what they don't understand.

Why is it irrational to follow "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,"

It's not. The irrational bit is believing someone else's nonsensical story about an invisible man in the sky who told you to believe that. You don't need to invoke a deity to think treating others with decency and respect is a good idea. Some (though not all) of the teachings of religions are perfectly fine. It's when they start with the supernatural stuff that it becomes irrational.

Re:Verfication

[Dcnjoe60]

Until you, yourself go up into outer space and orbit the planet, you, yourself are relying on others. As for gravity, you rely on Newton for your knowledge and on those who followed him. Gravity is no more "knowable" by just observing the proverbial apple falling from the tree than observing the rising and setting of the sun and coming to the conclusion that the sun revolves around the earth.

We have all sorts of scientific theories of the atom that we consider foolish today, but we wouldn't have our current understanding of the atom or quantum physics without these earlier models. What you or I know of the atom is based upon what those before us surmised and handed down.

As for you verifying physics, particularly quantum physics, please do so. Stephen Hawkings would be thrilled to have his theories become provable fact. Even if you are actually a physicist. All you can prove is that some mathematical model better describes what happens than some other model. But no physicist would claim to have proven something, only to have found what the model predicts. Of course, that model was based on somebody elses model, etc., etc. so in fact the knowledge was handed down.

Don't believe me? Go into the Amazon and ask the people you find about gravity, or particle physics or anything like that. They haven't had the knowledge handed down so they don't know about it.

People could breath air long before they new about oxygen and nitrogen. The fact that you can experience something does not necessarily impart knowledge. Likewise, anything you know today, is because you were taught it by somebody before you. The whole scientific method is based on that. To be accepted, it has to be observable and repeatable. Assuming something is observable, the act of repeating it not only validates the original, but passes it on to the next person, either directly (by conducting the experiment themself) or indirectly through the education process.

Long before Copernicus, the earth revolved around the sun. Even when Copernicus said otherwise, most people did not believe him. It wasn't until many people said otherwise, when his knowledge was passed on to many, that it became accepted. It is so accepted today, that we don't even think about it. Just like most things we take for granted. That doesn't change the fact that the knowledge we have today, whether taken for granted or otherwise, was imparted to us by others and accepted by us because of the others.

If you learned in school that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, it is not hard to accept that. Once accepted, though, it takes a leap to accept that it is not always the case (thus non-Euclidean geometry). It is highly unlikely that you would have stumbled on non-Euclidean geometry by yourself and that if you were even exposed to it, you relied on the authority of who was imparting the knowledge to garner your acceptance of it.

A human baby is helpless. We are not imparted with special insticts on how to care for ourselves. We are not born with some special store of knowledge. Almost everything we learn has been passed down to us by others and we accept it without actually experiencing it. If personal experience were the only way to learn, it would be pretty damn difficult to learn which mushrooms were edible and which would kill you.

Everything you know, is because you learned it from somebody else and accepted their teaching. It doesn't matter what the subject matter. You have relied on others before you. Even your acceptance of some teachings of religion being perfectly fine is based on what others have told or demonstrated to you (directly or indirectly). Otherwise, how could you have a frame of reference.

I am not a theist, but again, believing in a deity seems to be no less rational than the square root of negative one or that there are x numbers of dimensions or even that the cat is both dead or alive until you look. All of these other things are not rational but people accept them, because they work for what the task is at hand. I have no problem accepting that people's faith, likewise, helps them with the task at hand.

The real question....

[Dcnjoe60]

The real question is who has a lesser grasp on reality -- somebody who believes there is a god or somebody who is willing to pay $3,000,000 for this letter of Einstein's.

Re:Why kill the 1 Jew when you can 1 million chine

[Talderas]

They're they nice guys out of pity due to the ass reaming they took from a pair of atomic bombs.

Not my parents beliefs

[Anonymous Coward]

ahhh! Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, God, Republican Party. I used to believe in all those things because my parents told me to. Then, I turned 10 and began to use my brain.

Cool but pricy

[epSos-de]

3 Million is a lot to ask from an atheist who does not care about religious stuff. Religion itself or museums would be more interested in this writing.

'Age of Mockery'

[metalmonkey]

It seems that the 'Age of Mockery' began quite a while ago.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/10/15/1142246/thousands-of-muslims-protest-age-of-mockery-at-googles-london-headquarters

Now *this* is news!

[OneAhead]

Wow, I didn't know that they were auctioning a religion on eBay, and that Einstein has risen from the dead to protest against it! What the hell is his problem? I always wanted to buy my own religion...

Try reading more than just the keywords

[dbIII]

A fascist state doesn't need to be run by televangelists to be just as nasty as a community state

A couple of examples are meant to be considered as a couple of examples!

It appears that you've missed my (and the above posters) entire point that a single unbalanced force in society can be a thing of evil. That is a point that has nothing at all about religeon, it's just that historically in the west the Church has been the balancing force that prevented totalitarianism from the State. European Medieval society would have been an utter hellhole for all but a few elite if it wasn't for the Church intervening at times.

No - the Polish Pope - the one until 2005

[dbIII]

It's moments like these when I realise that education is the USA has been truly fucked since Reagan decided it would be a good area to cut :( Don't take it personally since it looks like a lot of people here would make the same mistake, like raahul_da_man above that seems to have not heard about what John Paul II did in Poland during WWII.
There's no point discussing history with people that don't even know who the Pope was seven years ago even when they are cutting and pasting bits that match keywords from wikipedia.

Re:No - the Polish Pope - the one until 2005

[mcgrew]

Don't blame Reagan, I was 30 when he was elected. Blame Eisenhower, maybe, because he was President when I started school. The Pope you're referring to is Ratzinger, right? (I probably misspelled his name).

The history class I took in college only covered the 1920s and depression in the US. And remember, even someone with a PhD in history doesn't know all history from all countries.

Re:No - the Polish Pope - the one until 2005

[dbIII]

The Pope you're referring to is Ratzinger, right?

No :(
This is depressing unless you are deliberately winding me up, but it does look like I'm getting it wrong and blaming your schools instead of news media.
The previous Pope, the one that was Pontif from 1978 to 2005, was famous for rescuing a lot of Jewish people from Warsaw under the Nazi occupation back when he was a young Catholic priest. Of course he couldn't do it all on his own and was part of a network within the wartime Catholic Church.
I'm a little bit amazed that people in a country that make such a great deal of noise about Christianity not knowing about a guy that was Pope for close to thirty years of their life, but I suppose that's how it is for a lot of you.
It evens out though with other cultural ignorance - I'm convinced that a pastie is something you nibble on, a thong is something you wear on your foot, and I just cannot think in fractions of an inch.

Bill meets God...

[SternisheFan]

One day God decides to show himself to Bill, and tells Bill He will answer any three questions that Bill asks. Bill thinks for a moment, then asks, "God, is it true that to you, a million years is like only a second to us humans?"

God says, "Yes Bill, that's about right." Bill then asks, "God, is it true that a penny to me is like a million dollars to you?" God says, "Yes, that's true, Bill."

Bill gets a wry smile on his face, and he asks, "God, can I have a penny?" God smiles back and says, "Sure, Bill. Just give me a second..."

Re:Why kill the 1 Jew when you can 1 million chine

[Smartcowboy]

I like the part where the US gov give them immunity for some reasons. Are you sure there is nice guys in that story?