I would strongly suggest that you disabuse yourself of the notion that your article provides a relevant objection. It's ironic that you quote a single authoritative study as iron-clad proof for your position when your article is all about how that exact mentality is delaying progress in science. But in any case, it's irrelevant. You're trying to refute the claim that people who base their beliefs on science are *more* likely to change their views based on new evidence than religious thinkers.
To simplify things, this is what just happened.
Person 1: Cheetahs are generally faster than sloths.
You: That's not true. Some cheetahs actually move slowly.
Person 1: But Cheetahs are still generally faster than sloths.
To be a real refutation, you'd need to compare how fast people adapt to new evidence basing their thinking on science vs. religion. One data point does not make a comparison.
Oh, and if you aren't basing your views on evidence then you aren't basing them on science to begin with.
Fair enough. I wanted to make the point that being a scientist/research doesn't necessarily mean that you're above basic human emotions and flaws, but I can clearly see why you think I was being more ... definitive than I intended.
To say we are above human shortcomings would just be ridiculously arrogant on our part. Science as a whole, however, is a bit more robust than that. By requiring researchers to provide exhaustive proof and show their work so their experiments can be recreated, we create an environment that allows biased and misleading information to be rapidly rooted out. Weather the general public will trust us on the matter is another story...
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
One of the greatest physicists, who was an atheist.
Einstein wasn't an atheist.
He self-identified as an agnostic, and said (bolding mine)
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
While he viewed himself as agnostic, one could see why phrases like the above could be interpreted as atheist, for some definitions of the word.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
While he viewed himself as agnostic, one could see why phrases like the above could be interpreted as atheist, for some definitions of the word.
Except those interpretations would be erroneous. Einstein specifically said he wasn't an atheist.
After reading more of his words on the subject, he sounds like an agnostic atheist to me (unless I have the terminology wrong - not believing in a God, but believing we can't know for certain?). His objection to the label atheist in particular seems to correspond to what we'd call, I think, anti-theists. Atheists on a crusade against theists, which is something he wasn't keen on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
After reading more of his words on the subject, he sounds like an agnostic atheist to me (unless I have the terminology wrong - not believing in a God, but believing we can't know for certain?). His objection to the label atheist in particular seems to correspond to what we'd call, I think, anti-theists. Atheists on a crusade against theists, which is something he wasn't keen on.
I think you're taking him rejecting the existence of a personal God as him rejecting the existence of God. From what I'm getting, he was open to the idea of God and also to the concept of pantheism.
His objection to the label atheist in particular seems to correspond to what we'd call, I think, anti-theists. Atheists on a crusade against theists, which is something he wasn't keen on.
I think his objection to the label of atheist was because he wasn't an atheist.
I mean, the man outright said he was not an atheist. I'm not sure why there's continued debate on this.
After reading more of his words on the subject, he sounds like an agnostic atheist to me (unless I have the terminology wrong - not believing in a God, but believing we can't know for certain?). His objection to the label atheist in particular seems to correspond to what we'd call, I think, anti-theists. Atheists on a crusade against theists, which is something he wasn't keen on.
I think you're taking him rejecting the existence of a personal God as him rejecting the existence of God. From what I'm getting, he was open to the idea of God and also to the concept of pantheism.
When he says 'personal god' I think he means what most people would call god. He did clearly have a sense of spirituality about the universe.
His objection to the label atheist in particular seems to correspond to what we'd call, I think, anti-theists. Atheists on a crusade against theists, which is something he wasn't keen on.
I think his objection to the label of atheist was because he wasn't an atheist.
I mean, the man outright said he was not an atheist. I'm not sure why there's continued debate on this.
Because there are multiple definitions of atheist, and there's plenty of reason why people would want to divorce themselves from the term atheist even if under many common definitions they are one.
After reading more of his words on the subject, he sounds like an agnostic atheist to me (unless I have the terminology wrong - not believing in a God, but believing we can't know for certain?). His objection to the label atheist in particular seems to correspond to what we'd call, I think, anti-theists. Atheists on a crusade against theists, which is something he wasn't keen on.
I think you're taking him rejecting the existence of a personal God as him rejecting the existence of God. From what I'm getting, he was open to the idea of God and also to the concept of pantheism.
His objection to the label atheist in particular seems to correspond to what we'd call, I think, anti-theists. Atheists on a crusade against theists, which is something he wasn't keen on.
I think his objection to the label of atheist was because he wasn't an atheist.
I mean, the man outright said he was not an atheist. I don't know how that could be more clear.
Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres." Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves.
Reading some of the quotes attributed to him, he doesn't believe in a sentient God, but says we can't prove that God's non-existence. Is that not the stance of agnostic atheism? (Also, it's because of the quote above that it seemed to me that he considered atheists to be a group that were vehemently anti-theist, in which he did not include himself.) I thought that the two axes were 'Can we know?' (Gnostic/Agnostic) and 'Do I believe?' (Theist/Atheist), so that if Einstein thought we couldn't know, and he didn't believe, that he would be an agnostic atheist.
Pantheism is something I had not previously encountered, so thanks for pointing that out; it seems to be the idea that everything-is-God, which is apparently divisible into philosophical and religious stances, with the latter being more focused on the idea of God, and the former on nature. I guess that would place Einstein as an agnostic pantheist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
See, what I don't like is the tendency around this forum to lump every non-religious stance under "atheism," when there are other stances besides atheism under that umbrella.
I haven't researched Einstein, so I cannot attest to his religious stance. However, he seems to repeatedly say he does not identify as an atheist, and seems to say things regarding him being either an agnostic or a pantheist, as disbelieving in a personal God but open to the idea of God and having something religious maybe going on.
As such, I don't see the problem with saying that maybe Einstein himself wasn't sure of his religious stance. Maybe the best category, then, is to say that he didn't have one, or maybe he had a religious stance that didn't conform to a particular name. Neither of which constitute atheism.
To say we are above human shortcomings would just be ridiculously arrogant on our part. Science as a whole, however, is a bit more robust than that. By requiring researchers to provide exhaustive proof and show their work so their experiments can be recreated, we create an environment that allows biased and misleading information to be rapidly rooted out. Weather the general public will trust us on the matter is another story...
Well, that's what I wanted to get at.
The Scientific Method is essentially the operating premise behind all modern research. Basically said, your results must be clear and repeatable.
Then we have the major concern on an objective approach to research.
The two need to work together in order to create actual, usable, information.
The problem is that people are biased. It's human nature.
We know that reporting bias is a thing, for example. This is a big problem.
It's one thing to have a fairly concrete and reliable system (the scientific method) and a solid system of ethics behind it (an objective approach to research), and another thing entirely to say that scientists in general adhere to them on a widespread manner.
See, what I don't like is the tendency around this forum to lump every non-religious stance under "atheism," when there are other stances besides atheism under that umbrella.
Well, that's probably because there are several definitions which make any form non-committal to religion equivalent to atheism, along the lines of atheism as 'lacking belief in god'. Under this definition, all that's necessary is that you aren't positively committed to the idea of god, and I'm pretty sure Einstein fits under this definition. It's this definition I see most used by self-proclaimed atheists, and I think that's the fairest definition to use. The main problem with having a clear consensus on the topic is as I mentioned earlier, that many people avoid the term because they want to be seen as neutral, as is the case with Einstein, even though they could well be considered one.
Regardless, the point remains that Archythagoras praising Einstein in a message of support for a Christian view is silly because whatever he was exactly, he was definitely not Christian, I mean, he almost outright called Christianity childish.
Regardless, the point remains that Archythagoras praising Einstein in a message of support for a Christian view is silly because whatever he was exactly, he was definitely not Christian, I mean, he almost outright called Christianity childish.
Yes, on this, we most certainly agree. Discussion of Einstein's religious views is getting off-topic.
Regardless, the point remains that Archythagoras praising Einstein in a message of support for a Christian view is silly because whatever he was exactly, he was definitely not Christian, I mean, he almost outright called Christianity childish.
Wow how long has it been and you plebeians are still arguing about something I said lol. I been in the hole for almost a month and this is the discourse I come back to?
I am guessing my next ban will either be permanent or a year long so let's make this quick.
Let me just explain something for Ye since you obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension.
Einstien was referenced in support of deterministic physics and nothing to do with Christianity, his deterministic physics support my theories on chemical and biological evolution.
Feel free to go back to my reference and actually use your frontal cortex when analyzing what I said instead of your fight or flight reptilian core.
Regardless, the point remains that Archythagoras praising Einstein in a message of support for a Christian view is silly because whatever he was exactly, he was definitely not Christian, I mean, he almost outright called Christianity childish.
Wow how long has it been and you plebeians are still arguing about something I said lol. I been in the hole for almost a month and this is the discourse I come back to?
I am guessing my next ban will either be permanent or a year long so let's make this quick.
Let me just explain something for Ye since you obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension.
Einstien was referenced in support of deterministic physics and nothing to do with Christianity, his deterministic physics support my theories on chemical and biological evolution.
Einstein's deterministic physics supports an atheistic (Einstein's 'god' doesn't fit with most peoples idea of the word. I've done some research and apparently he meant a sort of fundamental driving force or substance that lends some sense of purpose, but nothing intelligent or truly apparent) worldview because Einstein's deterministic physics supports evolution and cosmology. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not dependent on mutations and assortment variations being random, only that they are highly variable and not according to some factor outside the organism itself. Randomness, however, is the simplest explanation because it requires no determining factor and accounts for all possible patterns.
The problem with you invoking Einstein in support of your views is that the only reason to quote Einstein is to lend some sort of credibility or authority to your point, but when the person you are quoting disagree with the ultimate point you are supporting, that takes away a lot of any extra credibility or authority you could get.
Especially when you quoted him like this:
Without Darwinism, atheism is as worthy for consideration as the existence of Peter Pan.
It is not the mutation that has a mind, but it is the Logos that is at work in all things.
Events considered random by humans are mere illusions due to our ignorance.
Even one of the greatest physicists agrees and stated quite succinctly;
Regardless, the point remains that Archythagoras praising Einstein in a message of support for a Christian view is silly because whatever he was exactly, he was definitely not Christian, I mean, he almost outright called Christianity childish.
Wow how long has it been and you plebeians are still arguing about something I said lol. I been in the hole for almost a month and this is the discourse I come back to?
I am guessing my next ban will either be permanent or a year long so let's make this quick.
Let me just explain something for Ye since you obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension.
Einstien was referenced in support of deterministic physics and nothing to do with Christianity, his deterministic physics support my theories on chemical and biological evolution.
Einstein's deterministic physics supports an atheistic (Einstein's 'god' doesn't fit with most peoples idea of the word. I've done some research and apparently he meant a sort of fundamental driving force or substance that lends some sense of purpose, but nothing intelligent or truly apparent) worldview because Einstein's deterministic physics supports evolution and cosmology. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not dependent on mutations and assortment variations being random, only that they are highly variable and not according to some factor outside the organism itself. Randomness, however, is the simplest explanation because it requires no determining factor and accounts for all possible patterns.
The problem with you invoking Einstein in support of your views is that the only reason to quote Einstein is to lend some sort of credibility or authority to your point, but when the person you are quoting disagree with the ultimate point you are supporting, that takes away a lot of any extra credibility or authority you could get.
Especially when you quoted him like this:
Without Darwinism, atheism is as worthy for consideration as the existence of Peter Pan.
It is not the mutation that has a mind, but it is the Logos that is at work in all things.
Events considered random by humans are mere illusions due to our ignorance.
Even one of the greatest physicists agrees and stated quite succinctly;
"God does not play dice"
Nothing you said makes any sense in light of the quote.
In fact, the quote backs up my sentiment while you just look like you are blabbering about nothing, hoping that the audience does not notice you are not very smart.
Regardless, the point remains that Archythagoras praising Einstein in a message of support for a Christian view is silly because whatever he was exactly, he was definitely not Christian, I mean, he almost outright called Christianity childish.
Wow how long has it been and you plebeians are still arguing about something I said lol. I been in the hole for almost a month and this is the discourse I come back to?
I am guessing my next ban will either be permanent or a year long so let's make this quick.
Let me just explain something for Ye since you obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension.
Einstien was referenced in support of deterministic physics and nothing to do with Christianity, his deterministic physics support my theories on chemical and biological evolution.
Einstein's deterministic physics supports an atheistic (Einstein's 'god' doesn't fit with most peoples idea of the word. I've done some research and apparently he meant a sort of fundamental driving force or substance that lends some sense of purpose, but nothing intelligent or truly apparent) worldview because Einstein's deterministic physics supports evolution and cosmology. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not dependent on mutations and assortment variations being random, only that they are highly variable and not according to some factor outside the organism itself. Randomness, however, is the simplest explanation because it requires no determining factor and accounts for all possible patterns.
The problem with you invoking Einstein in support of your views is that the only reason to quote Einstein is to lend some sort of credibility or authority to your point, but when the person you are quoting disagree with the ultimate point you are supporting, that takes away a lot of any extra credibility or authority you could get.
Especially when you quoted him like this:
Without Darwinism, atheism is as worthy for consideration as the existence of Peter Pan.
It is not the mutation that has a mind, but it is the Logos that is at work in all things.
Events considered random by humans are mere illusions due to our ignorance.
Even one of the greatest physicists agrees and stated quite succinctly;
"God does not play dice"
Nothing you said makes any sense in light of the quote.
In fact, the quote backs up my sentiment while you just look like you are blabbering about nothing, hoping that the audience does not notice you are not very smart.
God bless.
What I said was that quoting someone who supports very much opposed positions to you simply because of one tiny mostly entirely irrelevant thing to the discussion at hand that he does shares with you is dumb. The only reason to reference him is to lend authority to your point, but given Einstein's views answer the objection you are trying to make (evolution by natural selection does not need random mutations, only spontaneous ones), it doesn't get you any.
Little own that your posts here mostly argue against opposing worldviews when the thread is clearly not about that and is about discussing the nature of each person's belief, their philosophy when it comes to the notion of belief. If all you want to do here is basically insult and demean others views and tout your supposedly enlightened ones then you have come to the wrong place because why I made this thread was to engage religious belief from an entirely different angle than most discussions, and that there are people like you who seem refusee to have that discussion is exactly why I think it's important to try to have.
Regardless, the point remains that Archythagoras praising Einstein in a message of support for a Christian view is silly because whatever he was exactly, he was definitely not Christian, I mean, he almost outright called Christianity childish.
Wow how long has it been and you plebeians are still arguing about something I said lol. I been in the hole for almost a month and this is the discourse I come back to?
I am guessing my next ban will either be permanent or a year long so let's make this quick.
Let me just explain something for Ye since you obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension.
Einstien was referenced in support of deterministic physics and nothing to do with Christianity, his deterministic physics support my theories on chemical and biological evolution.
Einstein's deterministic physics supports an atheistic (Einstein's 'god' doesn't fit with most peoples idea of the word. I've done some research and apparently he meant a sort of fundamental driving force or substance that lends some sense of purpose, but nothing intelligent or truly apparent) worldview because Einstein's deterministic physics supports evolution and cosmology. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not dependent on mutations and assortment variations being random, only that they are highly variable and not according to some factor outside the organism itself. Randomness, however, is the simplest explanation because it requires no determining factor and accounts for all possible patterns.
The problem with you invoking Einstein in support of your views is that the only reason to quote Einstein is to lend some sort of credibility or authority to your point, but when the person you are quoting disagree with the ultimate point you are supporting, that takes away a lot of any extra credibility or authority you could get.
Especially when you quoted him like this:
Without Darwinism, atheism is as worthy for consideration as the existence of Peter Pan.
It is not the mutation that has a mind, but it is the Logos that is at work in all things.
Events considered random by humans are mere illusions due to our ignorance.
Even one of the greatest physicists agrees and stated quite succinctly;
"God does not play dice"
Nothing you said makes any sense in light of the quote.
In fact, the quote backs up my sentiment while you just look like you are blabbering about nothing, hoping that the audience does not notice you are not very smart.
God bless.
What I said was that quoting someone who supports very much opposed positions to you simply because of one tiny mostly entirely irrelevant thing to the discussion at hand that he does shares with you is dumb. The only reason to reference him is to lend authority to your point, but given Einstein's views answer the objection you are trying to make (evolution by natural selection does not need random mutations, only spontaneous ones), it doesn't get you any.
Little own that your posts here mostly argue against opposing worldviews when the thread is clearly not about that and is about discussing the nature of each person's belief, their philosophy when it comes to the notion of belief. If all you want to do here is basically insult and demean others views and tout your supposedly enlightened ones then you have come to the wrong place because why I made this thread was to engage religious belief from an entirely different angle than most discussions, and that there are people like you who seem refusee to have that discussion is exactly why I think it's important to try to have.
I implored the audience with this same plea much before you, do you enjoy stealing my ideas?
When I tried to follow the rules set down in the OP I was subsequently banned.
Surprised I am not banned now, I guess people are wising up and really wanting to see you get ground into the dirt.
You make no sense and anyone that follows your ridiculous lines of thought will become dumber in the process.
Till next time.
Public Mod Note
(Rai Kerensky):
Criticize ideas, not the person, please.
Wow how long has it been and you plebeians are still arguing about something I said lol. I been in the hole for almost a month and this is the discourse I come back to?
I am guessing my next ban will either be permanent or a year long so let's make this quick.
Let me just explain something for Ye since you obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension.
Einstien was referenced in support of deterministic physics and nothing to do with Christianity, his deterministic physics support my theories on chemical and biological evolution.
Einstein's deterministic physics supports an atheistic (Einstein's 'god' doesn't fit with most peoples idea of the word. I've done some research and apparently he meant a sort of fundamental driving force or substance that lends some sense of purpose, but nothing intelligent or truly apparent) worldview because Einstein's deterministic physics supports evolution and cosmology. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not dependent on mutations and assortment variations being random, only that they are highly variable and not according to some factor outside the organism itself. Randomness, however, is the simplest explanation because it requires no determining factor and accounts for all possible patterns.
The problem with you invoking Einstein in support of your views is that the only reason to quote Einstein is to lend some sort of credibility or authority to your point, but when the person you are quoting disagree with the ultimate point you are supporting, that takes away a lot of any extra credibility or authority you could get.
Especially when you quoted him like this:
Without Darwinism, atheism is as worthy for consideration as the existence of Peter Pan.
It is not the mutation that has a mind, but it is the Logos that is at work in all things.
Events considered random by humans are mere illusions due to our ignorance.
Even one of the greatest physicists agrees and stated quite succinctly;
"God does not play dice"
Nothing you said makes any sense in light of the quote.
In fact, the quote backs up my sentiment while you just look like you are blabbering about nothing, hoping that the audience does not notice you are not very smart.
God bless.
What I said was that quoting someone who supports very much opposed positions to you simply because of one tiny mostly entirely irrelevant thing to the discussion at hand that he does shares with you is dumb. The only reason to reference him is to lend authority to your point, but given Einstein's views answer the objection you are trying to make (evolution by natural selection does not need random mutations, only spontaneous ones), it doesn't get you any.
Little own that your posts here mostly argue against opposing worldviews when the thread is clearly not about that and is about discussing the nature of each person's belief, their philosophy when it comes to the notion of belief. If all you want to do here is basically insult and demean others views and tout your supposedly enlightened ones then you have come to the wrong place because why I made this thread was to engage religious belief from an entirely different angle than most discussions, and that there are people like you who seem refusee to have that discussion is exactly why I think it's important to try to have.
I implored the audience with this same plea much before you, do you enjoy stealing my ideas?
When I tried to follow the rules set down in the OP I was subsequently banned.
Surprised I am not banned now, I guess people are wising up and really wanting to see you get ground into the dirt.
You make no sense and anyone that follows your ridiculous lines of thought will become dumber in the process.
Till next time.
Oh you mean this plea were you misunderstand the point of the thread and use it an excuse to deflect criticism despite you having no qualms about repeatedly criticising evolutionary theory?
"This is not a thread for debating ideas, but for expressing them.
Maybe if you make a thread for that purpose I will join, make a good opening statement and maybe I will find it worth my time."
This IS a thread for debating ideas, obviously, it's on the 'debate' section. It's just not about debating the general accuracy of religious belief, but rather debating the philosophy of how people approach belief. A question you have not engaged in any real capacity.
Your first post defined some of your beliefs. Which is relevant, but still not the question at hand.
Later on you get tantalizing close to truly engaging with the subject, but your answer is superficial and deflective:
"What would make me change my mind?
Well, that's sort of like asking a mathematician(or me since I am a mathematician) what would make him change his mind that 2+2=4, you see, it would take a fundamental shift in the nature of his perception(i.e. going insane) or the way the universe operated for the mind to change at that level, same as what would make me change my mind about the work of the Logos."
So, no, you haven't done anything but miss the point, argue on tangents and flagrantly violate forum rules repeatedly. If you want to me debate you, you're not trying very hard to actually having an honest and respectable one. I am fully willing to listen to whatever arguments you present, and answer any objections you have. But you, it seems, aren't, because you want to have your own argument.
To that, sir, I say, good luck, because I won't be engaging you on this thread any further until you start making a serious attempt to enagage with the topic. You might, however, having more pressing matters though in preventing yourself from being banned from this forum permanently.
Is science always defined by the scientific method?
What is the format for the big bang theory in the scientific method for steps 3-8? ....
The scientific method in the real world is more of a continuous cycle than a numbered list, however it may have been taught to you in grade school. One discovery feeds into another question which creates another set of hypotheses which eventually get tested and either lead to new knowledge or are shown to be false. False hypotheses lead to alternatives being generated and tested, and so on.
However, if you're being serious about your question the History of the Big Bang theory page on Wikipedia is a good place to start.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
To say we are above human shortcomings would just be ridiculously arrogant on our part. Science as a whole, however, is a bit more robust than that. By requiring researchers to provide exhaustive proof and show their work so their experiments can be recreated, we create an environment that allows biased and misleading information to be rapidly rooted out. Weather the general public will trust us on the matter is another story...
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
I think his objection to the label of atheist was because he wasn't an atheist.
I mean, the man outright said he was not an atheist. I'm not sure why there's continued debate on this.
When he says 'personal god' I think he means what most people would call god. He did clearly have a sense of spirituality about the universe.
Because there are multiple definitions of atheist, and there's plenty of reason why people would want to divorce themselves from the term atheist even if under many common definitions they are one.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Pantheism is something I had not previously encountered, so thanks for pointing that out; it seems to be the idea that everything-is-God, which is apparently divisible into philosophical and religious stances, with the latter being more focused on the idea of God, and the former on nature. I guess that would place Einstein as an agnostic pantheist.
I haven't researched Einstein, so I cannot attest to his religious stance. However, he seems to repeatedly say he does not identify as an atheist, and seems to say things regarding him being either an agnostic or a pantheist, as disbelieving in a personal God but open to the idea of God and having something religious maybe going on.
As such, I don't see the problem with saying that maybe Einstein himself wasn't sure of his religious stance. Maybe the best category, then, is to say that he didn't have one, or maybe he had a religious stance that didn't conform to a particular name. Neither of which constitute atheism.
Well, that's what I wanted to get at.
The Scientific Method is essentially the operating premise behind all modern research. Basically said, your results must be clear and repeatable.
Then we have the major concern on an objective approach to research.
The two need to work together in order to create actual, usable, information.
The problem is that people are biased. It's human nature.
We know that reporting bias is a thing, for example. This is a big problem.
It's one thing to have a fairly concrete and reliable system (the scientific method) and a solid system of ethics behind it (an objective approach to research), and another thing entirely to say that scientists in general adhere to them on a widespread manner.
Well, that's probably because there are several definitions which make any form non-committal to religion equivalent to atheism, along the lines of atheism as 'lacking belief in god'. Under this definition, all that's necessary is that you aren't positively committed to the idea of god, and I'm pretty sure Einstein fits under this definition. It's this definition I see most used by self-proclaimed atheists, and I think that's the fairest definition to use. The main problem with having a clear consensus on the topic is as I mentioned earlier, that many people avoid the term because they want to be seen as neutral, as is the case with Einstein, even though they could well be considered one.
Regardless, the point remains that Archythagoras praising Einstein in a message of support for a Christian view is silly because whatever he was exactly, he was definitely not Christian, I mean, he almost outright called Christianity childish.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Wow how long has it been and you plebeians are still arguing about something I said lol. I been in the hole for almost a month and this is the discourse I come back to?
I am guessing my next ban will either be permanent or a year long so let's make this quick.
Let me just explain something for Ye since you obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension.
Einstien was referenced in support of deterministic physics and nothing to do with Christianity, his deterministic physics support my theories on chemical and biological evolution.
Feel free to go back to my reference and actually use your frontal cortex when analyzing what I said instead of your fight or flight reptilian core.
Hope this helps and God Bless.
Einstein's deterministic physics supports an atheistic (Einstein's 'god' doesn't fit with most peoples idea of the word. I've done some research and apparently he meant a sort of fundamental driving force or substance that lends some sense of purpose, but nothing intelligent or truly apparent) worldview because Einstein's deterministic physics supports evolution and cosmology. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not dependent on mutations and assortment variations being random, only that they are highly variable and not according to some factor outside the organism itself. Randomness, however, is the simplest explanation because it requires no determining factor and accounts for all possible patterns.
The problem with you invoking Einstein in support of your views is that the only reason to quote Einstein is to lend some sort of credibility or authority to your point, but when the person you are quoting disagree with the ultimate point you are supporting, that takes away a lot of any extra credibility or authority you could get.
Especially when you quoted him like this:
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Nothing you said makes any sense in light of the quote.
In fact, the quote backs up my sentiment while you just look like you are blabbering about nothing, hoping that the audience does not notice you are not very smart.
God bless.
Sup.
What I said was that quoting someone who supports very much opposed positions to you simply because of one tiny mostly entirely irrelevant thing to the discussion at hand that he does shares with you is dumb. The only reason to reference him is to lend authority to your point, but given Einstein's views answer the objection you are trying to make (evolution by natural selection does not need random mutations, only spontaneous ones), it doesn't get you any.
Little own that your posts here mostly argue against opposing worldviews when the thread is clearly not about that and is about discussing the nature of each person's belief, their philosophy when it comes to the notion of belief. If all you want to do here is basically insult and demean others views and tout your supposedly enlightened ones then you have come to the wrong place because why I made this thread was to engage religious belief from an entirely different angle than most discussions, and that there are people like you who seem refusee to have that discussion is exactly why I think it's important to try to have.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I implored the audience with this same plea much before you, do you enjoy stealing my ideas?
When I tried to follow the rules set down in the OP I was subsequently banned.
Surprised I am not banned now, I guess people are wising up and really wanting to see you get ground into the dirt.
You make no sense and anyone that follows your ridiculous lines of thought will become dumber in the process.
Till next time.
Hey DJK how about you tell me what you think about that definition.
Lets get down and dirty.
If a God existed would the Logos be enough to encompass the term?
Define Logos
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Oh you mean this plea were you misunderstand the point of the thread and use it an excuse to deflect criticism despite you having no qualms about repeatedly criticising evolutionary theory?
"This is not a thread for debating ideas, but for expressing them.
Maybe if you make a thread for that purpose I will join, make a good opening statement and maybe I will find it worth my time."
This IS a thread for debating ideas, obviously, it's on the 'debate' section. It's just not about debating the general accuracy of religious belief, but rather debating the philosophy of how people approach belief. A question you have not engaged in any real capacity.
Your first post defined some of your beliefs. Which is relevant, but still not the question at hand.
Later on you get tantalizing close to truly engaging with the subject, but your answer is superficial and deflective:
"What would make me change my mind?
Well, that's sort of like asking a mathematician(or me since I am a mathematician) what would make him change his mind that 2+2=4, you see, it would take a fundamental shift in the nature of his perception(i.e. going insane) or the way the universe operated for the mind to change at that level, same as what would make me change my mind about the work of the Logos."
So, no, you haven't done anything but miss the point, argue on tangents and flagrantly violate forum rules repeatedly. If you want to me debate you, you're not trying very hard to actually having an honest and respectable one. I am fully willing to listen to whatever arguments you present, and answer any objections you have. But you, it seems, aren't, because you want to have your own argument.
To that, sir, I say, good luck, because I won't be engaging you on this thread any further until you start making a serious attempt to enagage with the topic. You might, however, having more pressing matters though in preventing yourself from being banned from this forum permanently.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Is science always defined by the scientific method?
What is the format for the big bang theory in the scientific method for steps 3-8? ....
However, if you're being serious about your question the History of the Big Bang theory page on Wikipedia is a good place to start.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)