It exists. As a singular or of a set in where there are universes where their inhabitants are denied God?

Funny how you can spin out such models for fun.

The quote you pulled that from, I was telling Louis Cypher that I don't see how an atheist can't sympathize with a believer. In other words, Einstein said what I believe which is that the evidence sides (with me) in favor of a creator. He said he follows the evidence. I said so do I.

You took it very literally when I was being informal and conversational, which is probably a bad habit. I do think it's possible there is no creator. Anything is possible.

A lot of theologians interpret the bible as allegories with human interpretations of divine events. I don't believe all the stories in the bible are literally true. I think a lot of interpretations of God are blatantly false.

If I were a bettin man (and I am) I'd give God a 4% edge over Nothingness. The rest is faith.

Einstein said nothing of the sort.

To the extent he discussed religion, it was purely in finding a sense of wonder and mystery in the world. A way of relating to the world that isn't closed by deciding that you know things you don't (something which both atheists and theists can do, which is a pretty basic philosophical error). A way of choosing to approach the universe as if it had a type of order (in the mathematical and emotional sense) which was on some level understandable by human minds.

He found the idea of a personal God and the survival of the individual after death - which is what 99% of religious people believe in - to be utterly infantile and pathetic. He certainly didn't believe a "creator" in any sense that you mean it.
No. You are backtracking. I've made four attempts to engage with you. You've responded four times with total obfuscation/misdirection. You make bold claims then slink away like a rat when they are questioned.

It's clear you don't want to discuss your beliefs despite your claims that you do. You seem quite insecure about them. There's nothing wrong with that. There are things I'm insecure about too.

Enjoy your discussions.

Hi, I can't answer for esspoker, but I run into a brick wall with the formation of the earliest cells. I don't believe in Iron Age mumbo jumbo text books, but I do believe that something very odd has occurred. As you explained, we are handicapped when trying to perceive beyond 4 dimensional linear space time. But something unique and beautiful happened that is a significant mystery.

Cells are nothing more than soap bubbles or bubbles in gurgling water. To maintain the rigidity of these cells so that they last long enough to reproduce and create through evolutionary processes simple RNA and then DNA, some sort of pumping mechanism must be employed. Nutrients must be allowed within the cell walls and unnecessary bi-products must be pumped out.
How did this first pumping mechanism originate?

Time traveling particles like electrons or higgs singlets may be responsible in some way. At some point effect may have preceded cause.

Also, perhaps a simple consciousness emerged within a galaxy or a galaxy cluster. And maybe this consciousness, no greater than that of a dog, managed to do something odd . . . etc etc.

I could go on and on with suppositions but the universe is odd in its own odd way.

Hey, I didn't even see this post of yours when I made my latest post. Yeah, Einstein made it very clear that he thought of the bible and religion as a collection of childish superstitions.
I find it strange that the liars for Jesus web pages paint a different picture when the evidence is plainly available. Einstein was very clear in his writings.

Lemme throw you a Gedankenexperiment, yukoncpa. Nice seeing your name again btw.

When it comes to time in a non-observer standpoint, there is neither cause or effect, since linear considerations are temporarily suspended.

Punny but true.

The slightly Older tiger may have mocked religion, but I think privately he understood the intent behind such creatures' needs to mythologize and bring about moral/ethical standards.

Even if these standards have changed over the centuries.

You guys have twisted ideas about Einstein's beliefs. He respected religion. He never called any aspect of it as "infantile or pathetic". Here are some of his relevant quotes:

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." Albert Einstein


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Einstein


"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” Einstein


Albert Einstein: "...most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty - which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form - this knowledge, this feeling, is the center of all religion." Einstein



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." Einstein


"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." Einstein

My description of Einstein's view of the world is completely accurate. Read it again, read your own quotes again, and then read these quotes as well:

His views are exactly as I described; it is you and esspoker who seem unable to even try to grasp what he thinks. Which is disappointing. His views are subtle, but you don't need to be particularly intelligent to understand what he believes and why. Have a read without blinkers on.

Einstein's use of "God" refers to Spinoza's God, which is not a God at all, but the choice to see purpose and structure in nature. It is a poetic way to personify the extent to which nature is intelligible and possesses structure and order. That's a subtle phrase that's easily misunderstood if your brain is fried by religious thinking, so read it a few times. This is a view which I, as an atheist, also hold. It's incompatible with any kind of religious God or personal God. Here is a key passage that may help you understand better:

Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)
He was highly dismissive of typical religious beliefs and rubbished them on many occasions. Here are some key quotes on religion:

Any notion of a personal God or survival after death is for "feeble souls", involves "absurd egoism", "fear", ridiculous egoism", "childlike", a "product of human weakness".

I have accurately described Einstein's views. esspoker is either lying or misunderstanding very badly.

You turned his "childlike" into "infantile".
You turned his "human weakness" into "pathetic".
Those words have different connotations.

You say his frequent use of "God" was not God.
You say he was "highly dismissive of typical religious beliefs and rubbished them" in spite of several quotes where he clearly showed his respect for religion.

That is twisting his words and being inaccurate.
If you want to use Einstein in your arguments quote him verbatim.

No, I was summarizing his views, just as esspoker was. Again:

"feeble souls", "absurd egoism", "fear", ridiculous egoism", "childlike", a "product of human weakness".

show his ample disdain and derision for the belief in a personal God and life after death. And this is just a fraction of his quotes showing his a personal God and surviving death. Here is what I said:
He calls religious beliefs about a personal (i.e. non Spinozan) God and life after death, which means all of Christianity, the product of "feeble souls", "absurd" and "ridiculous" egoism, and you claim the above paragraph doesn't represent his views accurately?

He explicitly and deliberately called a non-Spinozan God childish and feeble and absurd. The God of Spinoza - which is what he said he was talking about - is not a God in any remotely Christian sense of the word. It's a shame you don't understand these distinctions; it doesn't require a great deal of intelligence, just some philosophical knowledge and a bit of reading.

He did NOT respect religion. He thought religious beliefs were "feeble", egoistic, absurd, childish.

"Religion" as he uses it refers to the sense of mystery one has about the world and the universe. Let me quote him again:

If you cannot read plain English that is not my problem.

Einstein's view on religion and God are very, very clearly stated. That they are above your intellectual level is not my problem. The word "God" doesn't mean "a personal God", and "religious" doesn't mean anything like Christianity or even theism.
Um, I didn't bring up Einstein nor am I using him in my arguments. I responded to esspoker's lie that:

1. He did not call the belief about a personal God a product of "feeble souls", he was only referring to the belief of "life after death" but you twisted his statement to make more of it.

2. You posted the following "Einstein's use of "God" refers to Spinoza's God, which is not a God at all..," which is false and you admit it. Also, Spinoza's God could still be a creator God.

3. Einstein was Jewish and educated in a Catholic school. He did not make the Spinoza God statement until the age of 50. We don't know that he may have believed in a personal God until that age. So all his references to God until then may have been about a personal God.

4. When a person uses "religion" or "religious" in a new way they normally explain that they are doing so. In a certain quote he does elaborate about this. Otherwise those terms should just be taken at face value.

5. He said he wasn't an atheist at least twice.

Here's another Einstein quote: " … the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it… is … teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."[51]

Another one: "One strength of the Communist system ...is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion." - Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years

He was not dismissive of religion.

If you were really confident about your diatribe, there would be no need for your ad hominem attacks. I'm done here.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/..._einstein.html

I'm not engaging with you because you seem to be trying to get me to argue for the existence of God, which has nothing to do with this thread at all. If you think my lack of desire to argue for the existence of God means I am insecure, then, well, I don't have much to say to you. I just don't think I'm going to have much luck on this forum, nor do I really care about changing your mind.

As for Einstein, I'm sorry I brought him up. I was using an analogy, and now people are using him as an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority based on the existence of God. Einstein has as much authority on the existence of God as a bus driver. Although when you say he said "nothing of the sort" I don't know how you define "sort." Clearly based on the quotes in the link above, he believed in a supernatural being. I don't know why you hate the idea of that so much.

Also your tone is haughty, arrogant, and I think you would be a generally unpleasant person to be around in real life. Maybe not, but that's my reading on the situation. I prefer to spend my few moments on earth talking to thoughtful, humbler people.

Angry about what? Rebellious towards whom?

Also, it's kind of crazy to say that you have a better understanding of atheism than atheists based on the simple fact that you don't have skepticism. It's impossible to understand atheism unless you have skepticism.

Faith doesn't seem that hard to understand to me. What is it that I'm missing?

Again, you're projecting. Here is what you said that started our dialogue:
This is the height of haughtiness and arrogance. This is coming from you, and it goes to your core. You seem not to realize these flaws in yourself, instead lashing out and attributing your own flaws to others. You'd do well to read the words of Jesus, sir.
Of course you do. They don't challenge you when you make aggressive, haughty, arrogant and incorrect statements. Like I said, you're a man who tries to attack, then slinks away like a rat when you encounter a contrary viewpoint.
You did not use him as an analogy. You used him as an appeal to authority (and lied about what he said). Here is your quote:
This is not an analogy, this is you claiming that one of the most intelligent men who ever lived believes/think the same as you.

Again, you make a bold statement, an appeal to authority, then back away when it's challenged.
I'm not trying to get you to argue anything. I asked you very clearly what you believe/why you found it so difficult to imagine a world without a creator, after you invited me to do so:
I did ask you and you refused to respond.

It's clear that you have no interest in discussing anything. You just take some cheese when you can find it and scurry away like a rat when the lights come on. There is no desire to engage. Arrogance + cowardice is not a nice combination.

Angry and ungrateful, rebellious towards that thing that we all know deep down is real. Probably an unwillingness to acknowledge gratitude to a primordial creator, pride and arrogance. Not that I'm not filled with pride and arrogance or that I'm perfect.

I see what you're doing with the skeptic line. I've been a skeptic so I understand it well. I understand skepticism when a salesperson tries to sell me something. I'm skeptical on most things in life. It's easy to be a skeptic. It requires no trust, no faith, no courage, no imagination.

If believing there is a higher force of Good in this world comes easily to you, then hats off to you my friend. It doesn't always come easily to me.

No, we don't. You're just making this up.

When I said "he follows the evidence" I was referring to Louis Cyphere."

When you say things like my worldview is "broken" when you don't even know my worldview it makes me not take you seriously. If you don't take me seriously, why should I take you seriously? You lack courtesy and respect. I've been having a good dialogue with other atheists on here and I enjoy it, but I'm not getting anything out of arguing with you. I have nothing more to say about this.

That's your opinion.

This is like trying to explain to a bigot what being black is like in 1950s. The bigot thinks being black is about playing music and dancing. The bigot is saying "all I see is a bunch of singing and dancing! You need to convince me that you're more than that!"

When you talk about atheism, I'm just sitting here going "nope, that's not atheism." That's why I'm comparing you to a bigot (hypothetically of course), in the terms of lack of understanding of the subject matter. As a religious person, you might know everything about atheism, but you can't know what atheism really is.

No, I don't think you do see what I'm doing here. I wasn't accusing you of not being skeptical, I was making an exactly parallel claim to the one you made regarding faith in an effort to illustrate how your claim was false.

So, what you say here can be echoed exactly by many of the atheists on this forum. Many of us were religious and so understand faith well from our past. We also understand faith because even though we don't have faith in God, we do have faith in other areas of life, such as that our friends and partners love us, or in the power of reason or science, and so on.

How do you characterize what you are spouting?

No. I like the universe and am grateful for life and it and any creator who might of made it. And i dont even need the bribe of an afterlife in heaven for my gratitude that many believers seem to need to make life worth living and meaningful!


This also messes up your earlier thing of not being sure if God exist...If you know deep down then yeah...

An opinion. Unlike you (apparently) I don't think I know anything for sure.