simplisity:
U have not actualy answered my question. I asked u, who made d truth d scientist r working on or raw which they made most of their discoveries? If scientist can work on d truth, that d earth revolves around d sun. Who made d earth to be revolvin around d sun? They dont jst made their discoveries on a hollow, they made most of their discoveries on already an existing truth. D gravitational force, the law of relativity, etc. Solomon d wisest man ever said that, nothing is new under d sun. Aeroplane was made based on d study and experiment how d birds fly, the same with other moving machines r built based on thorough study of movement of one animal and d onather. Even robots today r built based on d study of human anatomy. The problem they have is that, they r givin d most opportunity to know and appreciate God's handwork, but bcs of their ego and pride Satan d father of deception now toke d advantage of them thereby depriving them d wisdom and d grace to know and appreciate God, the maker of all things including science. They now take what their mind can produce as their gods. If Eintein, newton, faraday, etc had d opportunity to come back aftr death, they would tell u that, their is a supreme being called God and that they have guffed big time by not believing in Him.

Joshuabase:


it should be illegal for people with your beliefs to walk around in society

EnlightenedSoul:


Accepted. I sense an undertone of amusement, which is fine. We buried it in my folks' backyard and they also thought it was insane, so I get it (especially when they saw the 'grave site' below). On a serious note, I don't recommend hamsters as pets for young children due to their short lifespan, and having to explain the finality of death perhaps too early.

Moving on, in reference to America, do you truly believe atheism is en vogue here? Or were you speaking from a purely European perspective as I suspected?

Mindfulness:


As an adult I find it very funny to bury a hamster but I understand that people bury their pets, especially with kids.

I don't know about America. Judging from the political speeches, in which leaders always say "God bless America" probably not but I was talking from a European perspective. You were right.

EnlightenedSoul:


What would you do? Throw the dead pet in a field somewhere? I understand your amusement on the 'extra', but you have to let children express themselves sometimes. And either way, it needed to be buried - its dead.

Yh, you can't compare us to Europe. They're way ahead of us in some respects, more glaringly on thoughts regarding religion (though early America deserves the credit on getting the ball rolling, surely). Do you truly believe its honest to claim Einstein for religion?

Mindfulness:


Don't get me wrong please. It's amusing but understandable. I would have probably done same with kids.

I don't claim Einstein for religion. I am just saying that he wasn't an atheist.

AnnieOakley:


We're in agreement on this.

All truth is God's truth, someone once said. Science and God are not in conflict and never will be. The problem is with us humans.

EnlightenedSoul:


Its not that serious. I was genuinely asking, because I found your comment strange.

I'd say he seems more inclined towards atheism. At the very least, it's clear he didn't believe in a personal god. I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding the following quotes from Einstein, if you're so inclined:

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion."

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."

"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."

Mindfulness:


No, he is not inclined toward atheism and none of your quotes proves that he was inclined towards atheism. Al you can deduce from your posts is that he wasn't religious and that he didn't believe in a personal God. That doesn't mean that he didn't believe in God at all.

This is what he said about atheism:

"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." According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.


Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist, explained:

Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

Cutehector:
Ifa priest

omojeesu:
Atheism is deception, foolishness and rebellion against the Creator put together!

davien:
How can you say the universe obeys laws when naturalistic laws are merely cause and effect patterns that are not always applicable and not entirely universal?

Mindfulness:


No, he is not inclined toward atheism and none of your quotes proves that he was inclined towards atheism. Al you can deduce from your posts is that he wasn't religious and that he didn't believe in a personal God. That doesn't mean that he didn't believe in God at all.

This is what he said about atheism:

"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." According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.


Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist, explained:

Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

EnlightenedSoul:


Alright. I'm aware of all this, and its fair enough, but agnosticism and atheism are arguably two sides to a coin. Please, note that the Spinozian/Einsteinian model of "religion" is nothing like supernatural religion that surrounds us:

"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced, there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.' In this sense I too am religious, with the reservation that 'cannot grasp' does not have to mean 'forever ungraspable'. But I prefer not to call myself religious because it is misleading. It is destructively mis- leading because, for the vast majority of people, 'religion' implies 'supernatural'" - A. Einstein

Mindfulness:


How are atheism and agnosticism two sides to a coin?

Was Einstein an agnostic?

Supernatural religion religion that surrounds us? What exactly are you talking about?

EnlightenedSoul:


Well, on the question of the existence of god(s), atheism and agnosticism are both skeptic "unbeliever" positions - one dealing with [dis]belief (atheism), the other with [an inherent lack of] knowledge (agnosticism).

Its evident that Einstein was adamant about not being labeled an atheist due to his dislike of their supposedly 'combative' nature (some atheists), but if we judge him purely on the basis of one of its definitions (a disbelief in the supernatural), he manages to fit the bill quite perfectly.

Still, he preferred the label of agnosticism, and it ultimately fits him better since the vast majority of his assertions were overwhelmingly knowledge/understanding-based in nature. This is clear, even from one of your many quotes on him:


"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an AGNOSTIC (here Einstein embraces/resigns himself to the "Agnostic" label), 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 (here Einstein disassociates himself from the "Atheist" label mainly due to their fervor and supposed lack of humility) I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." (Highly agnostic) - A. Einstein

What I meant was, we're quite literally surrounded by religions that are supernatural in the extreme. In fact, it's something of a challenge to name a religion that isn't supernatural. Its what I believe piqued my interest in philosophy - no fairies.

Mindfulness:


No, they are not. First of all, both positions are based on belief and not on knowledge. In this, they are no different fro[quote author=Mindfulness post=38872370]

No, they are not. First of all, both positions are based on belief and not on knowledge. In this, they are no different from the position of people who believe that God exists.

An atheist BELIEVES that God doesn't exist. An agnostic BELIEVES thinks that it is not possible to KNOW whether God exists. None of these people can be called "unbelievers", their positions are based on belief. Belief is not knowledge.

The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that an atheist strictly refuses the belief in a God whereas an agnostic doesn't.
I believe in God and yet I call myself an agnostic because it is not possible, at least for now, to KNOW or to prove that God exists.

Einstein didn't know and couldn't prove if God exists but he didn't refuse the possibility altogether (AGNOSTIC). On contrary, his engagement with and involvement in science would make him BELIEVE UNDERSTAND that there is PERHAPS something behind the astonishing order of the universe (....beyond our human comprehension/knowledge)

First of all, the reason why he didn't want to be labeled an atheist was not only because he considered atheists to be 'combative' but also because he knew that they know as much as someone who believes in God's existence. They know nothing about God's existence. This is humility as opposed to arrogance.

Secondly, I don't have to judge him. He didn't want to be called an atheist and this is it. I accept it.

You may call me an agnostic doesn't mean that he didn't believe in God. Like I said, you can be an agnostic and still believe in God. One does not exclude the other, it is a humble position that considers the difference between faith and knowledge.

You have left out the end of this quote, which is important.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

He wonders why people do not believe in God despite the harmony of the universe (No! Rather he RESENTS their absolutist views/reasoning based on limited knowledge!) And he doesn't want to be associated with them.

Supernatural simply means that something cannot be explained by science. I don't see anything wrong with it. The more questions science answers, the more questions pop up. This is just the way it is. And this means that we will always live with the supernatural, the inexplicable, even if it is temporary until we answer the next question in order to give birth to another.

EnlightenedSoul:


Giant False! Only the positions of theism and atheism stem from belief. Agnosticism is based on knowledge (or rather lack thereof).

Theist: I believe in a god(s).
Agnostic: I can't/don't know that there is a god(s)
Atheist: I don't believe in a god(s).

An atheist doesnt refuse to believe, he simply doesn't believe (belief cannot be forced in any capacity!).

@ bold You're not a mere agnostic. You're an agnostic theist! Don't confuse your position with plain agnosticism, which is a perfectly stable stance all its own, and one that doesn't necessarily involve belief.

Fixed.
BTW, that "something" for him was NOT supernatural, but naturalistic and therefore in line with the laws of nature. Notice the obvious agnosticism?

I don't disagree with this portion.


Though I accept, an intellectual is wont to judge based on the reality of the matter vs the sentiment.

Here you discredit and contradict your first words. But yes, in the same way theism and agnosticism do not contradict each other, neither do atheism and agnosticism. As such, you can have an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist, etc.

You're reaching here, and reading out of context to match your opinions. He's lashing out at atheists for associating themselves with him, which he didn't appreciate due to reasons we've already covered. He was known to lash out and disassociate himself from atheists and theists alike during his lifetime. Again, notice how he references his lack of complete knowledge, and limited human mind to bolster his indignation? (hint: Agnosticism)

No. Our inability to answer a scientific question at this time doesn't necessarily make a process "supernatural", but one yet to be understood by us. That's contrary to the brand of "supernatural" commonly found in religion, like the popular story of a virgin girl who gave birth to a fatherless child for a supernatural god, for example. Einstein didn't believe in a supernatural god, but spoke of a naturalistic one in terms of uncertainty (due to his "limited human mind"wink

All Some positions are based on the lack of knowledge. No human being KNOWS if God exists, not a theist, not an atheist neither an agnostic.
A theist BELIEVES. An atheist doesn't BELIEVE. An agnostic claims not to have DEFINITE BELIEF KNOWLEDGE that God exists. [s]ALL these positions are based on a lack of knowledge[/s].

Even according to your definitions above it is clear that EVERYONE is an agnostic. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, you DON'T KNOW if God exists. You can choose to believe that God exists or you can choose to believe that God doesn't exist. Whatever you choose to BELIEVE, you DON'T KNOW.

And I never said that belief can be forced. Belief is a matter of CHOICE.

I am not confusing anything. You said that atheists and agnostics are "sceptic unbelievers" and I proved you wrong. I am an agnostic (I don't know if God exists.) but I CHOOSE to believe that God does exist. It is so simple.

How can something be NOT supernatural FOR HIM? Something is either supernatural, not explicable by scientific methods or it is explicable by scientific methods. There is no subjectivity in this.

And the reality is that Einstein didn't want to be considered an atheist.

Good point and just proves my point that we are all agnostics at the end of the day.

Define the term "theist".

You put too many words in quotation marks. It would be more helpful to provide a solid definition instead of treating the terms as wishy washy concepts that are vague in meaning

This is what Einstein once said about his belief in God.

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

So please tell me now what a theist is.

EnlightenedSoul:


Fixed.
False! There are scores upon scores of people who wouldn't agree with the idea that proof is the standard of knowing something. Reason you'll easily get many people who'll tell you they know god exists, or know he doesn't without any so-called "proof". Furthermore, "proof" is rather subjective, or can be. I may require scientific proof, but the creationists' "proof" lies in observing "creation". So, no. Not EVERYONE is agnostic by any stretch of the imagination.

On belief being a matter of choice? It depends, really. But moving on...



Nah. Nowadays, the term agnosticism alone overwhelmingly refers to the agnostic atheist the majority of the time, and that was my line of thinking as we first started this discussion. To clarify your stance as an agnostic who chooses to believe in a deity, you'd need to dub yourself an agnostic theist.



Through an inherent lack of belief in the supernatural!

It's now clear that you're deeply unfamiliar with the concept of Spinoza's god despite your numerous quotations of it. It's naturalistic, and leaves no room for the supernatural! See more below...



Despite his protestations, he falls quite snugly under the category of atheism - that is the reality.



Err, no. It only furthers my point as outlined in first paragraph of this response. The term 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' have opposite meanings. I'll attach an image that I hope will be helpful to you.



Oh look, a definition request Well, here is Merriam-Webster's definition of theism:

"belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"



I put too many words in quotation marks (TWO)? It would be helpful if I provided solid definitions? Why must every discussion on here regress to posting definitions? You must excuse my extreme annoyance, but its absolutely absurd how people ask for definitions on here.

And whats wishy washy about what I just said?

Maybe we should go our separate ways...if we misunderstand each other thus.



Certainly not Einstein (not a theist, that is!). Let explore this "Spinoza's god", i.e Pantheism. Pantheism (it means "All is God) is a belief in the divinity of NATURE. It stresses that we're all part of ONE, interconnected, dynamic whole, with no supernatural aspect whatsoever. Hence, "god" is not supernatural but naturalistic, and does not transcend science/nature's laws. Spinoza claimed and fervently believed that "All is One", and that everything is also infinite and interconnected with the "One", along with nature and its laws. God is all of us. God is everything. God is nature. He believed in a cosmic religion that transcends the idea of personal God, and theology. This is the "Spinoza's god" we speak of. This is why Einstein cannot be identified as a theist! He was a naturalist, a pantheist who didn't believe in a personal, supernatural god but in the possibility/uncertainty of a naturalistic one that may explain "the harmony of the universe", and appeal to our limited minds. Thus, he did not align himself with either the atheists or the theists!

Here's hoping you realize how "Spinoza's god" (pantheism) doesn't fit the definition of theism above. Farewell.