Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people:

[craberta]

because of the evil and cruelty I have seen and experienced in the world, I beleive in God. Too bad Albert never got the chance to find God while he was alive, He would have gotten a whole lot more out of it, and maybe he would have figured out how to tie his shoes too.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by wildsage

What does it matter what anyone else's belief is as long as everyone is free to make his or her own choice?

AE is a perfect example of why it does matter. His high profile denial of something as simple as the Big Bang Theory hurt honest debate and study into the issue. His problem with the Big Bang was anti-theological, not scientific in nature. He did not deny any of the facts, just the thought process because it was too close to Genesis's account. Had he been able to be objective, he may have advanced knowledge instead of stifled debate.

The only way to be honest in scientific research is to have an open mind, and he did not have one because of his disdain for anything religious.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

coming from the man with 30 MPDs just for the karma bombing. talk about caught up in little red squares, insecure, worthless, attacking others and an insignifigant life......
you make jesus proud

Did you count them? How? I don't even know how many I have. Don't care. I'm relatively sure I don't have 30. I haven't used any of them in a while. They were for fun to tweak those so spun up about little reds squares they got red in the face and screamed just talking about them. I thought it was funny.

Originally Posted by Xaquin44

It's only bad when someone else does it.

If you do it and still say jesus is the best, anything is ok!

Little red squares are bad, but belittling someones faith is not? I see you are very mature in your attitudes.

I care not what either of you say, post, or think. You are not worthy of any further discourse. Like the sack, you disappear into the oblivion of ignore. Bye.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Ahh. That is refreshing.

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Roberta

When Food critic and Italianjacka$$ find this thread the fun will begin!

Thanks Roberta.
Actually, I've said all I need to say in the other threads and I really hate repeating myself. This is why I participate in some threads and not in others.
The only thing I would add here is that Einstein is now a believer because there are no unbelievers in hades (hell) today. IF he died denying Jesus (God), he passed on into eternal torment which, of course, changed his mind to that of a believer (Luke 16 v 19-31). HOWEVER, because of this, it's too late for him to get into Heaven even though he NOW believes in the God he spent a lifetime denying. Make sense darling?

[PsyOps]

I'm a little late into this but here's my two cents:

Who really cares what Einstein thought about God?

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by This_person

AE is a perfect example of why it does matter. His high profile denial of something as simple as the Big Bang Theory hurt honest debate and study into the issue. His problem with the Big Bang was anti-theological, not scientific in nature. He did not deny any of the facts, just the thought process because it was too close to Genesis's account. Had he been able to be objective, he may have advanced knowledge instead of stifled debate.
The only way to be honest in scientific research is to have an open mind, and he did not have one because of his disdain for anything religious.

I'm interested to know where you got the idea that Einstein's reluctance to accept the Big Bang was based on anti-theological subjectivity. I've been unable to find any motive for that theory-dispute except what appears to be reluctance to accept a hypothesis different from his own understanding.
Admittedly, he was a rock star among the uber-geeks of the time but how long do you suppose that he actually stifled scientific debate? I think that the majority of his peers & colleagues went on with their empirical investigations in order to reach consensus on the issue – which wasn’t “we found Genesis!” When faced with other proofs, Einstein came around and admitted his blunder in proposing a static universe.
I believe he was truly agnostic, meaning that he regarded the truth of metaphysical claims about theology to be unknown. Einstein did not let religious thinking cloud his brain either way, so you could probably call him irreligious. Probably the thing that gave him greatest offense was when either side -- theist or atheist -- claimed his support for their stance.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by wildsage

I'm interested to know where you got the idea that Einstein's reluctance to accept the Big Bang was based on anti-theological subjectivity. I've been unable to find any motive for that theory-dispute except what appears to be reluctance to accept a hypothesis different from his own understanding.
Admittedly, he was a rock star among the uber-geeks of the time but how long do you suppose that he actually stifled scientific debate? I think that the majority of his peers & colleagues went on with their empirical investigations in order to reach consensus on the issue – which wasn’t “we found Genesis!” When faced with other proofs, Einstein came around and admitted his blunder in proposing a static universe.
I believe he was truly agnostic, meaning that he regarded the truth of metaphysical claims about theology to be unknown. Einstein did not let religious thinking cloud his brain either way, so you could probably call him irreligious. Probably the thing that gave him greatest offense was when either side -- theist or atheist -- claimed his support for their stance.

Einstein provided me with that idea:

This proposal caused a sharp reaction from the scientific community of the time. Eddington found Lemaitre's notion unpleasant. As for Einstein, he found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view. The debate between cosmology and religion took the form of a polemic that would last several decades. In this debate, Lemaître would be a fundamental actor who unceasingly tried to separate science from faith.

However, in January 1933, Lemaitre and Einstein, who had met on several occasions - in 1927 in Brussels, at the time of a Solvay congress, in 1932 in Belgium, at the time of a cycle of conferences in Brussels and lastly in 1935 at Princeton - traveled together to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened".

{One source among many}

[tommyjones]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendment

Did you count them? How? I don't even know how many I have. Don't care. I'm relatively sure I don't have 30. I haven't used any of them in a while. They were for fun to tweak those so spun up about little reds squares they got red in the face and screamed just talking about them. I thought it was funny.



Little red squares are bad, but belittling someones faith is not? I see you are very mature in your attitudes.

I care not what either of you say, post, or think. You are not worthy of any further discourse. Like the sack, you disappear into the oblivion of ignore. Bye.

awww, we pointed out that 2ndA is a flawed, hateful, scornful, petty little man and he ran away. what ever will we do?


It doens't really matter, because if God is the one he believes in, Jesus knows 2ndA is a nonrepentent hater and we all know what happens to the unrepented sinners

[Xaquin44]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

awww, we pointed out that 2ndA is a flawed, hateful, scornful, petty little man and he ran away. what ever will we do?


It doens't really matter, because if God is the one he believes in, Jesus knows 2ndA is a nonrepentent hater and we all know what happens to the unrepented sinners

<3 <3 <3