PROOF that GOD Exists......

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the
developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolutionAmerica performs poorly.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_9_MORALITY_VALUES/Religion_Morality_Autonomous.htm
 

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
I have to disagree with you there. Technology is void of feeling, yes. But scientists who don't value evidence? You have to understand that every theory is subjected to testing by 1,000's of scientists. If the theory performs for everyone, it is accepted as a valid theory. If it does not, it is ruled false. It is pointless to focus on the amount of the information we don't have. This value is limitless for us at this stage. We must endeaver to review the evidence in an unbiased manner. The only way to do that among ourselves, is to have everyone, "Take a gander" and record what they observed. Now look at what has been decided by ALL FAITHS. We call it science. Science is the observation of life without emotion. How effective would your iphone be if it suffered from depression? How good would your steering be if it experienced fear. Perhaps emotions are holding us back from reaching 1.0 on the Kardashev scale?
...these are not scientists who do not value evidence. Science is subject to its own laws, or burdens, that is common knowledge. It is how they approach science that differs. I'm lost on a person who says "well, you can't be a believer and a scientist". I think it comes down to "wow, nifty materials we have to work with." and less of the "wow, that is incredible evidence to support a scientific theory, however, because I believe I cannot accept that it is true." God becomes the framework of a believing scientist's life, and then he / she goes on with that life :D

edit: I like this list. It does nothing to 'prove' God's existence, but makes me think all the more about it.

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)

Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.


2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)

Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)


3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!


4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.


5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.


6. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."


7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."


8. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)

One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.


9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.


10. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)

Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.


11. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)

Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).


12. Max Planck (1858-1947)

Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"


13. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "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's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


...okay, even if you skimmed the list, do you think any of these guys contributed to science as we know it today? :)
 

lordjin

Well-Known Member
Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the
developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively withlevels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majorityabsolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is availableon rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highlydiffering rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment thatcan be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for highlevels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolutionAmerica performs poorly.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_9_MORALITY_VALUES/Religion_Morality_Autonomous.htm
Interesting and disturbing tidbit.
 

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
...these are not scientists who do not value evidence. Science is subject to its own laws, or burdens, that is common knowledge. It is how they approach science that differs. I'm lost on a person who says "well, you can't be a believer and a scientist". I think it comes down to "wow, nifty materials we have to work with." and less of the "wow, that is incredible evidence to support a scientific theory, however, because I believe I cannot accept that it is true." God becomes the framework of a believing scientist's life, and then he / she goes on with that life :D
I don't understand. So a scientist can discover evidence, submit the evidence, form a theory for review, all the while believing it's a sham because he has Faith. I would think that the faith would hinder such actions. Why continue if everything you discover is not the way you believe it to be, and you refuse to accept any other truths? Perhaps the faith is not there, and the scientist has undeniable knowledge which he/she must value as a scientist. This explains why educators and scientists are primarily secular. Because, "They just know." ;)

The truth is most people, especially Americans, do not think very hard about the positions they take. They adopt the beliefs of the family or community for emotional reasons. Did you know when left to their own devises, children never contemplate God. Funny how you need to teach religion before critical thinking. As someone who was raised with out religion, it fascinates me how real Gods seem to people. They admit they sound like loons when describing these crazy beliefs, yet have a child like fear of not doing it. Super weird!
 

keepitcoastal

Well-Known Member
I'm not reading through all 23 pages does this asshole still not understand our brains create dmt naturally as does every other living thing on this planet. And our dreams and natural trips reflect our beliefs and fears. If your not a moron it makes perfect sense if you choose to not listen to the facts presented in front of you, then you are indeed a moron
 

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
Super weird!
...perfect way to sign this one off :)

...I'm glad this didn't turn into riUFC :lol:

Ah, I spoke too soon:

I'm not reading through all 23 pages does this asshole still not understand our brains create dmt naturally as does every other living thing on this planet. And our dreams and natural trips reflect our beliefs and fears. If your not a moron it makes perfect sense if you choose to not listen to the facts presented in front of you, then you are indeed a moron
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
I'm not reading through all 23 pages does this asshole still not understand our brains create dmt naturally as does every other living thing on this planet. And our dreams and natural trips reflect our beliefs and fears. If your not a moron it makes perfect sense if you choose to not listen to the facts presented in front of you, then you are indeed a moron
I think, as a moron, I should take exception to your insulting tone. It seems rather moronic to me. :)
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
I don't understand. So a scientist can discover evidence, submit the evidence, form a theory for review, all the while believing it's a sham because he has Faith. I would think that the faith would hinder such actions. Why continue if everything you discover is not the way you believe it to be, and you refuse to accept any other truths? Perhaps the faith is not there, and the scientist has undeniable knowledge which he/she must value as a scientist. This explains why educators and scientists are primarily secular. Because, "They just know." ;)
I think we are confusing the sense of wonder, that is the true core motivation of Science and Spirit. All the necessary trapping for rigor and discipline of thought are munched into the popular myths leveled at both camps. Then we are feed the dumbed down pap of the Press. There is really no reason to reduce the discussion to black and white, like this. No need for broad generalization that were feed to you by your parents, right?
 

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
I think we are confusing the sense of wonder, that is the true core motivation of Science and Spirit. All the necessary trapping for rigor and discipline of thought are munched into the popular myths leveled at both camps. Then we are feed the dumbed down pap of the Press. There is really no reason to reduce the discussion to black and white, like this. No need for broad generalization that were feed to you by your parents, right?
I'm not confusing spirit with wonder. Wondering is what motivates science, yes. But what generalization is instilled by my parents? That faith is illogical and unnatural? That there exists a black and white difference between empirical evidence and lore? These were not instilled by my parents. Perhaps I missed your point.
 

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
...these are not scientists who do not value evidence. Science is subject to its own laws, or burdens, that is common knowledge. It is how they approach science that differs. I'm lost on a person who says "well, you can't be a believer and a scientist". I think it comes down to "wow, nifty materials we have to work with." and less of the "wow, that is incredible evidence to support a scientific theory, however, because I believe I cannot accept that it is true." God becomes the framework of a believing scientist's life, and then he / she goes on with that life :D

edit: I like this list. It does nothing to 'prove' God's existence, but makes me think all the more about it.

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)

Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.


2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)

Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)


3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!


4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.


5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.


6. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."


7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."


8. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)

One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.


9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.


10. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)

Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.


11. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)

Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).


12. Max Planck (1858-1947)

Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"


13. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "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's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


...okay, even if you skimmed the list, do you think any of these guys contributed to science as we know it today? :)
You're proving my point, not yours. Why wonder about the galaxy if you "know" already. These men were NOT satisfied by the claims of the Bible, or any other claims which could not be tested. Where was there faith then?

Your forgetting you were killed for non belief! Most of these men dare not say such things. A man who walks into a hospital when ill is a fucking Atheist. He just doesn't realize it. If he had "Faith", he would pray for healing. If it came, it was God's will. If he died, it was God's will. How many people do you know who REALLY, REALLY believe in their heart that God is watching us all right now. Please! No one would dare do anything. I love it when people say, "Everyone thought the world was flat." No, they didn't. Every sailor, map maker, and scientist KNEW the world was round and NOT the center. To bad every time they wrote it down, it was burned for blasphemy. Faith refutes proof, silly. So these "Faithful" scientists didn't really have faith, or they would have never sought proof. The National Cancer Society refused to take a large donation because it was from a secular cause, and they feared the other faiths would stop donating funds. It's so plain to see.
 

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
"Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of free thinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html

Einstein had no faith. Einstein's parents, on the same hand, were "entirely irreligious." They did not keep kosher or attend synagogue, and his father Hermann referred to Jewish rituals as "ancient superstitions," according to a relative.

 

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
"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."

In response to a letter from an Atheist immigrant who wrote Einstein upon reading inaccurate reports of Einstein having Faith.
 

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
Want to know what i think is a cool idea? This is something i don't think a lot of people really give enough credit, and really don't think about much.

The fact that you don't have to believe in science, for it to be true (or more accurately, the closest approximation to the truth)

Take for example, gravity. I am not required to believe in gravity in order for it to be so (exist), and for me to do experiments accordingly to prove that gravity is so (exists). Say i take this laptop, and i hold it arms length above my head right at this moment. Although as hard as it may be to type like this, it holds no relevance. What does matter though, is the fact that no matter what i believe... that when i drop this laptop its going to land on my head. It doesn't matter if i don't believe, do believe, or have no opinion at all... when i drop the laptop it is going to land on my head every single time. We call this force gravity, and belief is not a requirement for understanding this concept, just an apple, your head, and a tree if anything.

Another great example: Take the numbers 5 and 5. When you add these together you get the number 10. Now, yet again, beliefs have no relevance here, for no matter if you believe 5+5=11, or 5+ 5=9, if you fallow the scientific method, or more simply common sense. You will notice that no matter the belief, 5 + 5 will always = 10.

Coolest thing about science, you don't have to believe it for it to be true.

Most absurd thing about religion/theology/metaphysics/spirituality - you are required to hold the belief in order for it to be true.

^and even so, these concepts you hold without facing up to the burdens of proof, are not true... they are only true through your own individual subjective perceptions, nothing more, nothing less.
 

lordjin

Well-Known Member
Want to know what i think is a cool idea? This is something i don't think a lot of people really give enough credit, and really don't think about much.

The fact that you don't have to believe in science, for it to be true (or more accurately, the closest approximation to the truth)

Take for example, gravity. I am not required to believe in gravity in order for it to be so (exist), and for me to do experiments accordingly to prove that gravity is so (exists). Say i take this laptop, and i hold it arms length above my head right at this moment. Although as hard as it may be to type like this, it holds no relevance. What does matter though, is the fact that no matter what i believe... that when i drop this laptop its going to land on my head. It doesn't matter if i don't believe, do believe, or have no opinion at all... when i drop the laptop it is going to land on my head every single time. We call this force gravity, and belief is not a requirement for understanding this concept, just an apple, your head, and a tree if anything.

Another great example: Take the numbers 5 and 5. When you add these together you get the number 10. Now, yet again, beliefs have no relevance here, for no matter if you believe 5+5=11, or 5+ 5=9, if you fallow the scientific method, or more simply common sense. You will notice that no matter the belief, 5 + 5 will always = 10.

Coolest thing about science, you don't have to believe it for it to be true.

Most absurd thing about religion/theology/metaphysics/spirituality - you are required to hold the belief in order for it to be true.

^and even so, these concepts you hold without facing up to the burdens of proof, are not true... they are only true through your own individual subjective perceptions, nothing more, nothing less.
But let me ask you this. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does the Pope shit in the woods?
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Want to know what i think is a cool idea? This is something i don't think a lot of people really give enough credit, and really don't think about much.

The fact that you don't have to believe in science, for it to be true (or more accurately, the closest approximation to the truth)

Take for example, gravity. I am not required to believe in gravity in order for it to be so (exist), and for me to do experiments accordingly to prove that gravity is so (exists). Say i take this laptop, and i hold it arms length above my head right at this moment. Although as hard as it may be to type like this, it holds no relevance. What does matter though, is the fact that no matter what i believe... that when i drop this laptop its going to land on my head. It doesn't matter if i don't believe, do believe, or have no opinion at all... when i drop the laptop it is going to land on my head every single time. We call this force gravity, and belief is not a requirement for understanding this concept, just an apple, your head, and a tree if anything.

Another great example: Take the numbers 5 and 5. When you add these together you get the number 10. Now, yet again, beliefs have no relevance here, for no matter if you believe 5+5=11, or 5+ 5=9, if you fallow the scientific method, or more simply common sense. You will notice that no matter the belief, 5 + 5 will always = 10.

Coolest thing about science, you don't have to believe it for it to be true.

Most absurd thing about religion/theology/metaphysics/spirituality - you are required to hold the belief in order for it to be true.

^and even so, these concepts you hold without facing up to the burdens of proof, are not true... they are only true through your own individual subjective perceptions, nothing more, nothing less.
This is what I've always referred to as objective reality: what actually happens regardless of one's subjective perspective or beliefs. When standing before an ocean, one will drown if they keep walking forward. If one walks off a cliff, they will fall to their injury or death. These things will always happen whether or not one believes in oceans and cliffs...
 

crazyhazey

Well-Known Member
I'm not reading through all 23 pages does this asshole still not understand our brains create dmt naturally as does every other living thing on this planet. And our dreams and natural trips reflect our beliefs and fears. If your not a moron it makes perfect sense if you choose to not listen to the facts presented in front of you, then you are indeed a moron
thankyou, this guy denies facts then calls them our opinions, i think he stopped looking up youtube videos and maybe read something unbiased for once, probably why he stopped posting on his own thread... just too embarrassed to admit how very wrong he was.
 

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
This is what I've always referred to as objective reality: what actually happens regardless of one's subjective perspective or beliefs. When standing before an ocean, one will drown if they keep walking forward. If one walks off a cliff, they will fall to their injury or death. These things will always happen whether or not one believes in oceans and cliffs...
..."call on God, but row away from the rocks". I've always liked that expression.
 

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
You're proving my point, not yours. Why wonder about the galaxy if you "know" already. These men were NOT satisfied by the claims of the Bible, or any other claims which could not be tested. Where was there faith then?

Your forgetting you were killed for non belief! Most of these men dare not say such things. A man who walks into a hospital when ill is a fucking Atheist. He just doesn't realize it. If he had "Faith", he would pray for healing. If it came, it was God's will. If he died, it was God's will. How many people do you know who REALLY, REALLY believe in their heart that God is watching us all right now. Please! No one would dare do anything. I love it when people say, "Everyone thought the world was flat." No, they didn't. Every sailor, map maker, and scientist KNEW the world was round and NOT the center. To bad every time they wrote it down, it was burned for blasphemy. Faith refutes proof, silly. So these "Faithful" scientists didn't really have faith, or they would have never sought proof. The National Cancer Society refused to take a large donation because it was from a secular cause, and they feared the other faiths would stop donating funds. It's so plain to see.

...scientism. Oh dear, you're the baptist of atheists ;)
 
Top