*dbl Post.

Who says my sources are from apologetic websites? You judge people too easily, MJ.
"How easy it is to judge rightly after one sees what evil comes from judging wrongly"

Clearly that was a response to D3V. You reply to posts too hastily, Why.

Touche, but you said Morons, not moron...

And by morons I was referring to those who run the apologist's website.

Mjordan

1) First let me say I personally like your avatar

2) In my opinion. Please note that I'm saying my opinion - I'm not citing any sources or fact - I think Einstein probably didn't see the existence of a god as relevant to the science. Whether he did or didn't believe in a higher power does in fact seem irrelevant. Because unlike some current leaders of our government, scientists tend to show little bias in their work. Maybe you could adopt this approach, because right now you seem biased towards the elimination of religion. Personal bias has probably the most adverse affects experiments.

3) I know a forum is a place to discuss your views, and I appreciate that you're willing to start this thread, but it seems like you're beating a dead horse. You should realize that you can't start a witch hunt against religion without looking ignorant yourself. On another note, I'm sure you've seen the Wii episode of South Park about the futures & science? Probably not realistic, but an interesting thought none the less.

4) 'Favorable Odds' on your exams (Luck be damned!):p .

1.) Thanks.

2.) I agree with you on multiple points. Whether or not Einstein believed in God may not be relevant to his science. That said, it is relevant when discussing religion, because he is often championed as someone religious. An appeal to authority is an egregious method of converting people, but it must be challenged when the appeal itself is a fallacy.

I have to disagree with you about bias in science. Through reading about the process, and personal involvement, as much as I hate to say so, I do think personal bias plays a significant role in how scientists work. Thankfully, the scientific method has checks and balances that actually work more often than not, as opposed to our government.

3.) I don't at all mean to start a witch hunt against religion, I merely exhort people to scrutinize religion in the same way they would scrutinize any other factual statement. And though the South Park episode was certainly meant as a hyperbole, it is not far from the truth. Many of the atheist groups in Houston tried to unite at one point in time, however fist fights almost literally broke out over what to name the group. Some people vociferously demanded "humanist" be in the name, others were vehemently against it. It was a sad state of affairs from people who consider themselves the champions of reason. I don't advocate replacing religion with a secular religion, I just advocate secularism take precedence to religion.

4.) It seems that God ... err, favorable odds were on my side.

That said, Wallow, it seems like your "reliable" secondary source was in fact unreliable. You said that Einstein embraced religion later in life. A primary source which was until recently obscure should authoritatively elucidate the dangers of unquestioningly trusting unreliable secondary sources. The letter to which I allude is being auctioned for 8,000 pounds, was written a year before his death, and further reveals his contempt for religion, though the current evidence was already overwhelming.

If Einstein believed in God, it was "Spinoza's God" (in his own words). This can be described as some vague form of pantheism. It is the "cosmic religion" to which he subscribed, to which I subscribe, and to which I conjecture most self-proclaimed atheists subscribe. You can find a subscription to this "cosmic religion" in the works of Spinoza, Hume, Russel, Dawkins and Sagan, and more of course. This is not God in the common sense, and using modern vernacular surely all these people, including Einstein, would be described as atheists.

Just stumbled upon this and felt like replying to this specific message.

I would disagree, myself. We essentially ARE in the stone-age, compared to where we would be had it not been for the oppression of technology by religion. Not to mention the burning of the Library of Alexandria, which, while there's no proof was done by religion, many believe to have been caused by people in the name of religion.

I remember learning a while back about how we'd be 200 years ahead of where we are right now, technology wise, if the burning of the Library of Alexandria had never happened. Can you imagine? Cars would have been around for 300 years now, televisions for nearly as long, and nuclear weapons would have been invented before the Revolutionary War.

I suppose that might be a bad thing, though.

and vista would be gone computers would rule the world

Completely Unrelated Jamer. I think. Vista isn't on topic anyway. And computers Essintially RUN the world. The governments data is on computers.